Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Greece

Statistics: cases per date and regions

Is there any goverment department or its equivalent that regularly publish new cases per date and region? Emailsson (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EODY has daily (almost, it's holy week now, so no update) PDF reports with a map, sadly just with number ranges, index here: https://eody.gov.gr/epidimiologika-statistika-dedomena/imerisies-ektheseis-covid-19/ - and they also publish daily meeting notes. Ezhar Fairlight (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhar Fairlight: Thanks. Looks like they kept a table up until the report on the 29th March https://eody.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/covid-gr-daily-report-29-03-20.pdf. Would it make sense to include a table by region and date? They can be seen on another 60 or so COVID-19 country pages. Emailsson (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Cases as of 6 March 2020

• Greece cases jump to 45. Schools, universities, theaters, cinemas shut from March 4 to March 15th in the affected areas. Sport events to take place without spectators in the affected areas from March 4 to March 15.
• Map udating needed. Western Greece and the Ionian Islands should also be marked as affected areas.
• Map updated needed. The regional units of Kastoria, Kozani and Heraklion also report cases of the virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.252.139 (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Source falsification

In this edit, Calthinus (talk · contribs) [1], you wrote "Reuters reported a belief among Greek churchgoers that they were safe because "alcohol kills the virus", among other things. Yet, the Reuters source only says [2] "And by the way, it contains alcohol and kills the virus,” said Marios Volis, 50, a navy captain.". This is clear cut source falsification. Please everyone keep a close eye on the article to prevent such nonsense from spreading. Khirurg (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg not falsification. "A belief" among (one of) churchgoers that alcohol kills it -- Reuters supports that. This is relevant as it is a widespread belief across the world, and should be exposed as a myth, for purposes of public safety. In DC an outbreak spread through Holy Communion in part helped by this myth. As usual my edit was in good faith, but you ABF and also are deep in WP:HOUND territory. If you would like, please do report me, if you like to collect sanctions. --Calthinus (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether you followed me... or Cinadon36. Guess I shouldn't be too flattered, you are a bit more clingy to him on balance :). Love, --Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Prob he is hounding me Calthinus, as he reverts my edits. He even claimed in an edit summary that Giamarellou is not notable, just to find an excuse for his revert.[3] Here is her bio. Cinadon36 07:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unlike your HOUNDING of Khirurg where you followed him in multiple very obscure articles you had never edited before, this is a very high visibility article about the highly-visible latest global pandemic. As in other Greece or Cyprus-related articles, you are trying to inject your peculiar political POV to make edits that cast a bad light on events and people. I have reverted your badly-written POV. Dr. K. 14:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I see someone is failing to assume good faith. As for being badly-writen, one can help improve it. I will ask for someone to copy-edit it, and then re-add it. As for being POV, you havent explained why. As for Giamarellou, what she said was in the epicentre of a hot debate. It has a place in the article. Also, noting that you are using edit summary to attack other users. That's not good. Stop it. It is turning into a habit. Cinadon36 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I see someone is failing to assume good faith. Very rich statement coming from someone who said about Khirurg: Prob he is hounding me.... I guess you think you AGF'ed Khirurg by saying so. That's really rich. One piece of advice: Do clean up your act and stop the silly warnings. Dr. K. 08:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: OENGE (Hellenic Federation of Hospital Doctors' Associations) statement [[4]] :

“ Αξίζει τέλος να αναφέρουμε πως την έντονη αντίδραση της Ομοσπονδίας Ενώσεων Νοσοκομειακών Γιατρών Ελλάδος (ΟΕΝΓΕ), προκάλεσαν οι δηλώσεις της λοιμωξιολόγου Ελένης Γιαμαρέλλου.

Η ανακοίνωση της ΟΕΝΓΕ:

"Η Ομοσπονδία Ενώσεων Νοσοκομειακών Γιατρών Ελλάδος (ΟΕΝΓΕ) εκφράζει τον έντονο προβληματισμό της για δημόσιες δηλώσεις κάποιων γιατρών που με απαράδεκτο τρόπο υποτάσσουν την επιστημονική αλήθεια στις προσωπικές θρησκευτικές τους πεποιθήσεις, χρησιμοποιώντας έτσι αδόκιμα τους επιστημονικούς τους τίτλους για να παραπληροφορούν την κοινή γνώμη για σοβαρά θέματα δημόσιας υγείας. Όπως έχει ήδη τονιστεί, η μετάδοση των τρεχουσών εποχικών ιώσεων αναπνευστικού – κορονοϊού και γρίπης – γίνεται με σταγονίδια που εκπέμπονται από την στοματοφαρυγγική κοιλότητα και την μύτη πασχόντων. Γι’ αυτό συνιστώνται τα αναγκαία προφυλακτικά μέτρα. Οι συστάσεις αυτές φυσικά και δεν περιλαμβάνουν εξαιρέσεις για λόγους θρησκευτικούς, μυστηριακούς ή μεταφυσικούς. Είναι απαράδεκτο να σιωπούν για τέτοιες αντιεπιστημονικές δηλώσεις τόσο η ηγεσία του αρμόδιου κρατικού οργανισμού (ΕΟΔΥ), όσο και η ηγεσία του Πανελλήνιου Ιατρικού Συλλόγου (ΠΙΣ). Οι νοσοκομειακοί γιατροί της χώρας είμαστε στην πρώτη γραμμή υπεράσπισης της υγείας του λαού και σε ότι αφορά την άσκηση της ιατρικής και σε ότι αφορά την αγωνιστική διεκδίκηση αποκλειστικά δημόσιας, απολύτως δωρεάν, καθολικής, ισότιμης περίθαλψης. Θα είμαστε και στην πρώτη γραμμή υπεράσπισης της επιστημονικής αλήθειας ενάντια στην μεταφυσική και στον κάθε προέλευσης σκοταδισμό".

”

It may be better to instead reference the part of the OENGE statement above which does not mention E Giamarellou by name. While in my personal POV what she said is grossly irresponsible, I don't want our page to help turn one individual into a scapegoat in case the situation in Greece becomes bad. WP:BLP, you know. --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Other reports on the OENGE announcement in Greek media -- [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] etc. --Calthinus (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, there is broad coverage of Giamarellou statement by lots of RS. Here is a non all inclusive list of the coverage her statement received.

• Efsyn.gr: [9],[10],[11]
• Ethnos.gr: [12], [13]
• Tovima.gr: [14]
• Kathimerini.gr: [15]
• magazines LIFO, AthensVoice: [16], [17]

Certainly something should be said about Giamarellou's statement. She is the "national infectious diseases prof" according to efsyn source provided above.Cinadon36 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Calthinus: and @Cinadon36:, I see your desire to further enrich this entertaining article. I am posting here two sources that might be of interest to you. The first one says In addition, the Greek Association of Hospital Doctors denounced some medical practitioners who publicly said that coronavirus cannot be transmitted through Holy Communion. “These doctors subordinate scientific truth to personal religious beliefs,” the association said, adding that they inappropriately use their scientific titles to “mislead” public opinion on serious public health issues. [18]. The other is [19]. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not disputing WP:DUE. Just don't want to make her the lightning rod. Though it seems she already is. Ktrimi that looks good. --Calthinus (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeap, totally agree with you Calthinus. Ktrimi991, nice catch. Cinadon36 18:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) I find it disturbing that Ktrimi991 finds this article entertaining. There is nothing entertaining about a pandemic. Hopefully no such comments will be made again. Khirurg (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that the pandemic is entertaining. The article itself is. This discussion too. Not because of the pandemic of course. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

How is it entertaining? Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• cricket noises*. Just like I thought. Khirurg (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not "cricket noises". It is ignoring someone who wants to turn this talk page into a FORUM. If you want to know the reasons, send me an email and we can discuss off-Wiki. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I got a better idea. How about I report you to Arbitration Enforcement and let the admins decide if your recent behavior deserves a topic ban? Khirurg (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? You have been saying that you will "report" me for years. Make up your mind. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

At the right time, yes, rest assured. Especially if you continue like you have recently. Khirurg (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will continue to do what I am doing. You will probably keep making empty "warnings". Meanwhile, why do not you try to help with the ongoing content dispute between Calthinus, Cinadon36 and Dr.K.? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You mean making crude, insensitive remarks like calling the pandemic in Greece "entertaining". Suit yourself. Khirurg (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If you keep saying that I called the pandemic "entertaining", either you do not grasp what you read above or you are kidding.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Viral or bacterial infectious diseases can be transmitter from a common communion cup."

My insertion (the sentence of the title) was reverted by Dr.K., noting at edit summary: "This paper from 1998 has nothing to do with this article. Rv SYNTH" [20]

Is it really SYNTH? It just give a common, textbook knowledge that viruses can be transmitted through Holy Communion. It gives the broader picture so reader should know the scientific opinion on the matter. I think we should re-insert this line. Your thoughts please. Cinadon36 22:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to assist you, Mr Cinadon, because you may not be very familiar with religious things: Of course viruses etc can be transmitted by Holy Communion, and for your info, this is not a dogmatic subject. It's only a matter of hermeneutics and not all theologists agree on that. Anyway, only a small percentage of Greeks take the H. Communion, and still not frequently. So, leftists just wasting their time. You'd better care about the transmission via travels to Turkey for yoga.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The article already makes it obvious that the Church's practices are problematic. In addition to that, why do not you use the second source I posted above that discusses the religious practices in relation with the current pandemic? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Among other things, it says that Earlier this week, the Greek Orthodox Church issued a statement saying that for the members of the Church, attending Eucharist and Communion through the common glass of life “certainly cannot be a cause of disease transmission.” The statement triggered strong reactions from doctors and scientists who called on the church to abide by scientific recommendations in order to contain the spread of the virus. You might use that source if you want to add more content on the matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ktrimi991, very interesting. I just want to make it as clear as possible that viruses can be transmitted. I will think of the proper wording by tomorrow, since now it is getting really late here... Cinadon36 23:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ktrimi. We have to use the verdict and comments of scientists taking part in this specific debate about the covid19 and religion. We cannot go looking for sources outside this controversy to rebut arguments in a religious debate. This is classic WP:SYNTH. Dr. K. 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it is SYNTH, as I am not creating a knowledge that does not exist in the literature (or in the citing paper). Anyway, I have found a new article at efsyn.gr[21] that cites the specific paper and talks about coronavirus. But, since I always seek compromise and consensus, what about "Professional medical bodies in Greece warned of the dangers related to this practice." + source given by Ktrimi991? Would that be ok? Cinadon36 10:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The link you just gave from the efsyn website mentions the 1998 paper but actually rebuts it and finds many unanswered questions regarding its methodology and conclusions. Therefore, it does not support its findings. Also the efsyn article you link to actually says: " οι ερευνήτριες δεν διαπίστωσαν αυξημένο κίνδυνο μετάδοσης στον πληθυσμό που χρησιμοποίησε τα σκεύη της μετάληψης." meaning the researchers did not find increased danger of transmission in the population which used the implements of communion". Therefore, the mention of thw 1998 paper in the efsyn article does not in any way support the edit you are trying to make. I would go only with Ktrimi's reference. Your reference is irrelevant in Ktrimi's context. Dr. K. 14:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You did not understand it correctly. They say that virus and bacteria can be transmitted. The danger of transmission to the population, differs from the danger of transmission to an individual. Apparently it is neither SYNTH nor OR. Nevertheless, I 'll go with Ktrimi991's citation for the moment. Cinadon36 15:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, actually. And I agree especially as "(drinking) alcohol kills germs" is a very common misconception as it applies here, and should be stated wherever relevant. After all we are dealing with a pandemic, and omitting this safety information could be negligence.--Calthinus (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

After all we are dealing with a pandemic, and omitting this safety information could be negligence. Before you cry wolf, noone said to omit this information. There are reliable sources which have made the statement that "(drinking) alcohol kills germs" is not a valid reason to neutralise the transmission dangers of taking holy communion. We have to use those reliable sources, not sources unrelated to this crisis that we sought out on our own to add to the article, so that we can teach the public. This is obnoxious WP:POINTy, WP:OR that, since it lacks context, it is also WP:UNDUE. Dr. K. 15:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You did not understand it correctly. Yes, I did. You, saying: The danger of transmission to the population, differs from the danger of transmission to an individual., without mentioning the rest of the criticism in the efsyn article, means you WP:CHERRYPICK information from the paper in your mission to teach the public through this article. This is blatant WP:OR and WP:POINT. It is not the function of Wikipedia editors to cherry pick information from papers, analyse them in an arbitrary way and then add their results to articles in unrelated contexts while omitting criticism of the findings. Dr. K. 15:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dr.K. I never said anyone wanted to exclude it. My apologies if I've been obnoxious, quick wikipedia tp posts on minefields are not easy. How would you propose to include it? Because currently, the info is not on the page... --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Should I put "no pings" in my sig, so as to avoid the annoyance they cause? There is a lot of scientific criticism of the practice of holy communion. I think it would be relatively straightforward for someone to find a reference criticising one of the defences of the practice involving alcohol while responding to the Church's current claims. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the time to do that. Alternatively, just a statement from an RS that holy communion does not prevent infection or that it is an unsafe practice for virus transmission purposes would also suffice. Holy communion involves the use of gold as well, which, in addition to alcohol, some people defend as having antiviral properties. So, it is not only the alcohol. Otherwise all the drunks of the world would be immune. Dr. K. 16:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrK -- yes, you should. Pinging manners are confusing for many people. If that's good, then it should be easy. In a bit. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO has specifically called out the "drinking alcohol makes you safe" myth. [[22]]; no Communion wine does not contain enough alcohol to protect you [[23]], cited as motivation for policy in Catholic discussion on the matter here with expert academic opinion on the matter prevented [[24]]: Caitlin Rivers, an infectious disease specialist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, says that although communion wine does contain alcohol, it’s probably not enough to kill the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. (note that as of 9 March the source notes that the NZ Cath church had not yet banned the practice -- but this shows the relevance of the alcohol issue to the debate). The connection of the Catholic policy to the Greek Orthodox one is already made in the source offered by Ktrimi991; we can replace the comparison to the Romanian Orthodox Church with a comparison to the Catholic church so that a certain does not accuse me of wanting to signal out the GO Church as backward in comparison to the rest of the world or whatever -- no, I do not believe that -- the "Holy Communion is safe" bullshit is also present in Bulgaria by the way and Balkan Insight specifically compares both the Greek Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and Roman Catholicism on the matter [[25]]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Greek experts have already criticised the communion stance of the Greek Church. Although I haven't looked into that at any length, I think their criticism contains enough information to rebut the Church's communion argument. I don't think we need to go as deep as comparative religion antiviral stance arguments and start highlighting and comparing their antiviral messages in this specialist article about Greece. Dr. K. 17:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes... I searched through articles on the GOC controversy and could not find the specific connection being made. Do we want this in the article or do we not? Ideally this entire discussion would not have happened. All I want is the alcohol myth here, as it is relevant to the topic, and should be exposed. That is all. The Greek sources on the matter would have me accused for SYNTH, and merely juxtaposing would have me accused of ... something else as you see above. I have offered to let you propose the prose yourself. If you are too busy let me do it. But do not just obstruct, please. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, you seem incapable of having a civilised debate without passively-aggressively accusing editors who disagree with you. Again, do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS and don't be disingenuous is a weasel way. People who disagree with you do not obstruct. Otherwise there would be no need to have a discussion with you, since you seem to have ridden the high horse of righteousness and you are trying to insult me for disagreeing with you. What you are proposing and the way you propose it is WP:POINTy WP:OR unrelated to the context of the religious debate in Greece. No amount of bullying tactics by you will change this. Either you come with an acceptable formulation, or you know your way to dispute resolution mechanisms. Act like a normal editor for a change. Dr. K. 17:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Dr.K., where did I insult you? Where have I bullied you? We disagree, but I do respect you, actually. There is another editor who you often disagree with who yes I have mutual beef with, not going into why. I have accused you of tagteaming one time, and I have never, once, leveled a statement against you as an individual. But perhaps this talk should go somewhere else. Maybe I have been trying to make a point, that I don't have some weird motivation, that we can work together. Sigh.--Calthinus (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But do not just obstruct, please. Do you think this is a fair assessment of my contributions here? Is this what you understood from my considered replies? If so, sorry, but this is very pushy behaviour. If you really want to work with me, then you have to stop this type of remarks. Got to go now, Talk to you later. Dr. K. 18:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just the same old tag team seeing an opportunity to smear a country they seem to have quite a bit of beef with. Anything not directly related to the outbreak in Greece has no place here. The title of the article is quite specific. Khirurg (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have placed a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. [26] Cinadon36 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject COVID-19

I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

“Former Left-wing prime minister”

Unless the former prime minister recently changed his politics, shouldn’t this read “Left-wing former prime minister”? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I thought I fixed that already...--Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Section title

I think it is good editorial practice to include the religious topics of the Church response in one section under the title "Religious practices" instead of "Debate about Holy Communion", a very restrictive description. The section is about the Church response. Mitsotakis mentioned the Church in his speech, then the government spokesman instructed the synod and then the church responded. It all has to do with religion and should not be spread across the whole article. The section title "religious practices", is even better and more inclusive. Also, the section includes funerals, mass gatherings, and all daily services and sacraments including weddings and baptisms . The section title has to be inclusive, something that the title "Debate about Holy Communion" is not. Dr. K. 17:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Calthinus, Dr.K., Cinadon36, Khirurg: why do not you prepare a "final" draft on how the section should be and aviod that large number of reverts? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How about you stop giving orders around here, and stop edit-warring while you're at it. Why are you so interested in the article anyway? Khirurg (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• You are not helping by participating in the edit-war on Calthinus's side. At least don't adopt a neutral stance and deign to advise us about not edit-warring. Follow your own disingenuous advice. Dr. K. 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Inclusive" assumes that we all agree that the recent insertions of material into the section were good. We don't. The crux if the issue is instead this: should we have a section about the effect on religious practices generally, or (its original purpose) the headline grabbing controversy? I am open to persuasion. Additionally, I'd like to raise a third possibility: a "impact on religion" section (which many other COVID-19 by country articles have), with a subsection for the communion controversy. Thoughts? Ping to Cinadon36 as he wrote much of the section originally. --Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to want to highlight the communion controversy. I find this POV. An all-inclusive"religious practices" title is a much better, more neutral, sober, and encyclopedic option and does not convert the article section into a carnival "lookie lookie here the monster with the three heads"-type of spectacle. Dr. K. 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop the aspersions about "motives" -- this was all over the media, come on now -- and talk about the three options and their relative merits, please? --Calthinus (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The section used to be exclusively about communion, but it has since changed radically. It will continue to change and expand, but it won't ever go back to being only about communion. So, the old section title is obsolete. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't tell me the future, instead, please discuss, again, the relative merits of the three proposals. --Calthinus (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The section no longer discusses holy communion exclusively, but many other things. As such, "Holy communion" is an obsolete title. It's really that simple. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

All religious practices for all religions and doctrines were pohibited at the same day, including that of Orthodox Church. The governmental decission was published in the Government Gazette and none debates it. That there were initial calls for their suspension, is not something that occured only in Greece but all over Europe. If one compares the dates, will see that the Greek Governmental suspension of religious practices, schools and public gatherings, were taken much faster than in other countries of Europe. I added source about suspension of all religions to the said section and adjusted the title section to be more in line with the events. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct, the Greek government has been proactive on the issue. But we are talking about a controversy that was not about the government, but members of the church hierarchy. --Calthinus (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the "religious practices" title covers it well. Unless you want to start a lookie lookie here carnival. I can't believe we are having this discussion. Please appeal to your better editor instincts. Dr. K. 17:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Certain members of the Greek hierarcy are extremists whose weight in Greek public opinion is minimal at best. Already one of them resigned due to public pressure over homophobic remarks, last year. Those who left in their Church positions are even fewer than before and usually the ones who like to speak loudly and stir controversies. But thing here is: they are the usual suspects. Wikipedia used to not give them more spotlight than the Greek media did. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Similar controversies are discussed in other countries 2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_India#Rumours_and_misinformation. For literally viral spread, even one person misled by such comments can help exponential future growth establish itself. But in this case, unfortunately, the voices were not marginal, as they included the ruling body (Holy Synod) itself [[27]] (btw whoever recently mislabeled this as an "editorial" on the mainpage, do revert yourself, it is not), as well as a credentialed infectious diseases specialist whose statement that even "in the event that the former faithful was tested positive" replied to the public "I will receive the Holy Communion having strong faith in God that I will not catch any disease, especially when I participate in such a great sacrament. I tell you what I will do for myself and this is what I believe that everyone should do", and guess what, Orthodox Times proudly disseminated her statement to the public [[28]]. To date I have not yet interacted with a Greek person irl who was less than absolutely furious about these things, so I will take your word that many people are not deceived into disregarding basic health protocol, but do not tell me they were marginal within the church. --Calthinus (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find your section title excellent. Even better than mine. Excellent job SR. Dr. K. 18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, none here as far as I know, denies that the Church's positions were questionable and debatable. Had this been the case, then the info in the article wouldn't be there in the first place. However when the governmental decission on Suspension came to be, even the most conservative and extreme of the Holy Synod members such as Seraphim, accepted it without questions or doubts. When the decission for suspension of religious activities was taken, everyone respected it. Everyone may have different opinions but at the end, what matters is that the suspension was catholic and the Holy Synod respected it. The section's current title (Suspension of X) accomodates for a) the debates leading to the suspension and b) the suspension itself), while the previous title (debate on X) does not accomodate for the latter. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Spoken like an expert. I'm becoming a fan. :) Can I retire from this discussion now? Dr. K. 18:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay fair enough actually. But be aware that were it not for I and Cinadon, this section would not be here at all. And it is also untrue that the Church has simply changed its position as it has continued to make statements that communion is "safe" in Australia and in the United States.--Calthinus (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have only disputed the carnival, not the section. I'm glad we're in agreement. As far as the OC's of Australia and the US, their stance properly belongs in their respective articles, not here. Dr. K. 20:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely I am not questioning any contributions here at all. Sorry if I give this impression. And also I am positive that none here is defending the Church. Just the title wasn't as inclusive. I checked your sources. Well, all I can say is I personally I wish the Church didn't exist today and wish that the entirety of Greece was under the direct juristiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate whose policies are more reasonable (the Patriarchate's position was that the Church should listen to doctors and virologists, already long before the PM's intervention). Just the section title needed to be one that is encompassing everything, not just the initial debate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've actually changed the title to "Suspension of religious services". This seems like the best balance between accuracy and accessibility. 'Services' covers all collective/communal religious celebration/practice, regardless of the religion, which is what has been suspended. The previous title was a bit unclear and implied religious rituals had been suspended, which isn't quite true. Pincrete (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox recoveries count for checking

See User talk:2601:647:C802:CDE0:B48C:A77A:F3D0:2280 and double-check the edit. The user's edit at the Poland page was based on a rumour that's still circulating. Boud (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Severely POV refugee section by Al Jazeera reporters

The newly added refugee section is based on sensationalist reports by Al Jazeera reporters who ignore that globally 70 million refugees face identical problems to the refugees in Greece. Their biased reporting makes it appear as if the refugees in Greece are a unique phenomenon who only in Greece cannot practice social distancing. This lack of global perspective and the sensationalist tone of the reporting of the Al Jazeera reporters make the section WP:UNDUE and POV. In addition, thus far no refugee cases of coronavirus have appeared in Greece making this speculative section even more UNDUE and POV. Dr. K. 04:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support removal of this, especially if a passage with global perspective would be added to the main article. Elizium23 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Elizium23. I agree. Here is some global perspective: You Can’t Practice Social Distancing if You’re a Refugee Around 70 million people are suffering displacement in crowded camps, awaiting the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic. BY REBECCA COLLARD | MARCH 20, 2020, 3:29 PM - from FP. But I guess if we follow the section POV we have to go to every country that houses refugees and start "in country X refugees cannot practice social distancing", followed by "in country Y refugees cannot practice social distancing", and so on. The possibilities of this POV spreading are almost as endless as those of the virus. Dr. K. 07:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh the WP:PERSISTENCE of this goes far beyond Al Jazeera, which yes has high quality reporting but can be biased -- usually, though, not in any way regarding Greece (the further you are from the Middle East for AJ, the better). No idea where this idea that the section has some intentional POV that implies only Greece has such issues-- though most people are aware of the issue know that Greece contends with the unfortunate situation. Indeed Collard's piece would be a welcome addition. --Calthinus (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The topic is notable and relevant. The articles of coronavirus in Turkey and Greece (and any country with refugee camps with similar issues) need such content. Whether it is shorter or longer than the current section is not important. "Their biased reporting makes it appear as if the refugees in Greece are a unique phenomenon who only in Greece cannot practice social distancing". It is really sad if you see things that way. An entire nation can not be blamed for the problems caused by the war in Syria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ktrimi99 about this, the potential for disaster in the camps - which would of course also hit the 'native' population badly, is notable and relevant and does not in ANY way negatively reflect on Greece IMO. The country (and even less individual islands) cannot be blamed and I don't think the present text does so - it might be apt to credit the claims though. Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium and Dr.K. It's an opinion piece from a very biased source. It is also very hard to assume good faith from editors with a history of disruption on Greece related topics (e.g. those who find this article "entertaining" [29]). Khirurg (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than harping on one source and ignoring the others, you could even add the source Dr.K. graciously provided... unless you want to fight... --Calthinus (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, debate in good faith with those who find the article "entertaining", right. Khirurg (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Refugees around the world are in critical danger. In the Balkans, refugees, homeless people and Romani settlements are the most threatened. Their exposure to COVID-19 is a potential public health disaster that will affect everyone as the open call to the Greek government by Amnesty International shows. This is not about Greece and the decisions of the Greek government aren't equated with the general attitude of the Greek people. There's ample coverage of the topic by diverse sources in Greece and everywhere else, even in Albania. If that much is established, why is there a POV tag? Why can't @Dr.K.: write an introductory sentence about the diffiulties which most people in Greece face and refugees face even more because they stand at the bottom of the social ladder?--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well said. The issue of refugees, immigrants and similar groups should be given the deserved attention rather than be deleted for no good reason. Everywhere those people in need are: Greece, Turkey, Albania, Italy and so on. It is really a pity time is wasted by discussing whether the topic is important or "trivial". Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Maleschreiber: I don't know where you got the idea that anyone can prompt me to write anything, and, to make things worse, to ping me while doing it. First off, no pings. Second I write what I want, not what random people tell me to. Third, you are entitled to your POV, but don't try to force it on others. Fourth, Ktrimi is a known adversarial editor to me, so I am not going to WP:WASTEOFTIME replying to his usual shaming attempts. Dr. K. 22:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I pinged you because that is what I do in all my interactions. It's a very easy way to communicate with each other. Ktrimi added a joint statement from some very big organizations and Calthinus's reports were from diverse sources, so you can't put forward a narrative about the section being based on Al Jazeera. Even if the Al Jazeera report was removed, the section wouldn't change. What would make the section neutral in your opinion? You can't have it tagged forever. The point of tagging is to propose a solution that will allow for the tag to be removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the main dispute htis thread covered, I'm fine with the de facto compromise we made. The Turkey stuff is a bit confusing but relevant -- there are sources connecting Turkey's role to the situation so it can be fixed wihtout SYNTH issues. --Calthinus (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Khir: Regarding the masks, 1500 masks made as of two weeks ago is explicitly stated by the Guardian. Pictures of current continuing operations in the mask factory have been on various news sources. Et cetera. No I did not add anything about 7000 to the actual article -- just an edit summary. Since you think the page talking about refugees making their own masks is, bizarrely, anti-Greek, perhaps you should consider that I WP:CHERRYPICKed one of the sources I added before so as to not mention the role that right-wing mobs wielding improvized nailhead weapons played in the crisis, by driving out Western NGOs. --Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

1,500 masks is a drop in the ocean for 20,000 people, especially considering masks are single use. I don't know why you're so insistent on this. Regarding the rest of your post, it would be best if you didn't speculate. Khirurg (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

1,5k is a very tiny number considering the total demand of masks which reaches some tenths of millions now. In order to fix this wp:POV & UNDUE we should mention those hundreds of manufacturers. It falls definitely into wp:CHERRY.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: It only pertains to one refugee camp, yet that camp is considered the "worst". For the manufacture to a specific camp free of charge, the demand in the Greek national market is quite irrelevant. @Khir: I don't know why you're so insistent on this either :). 1,500 after three days since March 18th, work continued for the next 13 days. Even if it was 1,500, that is still not insignificant -- only a part of the camp ever leaves to get supplies. And no, in fact, notability is not decided by consensus, it exists independently and the guidelines are clear.--Calthinus (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

If you care so much, why dont you create an article Coronavirus in Greek refugee and migrants camps, then?--Skylax30 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Refugees whether in Greece or in the slave markets of Libya resort to DIY methods because they have no access to basic resources. If the situation in the Greek camps results in a big cluster of confirmed cases, the whole of the Greek public health system will suffer because health workers and resources that are lacking in your country like everywhere in the Balkans will have to be allocated there.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is essentially a human interest story about the good Greek NGOs which help the refugees in their miserable circumstances, the heroic ragtag army of refugees who make the most out of almost nothing, and the bad Greek state who puts them in such misery. The question here is: do feel-good stories belong in an encyclopedia? What about NOTNEWS? What is the context of this story? What POV is being pushed here? Dr. K. 22:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

heroic ragtag army of refugees, well that is certainly not what I read anywhere. What matters is relevance to the situation in Moria.--Calthinus (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• My concern is with something else, since IMHO there are plenty of sources in the text describing the situation. The “threat to public health” (quotes, not sarcasm) is in Greece, Turkey, or both? That needs to be clarified in the refugees section of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• @SelfieCity: Refugees cannot be assumed a priori to be a threat to public health, they become a public health issue because of the poor access to health in detention centers and the transit conditions they suffer on the way to the host country as the WHO has recorded over many years of studies. The Balkans stand at the crossroads between allowing the most vulnerable groups in their societies to suffer or actually help everybody and in the process help their societies as a whole.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I think you're misunderstanding what I'm asking. I'm not talking about a threat caused by the refugees themselves. I'm talking about the issue as it is identified in the article, which — in the article itself — needs a clarification. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 10:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SelfieCity the answer is that tho in reality both Turkey and Greece are concerned, this article's topic covers only Greece. Turkey is relevant in that many migrants were more or less pushed into Greece by Turkey, but for public health in Turkey it is under the purview of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Turkey, not here.--Calthinus (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I just think that should be clarified. "Threat to public health" should therefore become "threat to public health in Greece," for the sake of clarity. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Done. --Calthinus (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think someone had made an edit in the meantime, making the adjustment not so necessary, but it's still useful to clarify, so thanks for making that adjustment! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone must block IP addresses

Someone must block not registered users because they keep vandalizing the page and no one can leave a message to them. Thank you. --Nikospag ^(talk) 20:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC on "concern that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees... to spread the virus through the camps"

Should the statement below be allowed in the article? Please !vote yes or no.

“ Greek officials have expressed concern that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees and migrants so as to spread the virus through the camps. ”

--Calthinus (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• No. This is WP:UNDUE coverage of an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim - the (here unnamed) Greek officials are concerned that Turkey may do this in the future. It would be one thing if this concern came from uninvolved experts, but Greek gov't officials are not independent of the topic matter. Frankly this is damaging to Wikipedia's image, as it sounds distinctly like a conspiracy theory - Turkey weaponizing refugees and coronavirus, yes I am sure that is a hit on certain internet forums. At best it is WP:CRYSTAL but while I can see the use of debatably WP:CRYSTAL economic forecasts as they are of interest and done by uninvolved parties, this is a quite a different matter.--Calthinus (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkey's tactic of weaponizing migrants and refugees is not an "internet forum hit", but rather a well documented fact which has been highlighted and condemned repeatedly by top Greek and European authorities and has been reported by multiple international news agencies ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34] [35]). Esslet (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As pawns in its fights with the EU -- yes. I have even added material saying as much. What is very, very different however, is the accusation that Turkey "might possibly in the future" actively spread a pandemic (putting also its own people at risk in fact). That falls more into the category of this gem from the notoriously crappy Middle East Eye [[36]]. On the other hand, do we trust someone as a reliable source simply because they work for a government? In the US, there have been cases of ICE officials being white supremacists [37]. --Calthinus (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

More straw men and whataboutism. The views of government officials are perfectly relevant. Khirurg (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. This is reliably sourced and factual. Greek officials have expressed these concerns, that is a fact. Whether certain wikipedia users (with an agenda?) think these are founded, or whether they like them or dislike them, is irrelevant. There is no conspiracy theory - the dark comments about "internet forums" are a straw man. The official who expressed these concerns is named - the OP did not do due diligence. This is a simple statement of fact, one sentence, nothing WP:EXTRAORDINARY or WP:UNDUE or any such desperate-sounding nonsense. The OP's argument that Greek gov't officials are not independent of the topic matter is also complete nonsense. What, we can't include statements by Greek government officials in the article now? Should we remove statements by Greek health officials because "they are not independent of the topic matter"? This is all the more hypocritical coming from a user who has made comments such as [38]. Khirurg (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your continued attempts at diversion through recycling (totally unfounded and earlier repudiated) WP:PA accusations are pretty disappointing. --Calthinus (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Repudiated my ass. Your agenda is there for all to see. If you're angry about that, you have no one to blame but yourself. Khirurg (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your entire argument against me (not my arguments) is that I'm anti-Greek, because I mentioned that the concept of hypocrisy was formalized by a Greek. Like the hypotenuse. Is this comedy? --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What's comedy are your attempts to explicate your behavior. Unfortunately it's plain for all to see what you said and what your agenda is. As for your "arguments", they're just straw men, guilt-by-assocation canards, and whataboutism.Khirurg (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment This is an invalid RfC. The text in the question posed, and thus its rationale, no longer exist. Dr. K. 02:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The change is not substantial. --Calthinus (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It is very substantial, unless you want to hide the reason why Greece segregates the new immigrants arriving from Turkey. But I did not expect the main prosecutor of the opposing argument to agree with the opposition any time soon. Dr. K. 14:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• No I agree with Calthinus, considering Wikipedia's general neutrality. Idealigic (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This has nothing to do with neutrality. The RfC question is invalid. Here is the modified text:

  Greek officials have stated that the reason for segregating new arrivals of refugees from Turkey, is due to concerns that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees and migrants so as to spread the virus through the camps.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.protothema.gr/politics/article/992012/koronoios-surigos-fovomaste-oti-i-tourkia-borei-na-steilei-epitides-sta-nisia-mas-foreis-tou-iou/|title=Κορωνοϊός - Συρίγος: «Φοβόμαστε ότι η Τουρκία μπορεί να στείλει επίτηδες στα νησιά μας φορείς του ιού»|date=3 April 2020|website=ProtoThema}}</ref>

It is absolutely acceptable and according to Wikipedia's rules to state the reason why Greece segregates the new immigrants arriving from Turkey. In fact, hiding it, hiding this reason, is POV and unencyclopædic. As it stands, this reason is being hidden from the RfC question, making the RfC malformed, POV, and invalid. Dr. K. 14:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The semantic content and even the wording remains here : Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees and migrants so as to spread the virus. As for concerns that people may not understand the argument for why Greece quarantines the camps (like it also quite reasonably does areas where other vulnerable populations live), we already have this: ... Mitsotakis announced that illegal entry into Greece would no longer tolerated; as this would be a threat to public health in Greece. In the existing camps, doctors, NGOs and refugees considered that measures against the spread of the coronavirus are lacking as people live in overcrowded spaces with little access to proper health services. It is obvious to plain eye that there is a public health risk there. Bolded parts added by me. [39][40], as part of my supposedly "anti-Greek" agenda (i.e. reporting on threats to public health in Greece). For the record if it matters so much, I support the Greek gov'ts measures to limit the spread in the camps (though I'd prefer more efforts taken as well as measures to improve sanitation there so it is more than one toilet per every 167 people). --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone get a quote that verifies that "officials" (as a collective body or mentioned by their respective positions) of the Greek state or an institution of the Greek state has made this statement? All I get here is that Surigos, a right-wing MP said something in a personal interview on a talk show - a non-official statement. Why is that on wikipedia? And why is it presented as if Greek officials made a statement? No place for stuff that never happened on wikipedia - No place for conspiracy theories either.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Angelos Syrigos is an advisor to the Prime Minister. Why do you describe him as "right-wing"? Is that somehow meant to discredit him? There are no conspiracy theories, only statements by officials. Khirurg (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Angelos Surigos is a New Democracy MP Isn't that a right-wing party in the conventional spectrum of the political compass? One advisor and MP saying something in a personal interview can't be reported to readers as Greek officials have stated .... Whenever Rudy Giuliani, an advisor to a certain president who has probably more security clearances that this MP, appears on Fox & Friends his comments aren't reported later as US officials have stated ...--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording can be adjusted, but the fact remains that he is an official, and that these concerns are notable and worthy of inclusion. Turkey has a track record of using migrants and refugees to pursue its agenda. Or do you dispute that? Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that factions within the Turkish state mechanism have tried to use the refugee crisis for their own ends, but what is the evidence about what is being discussed here? Has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece accused the Turkish state of that? Why is one MP's comment reported as a possibility?--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The current government of Turkey, not "Turkey" (a country with millions of citizens), has in the past used refugees vis-a-vis the EU or Kurdish forces in Syria, but it is an entirely different matter to suggest that Turkey is actively spreading a pandemic that is a rapidly escalating crisis in Turkey itself. Also, why are we calling a politician an "official", let alone "officials"? He is a member of parliament. He has rhetoric, and a long term interest in playing to viewpoints and constituencies that he thinks will get him re-elected. Another difference: the matters regarding the use of migrants in negotiations with the EU and in its war with Rojava are supported by RS. --Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

More rubbish. No one said Turkey is actively spreading a pandemic. I suggest you read again what I added, in case it's not clear. Khirurg (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that these criticisms are made in good faith, we can reword the piece in question to attribute it by name to the advisor of the Greek PM. If, however, stalling tactics and semantic games are being played, then this is a hopeless situation. Dr. K. 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• No - Conspiracy theories promoted by various politicians due to the Turkish-Greek rivalry are not needed here. If you want to add that kind of thing, there is a page for Covid 19 and conspiracies about it, like the other bs about China, or the US making the illness as a bioweapon or Russian and Chinese officials blaming the US that they created it. That's WP:FRINGE garbage. Refugees have been wanting to get into Greece and the EU long before the virus started. No conspiracy there.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Good to see the usual editors coming in to oppose no matter what. You can set your clock by it. Dr. K. 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the Balkanian tag team is alive and well. We should logically expect a few more !votes, all with the same background. Khirurg (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s a free world, anyone can participate. Anyone can resort to smears, but it says more about those who make them then anything else. On this topic at hand, conspiracy theories and right wing fear mongering shouldn't be part of it.Resnjari (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No conspiracies, just facts. But it's boring to see the usual WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure it might be like that for some Greek officials. Likewise with some high ranking Russian, Chinese and Iranian officials who have called Covid 19 a 'American bio-weapon'. This falls in the same vein. Its Greek "concerns" not based on evidence of the current reality but of what they fear might occur because of the situation pre Covid 19. Again fear mongering and conspiracy theories. There is an article that caters for that about Covid 19 and conspiracy theories.Resnjari (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your personal views of whether the concerns are warranted or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the information is reliably sourced and has been reported in the news. Nothing else. Khirurg (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not a personal view. The Chinese, Russians and Iranians expressed the claim of Covid 19 as a US bioweapon through the realm of concerns. And yes media will report what state officials say, especially through a crisis. But concerns are not evidence. It does not preclude that Erdogan will pull a future stunt like that, he is unhinged since 2013 and authoritarian, having taken Turkey on an undemocratic path. But at the very least evidence that actually an incident of the sort happened would make more sense to include then now when its expressed as "concerns". People do visit this wiki page, some from Greece. They may interpolate that the refugees currently in Greece are 'infected' and used as some 'Erdoganist bioweapon'. At the very least one should keep in mind that the issue of refugees is explosive and social tensions are high over it. We should be cautious into not feeding that flame.Resnjari (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is pretty clear. No one in their right mind would "interpolate" it the way you describe. Anyway, none of that is relevant. We merely report what reliable sources say. Khirurg (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As talkpage replies from other editors down below show, these comments about concerns come from a Greek parliamentarian, he is not part of the Greek government itself. Not only that, the parliamentarian has been saying other fringe things as well in recent times. Anyway i outlined my opposition to this in all comments on my no vote. I stand by it.Resnjari (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I just don't understand this opposition. A high Greek official makes a statement of concern about the intentions of the Turkish government. The statement is attributed to him. It may or may not be a conspiracy theory. But it is the position of that high official. It is not done in Wikipedia's voice. It is done in the official's voice. Then the usual clockwork crew comes in and tries to censor the news on any strawman or redherring they can muster. Isn't editing on wiki wonderful? Dr. K. 00:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The official is not part of the Greek government, but just a Greek parliamentarian, who, as other editors have shown has also made fringe comments in recent times in relation to Greco-Turkish issues of which this appears to be another one. Having that sentence is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. So, combined with comments i made earlier, its still a no from me.Resnjari (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes: A fact stated by experts & officials needs to be part of the article. Actually it's a serious statement and needs to be here as part of the problematic corona-migrant policy by Turkey and there is plenty of RS.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A member of parliament belongs to the legislative branch, while an official belongs to the executive branch. A statement by an official is notable if that person is - like Dr.K. said - a high-ranking official in a relevant position. A member of parliament is neither high-ranking, nor an official. Why is this MP's opinion given so much weight in comparison to what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece or officials and other MPs have to say? I don't think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece would ever publish a statement with his claim that Turkey is trying to turn the eastern Mediterranean into its lebensraum.

I don't have this page on my watchlist, I only check it from time to time as I go through COVID-19 in the Balkans. What is the value for someone like me to read about one MP's comment in an interview he gave on a radio show? Shouldn't I read what the Greek government is claiming about COVID-19 & refugees or at least what Greek officials are discussing in Greek media in a way that resonates a nationwide discussion?

If this was part of a nationwide discussion, wouldn't it have been reported as such outside of Greece too by agencies that report to an English-speaking audience nationwide affairs in Greece? All I've read in multiple articles is about the effectiveness of the measures in flattening the curve in Greece in comparison to other countries in the Balkans like Serbia, where the government did a very bad job and underestimated the pandemic. Also, all I've read about refugees in Greece for the past few weeks has to do with Greek organizations standing up for the health rights of refugees.

I don't think that it is fair to the variety of beliefs Greek people have to give to one person so much exposure about a position which the Greek state does not seem to share right now. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons this quote is so incredibly UNDUE is that it portrays the opinion of a single right-wing MP as "Greek government officials". Thus, having broached the matter, readers are not presented with the nuanced diversity of Greek views on foreign policy and/or refugees, but instead just the unhinged and uncorroborated theories of a single MP, which can hardly be differentiated from similar accusations that America/China/whoever "weaponized" the virus. That seems rather -- dare I say it? -- anti-Greek. --Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Colorful adjectives ("unhinged"), attempted character assassination (is "right-wing" a bad thing now?), concern trolling ("the nuanced diversity"), straw men ("anti-Greek"). In other words, nothing but the usual junk. Khirurg (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

as I go through COVID-19 in the Balkans. What is the value for someone like me to read about one MP's comment What kind of an argument is that? Imagine trying to build an encyclopedia where everyone thinks like that? You can use that to justify removing anything.

I don't think that it is fair to the variety of beliefs Greek people have to give to one person so much exposure It's one sentence in an otherwise lengthy article. Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And guess what: The same news about immigrants from Libya today. The A. Project accounts will get ballistic.--Skylax30 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's the kind of argument that deals with representivity - WP:UNDUE in wikipedia jargon. Is Matt Gaetz's opinion about the origin of COVID-19 notable? It might be to his constituency, but is it to the rest of the world?

A single MP whose opinions are far off (Turkey is trying to turn the eastern Mediterranean into its lebensraum) from the current political baseline (right-wing or left-wing) is not representative of the dominant discourse. Why should I be reading about his opinion on wikipedia? I would have never learned about it if it wasn't for wikipedia because it's not important enough to get reported in places like the Guardian or the NY Times or any international agency. Greek Minister for Migration and Asylum Notis Mitarachi is the one whose opinions are reported by international agencies. I'm not being dismissive of local reporting, but a talk show comment by MP Surigos doesn't indicate that Greek society is having this discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Now, I am curious. Can't find corroboration for this. This is a rather interesting claim, that the Libyan gov't (which one? There are two) would devote energy to infecting Greece with a virus that is more common in Greece than Libya, all the while being in the middle of a civil war. --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. This is WP:UNDUE coverage of an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim - as Calthinus says. Also, it is not "Greek officials" who are supposedly worried, but rather a specific MP, with neither any govt role or medical expertise, speaking on a talk show, implying rather than explicitly stating this view. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I would not be surprised if Gks generally (inc officials) were worried about covid being 'weaponised' in this way, though I personally doubt that it would be a practical proposition, I'm sure that this idea plays to the worst fears of the Gk psyche. However the prevention of unnecessary movement and mingling of people is being practised throughout Greece, including isolating those Gks who have returned from outside Greece. Presumably nobody thinks that people returning from France, Italy, UK or USA should be separated MAINLY in case those states deliberately infect Greece? There are umpteen better reasons for doing so whether those concerned are returnees or migrants. Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no undue. The comments were widely covered in Greek media. As such they meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:RS. The MP was speaking in the plural ("we are worried"), therefore he is expressing the view of others as well. So it doesn't matter if we consider these concerns "reasonable" or not, all that matters is that they were widely covered by reliable sources. Khirurg (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

therefore he is expressing the view of others as well is your, ahem, speculation. We have news media reporting the clickbait an MP said. The MP himself is not an RS. He also appears to think Turkey is looking for lebensraum, which is... well, yeah... --Calthinus (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Syrigos "was speaking in the plural" precisely demonstrates that "Greek officials have NOT expressed" these fears. RfC-ers can only comment on the text proposed, and in this case the text is clearly not accurate apart from other considerations. Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to remind everyone that Syrigos' comments were widely covered by Greek media [41] [42] [43] [44]. That's all that matters, not how each one of us feels about his comments. Ιt's just one sentence, so WP:UNDUE does not apply. I'd also like to remind everyone that WP:BLP applies to talkpages as well. Khirurg (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Not only the local but also the world media such as Jerusalem Post [45] had reported on Turkey's ill intentions of using the immigrants as a tool amid the Coronavirus crisis against Europe. Immigrants whose health status is unchecked and are gathered by the Turkish authorities on the Greek border amid the Coronavirus outbreak. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The JP article -- which I read awhile ago and intend to use -- does not support the statement. As I said before, it is established that Turkey has used refugees cynically as pawns. But that is different than intentionally spreading a pandemic. One is merely racist and a human rights violation (the sort that plenty of other countries i.e. Orban's Hungary have tacitly or explicitly endorsed vis a vis Syria/Rojava), the other is violating the sacred rights of members of the Turk wolf pack which no corny nationalist wants. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Turkish government is sending immigrants deliberately to a pandemic-hit country whose borders are closed for health reasons, and deliberately avoids checking the immigrants for their health. That is one indisputable fact supported by WP:RS. The other side, the Greek, already expressed concerns that the immigrants may be used as a health bomb. This is another indisputable fact supported by WP:RS. The one source confirms the first fact, the other sources confirm the second fact. What else would we be talking about, if nothing was the case here? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the issue. How can we discuss Erdogan's actual crimes, if we discredit Wikipedia by including clickbait "information" about crimes a single Greek PM who compares him to Hitler theorizes he might do in the future?--Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing the issue. The issue is, this was widely covered by reliable news sources. It's our job to report it, regardless of how we personally feel about it. Khirurg (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The JPost simply does not endorse present proposed text. It MIGHT endorse some other text regarding Turkey's cynical actions at the present time, but that is not what the RfC has asked. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: WP:RS confirming the proposed text: "Greek officials have expressed concern that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees and migrants so as to spread the virus through the camps." have already been presented. The reason I am pointing to JP is simply because it is a source outside of Greece which confirms the Greek concerns for the deliberate use of immigrants by the Turkish President against both Greece and Europe, amid the Coronavirus outbreak. Adding one information does not preclude further informations. Just my opinion. I am surprised I have to explain the obvious here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident: I am equally surprised that I have to explain the - even more obvious - that neither a single Gk MP, nor the J.Post can conceivably be described as "Greek officials". Also the J. Post is about the dangers of carelessly 'shoving' refugees into Europe (via Gr). It does not anywhere mention intentional use of infected persons. So many of the responses here are based on flawed logic, that because the topic may be worthy of mention, then this psrticular text is verified, it simply isn't. Are Gks worried about the dangers posed by those coming from Turkey being infected, whether intentionally, carelessly or accidentally? Very possibly all of these and maybe some way of saying that can be devised. But did "Greek officials" express concerns about Turkey deliberately sending infected people - not according to any source offered so far. It blatantly fails WP:V IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If your issue is with "Greek officials", we can easily change it to "an advisor to the Greek Prime Minister". Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, he has no official status as 'advisor' either - except in the ordinary sense that all MPs 'advise' and attempt to influence a PM. He is a named MP only - what is it with this determination to aggrandise a single individual MP with no role, no relevant expertise and no more knowledge than you or I might have? Pincrete (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Angelos Syrigos is a Professor of International Relations at Panteion University in Athens [46] and has served in a vriety of government posts [47]. So yes, he has a whole lot more knowledge and espertise than you or me. He has published two books and multiple peer-reviewed journal articles. Also, please look at the bottom of the page, there have been developments which have shown that his concerns were not unfounded. Khirurg (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Notable medias have reported on this. Greek MPs are relevant as any politicians out there. The article would not fairly present all views and statements if we were to exclude this part. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume that Resnjary needs to take a deep breath, 3rvs in just one hour isn't cool approach at all.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed they are exactly equally relevant as the views of any politicians out there. This I absolutely, 9001%, agree with. They are exactly as relevant as the views of US GOP legislator Tom Cotton accusing China of manufacturing the virus [48], which were refuted by experts. It is not different than the unsubstantiated similar views of the British Conservative MP Ellwood. They are also no different than the appropriate coverage for colourful views of Vladimir Zhirinovsky and other Russian politicans who accuse the United States of manufacturing the virus (views that have some following in Greece as well, I have noticed...) [[49]] even when so-called "RS" such as Russia Today and Sputnik widely propagate it [[50]]. Nor is it WP:DUE to say on Iran's analogous page that Iranian politicians were concerned that the US was spreading it [51]], nor when those politicians are Venezuelans [52]. We do not cover this here by misrepresenting those views as those of "officials" just as we do not cover the unfounded views of Turkish politicians who are currently "concerned" the ongoinog outbreak in Turkey is do not to their own incompetence, but (of course!) [53] the "Zionists" (meaning Israelis of Jewish origin, the last "acceptable" ethnic slur); how long will it be till they start blaming "Hellenists", who knows. Do we cover this crap in a matter so as to promote it? Blanket no.--Calthinus (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The usual guilt by association and alarmist canards. Your wild screed however is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that Syrigos' comments were widely reported by reliable sources, and as such are worthy of inclusion. Your mud-slinging and invalid comparisons are irrelevant. I'd also like to remind you that WP:BLP applies to talkpages, and you should be careful, because your above comment is pushing it. Khirurg (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

For the gazillionth time, they reported that he said it. They did not report it. And it is absolutely my right to say what I please about Zhirinovsky given that his career has mostly involved such statements. --Calthinus (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they reported he said, so of course what he said is worthy of inclusion, since it was widely covered in reliable news sources. And what I'm objecting to is the not-so-subtle attempts by to draw parallels between a highly respectable Greek MP (who also happens to be a professor if international law) and Zhriniovsky and those anti-semitic canards in Turkey. NOT cool. Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki does not have policy regarding racism. We have policy regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:V etc. And to apply it elsewhere -- as I have done in the Middle East "arena" -- for credibility it must be done consistently. If sources do come to light with actual reports by uninvolved parties -- not ones who trivialize Nazism by exaggerating the Aegean dispute into Turkey grabbing "lebensraum" (you know, that involved genocide to make "room" for the Germans... it should not be taken lightly [[54]]) -- then the equation would dramatically change. You will now call WP:BLPTALK again, and I will preemptively remind you that it applies specifically to material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, clearly not the case here, as the lebensraum trivialization was published in an essay written by the man himself. --Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

So now, the only argument you have left is an ad hominem against Syrigos. We can't include anything he says anywhere on the encyclopedia because "he triviliazes nazism" (in your own opinion) or some such nonsense? First of all, he does no such thing. That is a completely absurd charge. And you come dangerously close to defaming Syrigos by implying he's some kind of nazi. Knock it off. If you continue to do that, I will take this to BLPN. Second, what he said about the migrants, which has nothing to do with "muh nazism", was widely covered by reliable news sources, and as such, notable and worthy of inclusion. We have criteria for inclusion, and this more than meets them. Whether you like it or not, because the author of these statements once made an unrelated statement that triggers you, is absolutely irrelevant. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please strike your comment that trivializing Nazism "triggers" me. Obviously we do not get along, but I like to think that is below you Khirurg. --Calthinus (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s sad that a fringe right wing politician is cited in the article saying that refugees are bioweapons as something notable when they are not part of the government. Quite disgusting and reminiscent of the authoritarian verbiage of the interwar area in northern Europe about certain ethnic groups like the Jews and Roma. That we give space to this as something similar, when there is no evidence that it has even happened is gross.Resnjari (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that's "gross" and "disgusting" is your crude mudslinging, although it's nothing new. Unfortunately for you, we have policy, and your views are not relevant. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"mudslinging"? Doesn't make sense. I am just not into right wing conspiracy theories claiming that refugees are carriers of disease and bioweapons. I come from a country where the conservative politicians constantly fear monger among the population about asylum seeking refugees as dreaded "boat people" that need to be stopped for else the country is done for. So i stand by my vote of not including the comments of this politician, especially as he dabbles in similar talk about other countries engaging in "lebensraum" etc. If an article exists about this politican, his views can be cited there.Resnjari (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I am sick and tired of you always bringing Nazism/Golden Dawn/fascism into every discussion that turns sour. This here reminds me very much of the discussion at Talk:Peter Handke (remember this wild rant [55]?),or this one at Talk:Butrint [56], where you try to obliquely imply that the side opposing you are Nazi sympathizers or fascists or some such nonsense. This article here has nothing to do whatsoever with Nazism, and yet you somehow managed to find a way to bring it into the discussion, as you did at Talk:Butrint, where you managed to bring Golden Dawn into a discussion about a city that has been uninhabited for centuries. This is no longer a coincidence, it's a tactic. And it needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

How is this irrelevant when the man literally accused "Turkey" of plotting to make the Eastern Mediterranean Turkey's Nazi lebensraum??? No, "I" did not "bring" Nazism into the discussion, Syrigos did, with his own words that he proudly got published. And yes, GD with its platform including irredentism has considerable support -- and other aspects too, just ask the NGO volunteers who were driven off Lesvos by a mob armed with improvised garage weapons for trying to help refugees [57]. Thank goodness 90% of Greeks do not agree with this insanity. When Nazism and its ideological relatives are relevant, they will be mentioned. If you wanted to ask me to stop hurting your precious feelings, maybe try not accusing me of being "triggered" by someone trivializing the crimes of the Third Reich. Just a thought, you know, generally people require a bit more persuasion and fewer intentional insults if you are asking them to censor themselves. Conspiracy theories are just that, and I will not fear saying it -- especially when you have no support outside your normal cohort -- especially when the guy literally compares the target of his conspiracy theory to Hitler. By the way despite your paranoid accusations I have never the other side in a discussion with you involved was necessarily Nazi or fascist, but you you do have a habit of accusing people who disagree with you of genocide denial I have noticed. Perhaps try lecturing a mirror instead of me? --Calthinus (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Far-Right in Greece isn't even 10% as you argue. Its only 5-6%, not 10%. Yet somehow you seem far more sensitive about GD which is a violent party that came to prominence only due to protesting votes caused by the economic crisis but was punished last year, than you are about MHP which is not just violent, but also genocidal as well, and is the party with the biggest electoral base in the entire Balkans and the region in terms of population percentage (11% to 17%), maintaining a strong presence in politics for far more years than GD ever did - during both periods of economic growth and crises, and featuring a leadership which does not hesitate to call publicly for the repeat of the genocides of 1910s that occured in the region, where 2.000.000 million lives got lost. And yet there you go. GD this, GD that. I am astonished. The fact that you are targeting only a certain far-right organization in the region, is finding me highly disturbed. EDIT: don't get me wrong. I am happy you are an opponent of GD. Just wish you were more fair when it comes to opposing far right in the Balkans overall, because regardless of domestic (per-country) differences, all far-right parties are violent in nature. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I was not the one who brought up Golden Dawn -- or its siblings Popular Orthodox Rally, or Greek Solution. It was your good friend Khirurg who brought up Golden Dawn, because although he likes to accuse people who disagree with him (especially Resnjari, probably the most conscientious guy I've ever met) of genocide denial, he wants to police the discussion so that I cannot even mention it when it is necessary. Or, maybe he wanted to redirect the discussion from the fact that the entirety of his sources for the single sentence he is so hell-bent on fighting over is a single MP who compares Erdogan to Nazis and accuses them of wanting lebensraum. Well, yes, it worked, he "triggered" me yesterday and got us to talk about something that was not the utter lunacy of his mantra. Congrats, perhaps someone is giving him a trophy. Instead of condemning his rather obvious baiting with Nazi-this and Nazi-that -- or an MP who stigmatizes migrants by implying they play a part in "Turkey"'s alleged lebensraum plot who is Khirurg's only source -- you have chosen to go on about "GD this, GD that" that I allegedly say... though I don't think I've ever mentioned Golden Dawn in a discussion with you involved.............. one might come to the conclusion that you too, would rather us talk about something other than the fact that the sole source here is a guy who thinks "Turkey" is looking for lebensraum, a term he used in English which implies ethnic cleansing. --Calthinus (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't followed your and their's discussions and, my apologies to say it, but I am not in mood to do so. All of you have been nice people to me and it saddens me that you are having differences with each other. I hope you all work your differences in an way that the talk pages topics aren't dragged around Golden Dawn, because like I said above, GD is only a piece in the mosaic of far-right in the Balkan region, besides being off-topic to the ongoing discussion. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bull. At Talk:Butrint it was you, Calthinus, who brought up Golden Dawn, out of the blue [58]. Why do that in an article about an ancient city that has been abandoned for centuries? Presumably to collectively smear Greeks as ultranationalists so as to sway neutral users, and shame and intimidate anyone from voting opposite what you voted (the old guilt by association trick: "If you vote "oppose", you are a closet GD supporter"). After all it's not the first time you smear an ethnic group as a whole [59]. Here's it's the same thing. You are smearing Syrigos in an attempt to sway the RfC. You are lucky no admin has noticed, because BLP applies to talkpages. And no, I did not accuse Resnjari of genocide denial in the diff you posted. As anyone can see I am addressing myself to Seraphim System, a highly disruptive user who has now been indeffed. Anyway, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is that Syrigos' comments are notable, widely reported by reliable sources, and worthy of inclusion. I'm guessing your antics are a diversionary tactic to try and derail the discussion from this inescapable fact, which you are unable to counter. Khirurg (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This now has gone off on different tangents. There is no Syrigos smearing. The politician has engaged in other controversial comments like recently accusing a country of lebensraum. Now he is saying that refugees who might have Covid19 could be used in effect as a bioweapon. The initial point of this RFC is about whether this politician’s concerns merit the need for such inclusion or not for the article, as one he is not a member of the government, and two if Turkey really pulls a stunt like that then the event itself should be mentioned. Also comments about admins taking note of Calthinus' comments fall flat. Khirurg, you yourself have made several claims in recent times about fellow editors, yet have not followed through on taking it to the admins or noticeboards. So in essence it’s just hot air. Note to everyone here Syrigos is the focus. Whoever decides something for this RFC regarding its closure should take that into account.Resnjari (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(ignore G.D. level trolling) Recent news confirm that Turkey's policy to send infected immigrants in Greece&EU is not just a concern but a fact [[60]]. This definitely deserves a separate section now.Alexikoua (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The media just reported [61] that, today on April 11 2020, Turkey gathered Immigrants diagnosed with COVID-19 at the Aegean coast using buses. The first 250 immigrants are from the Osmaniye migrant camp in mainland Turkey and several more at Pazar Kule as well. Source is WP:RS reliable, citing the Greek Armed Forces which are monitoring the situation at the border. To clarify: this update is not meant to WP:CRYSTALBALL or influence the RFC in any ways, as it is about ongoing developments confirming the reported concerns of the Greek side for which we have been debating here for so long. I believe that since it is an ongoing event, and more information is coming, the RfC's proposed text may be in need for a update. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent find, thank you. Translation for non-Greek speakers:

Turkey is attempting a new, unprecedented provocative move by gathering migrants positive for coronavirus on the shores of Asia Minor with the aim of moving them to Greece and Europe. Turkey's plan has been implemented in recent hours, according to military sources, as migrant gatherings have been detected on the Western shores of Anatolia that include patients with COVID-19, who were transported from camps inside Turkey by bus, many of them were in Pazar Kule. Τurkey, as is clear, will try to transport migrants to Greece and Europe in the middle of a pandemic with an organized plan. And in this case, the military and the Turkish police play the same "dirty" role that they played in Evros. In other words, they direct and lead the immigrants, faithfully following the orders of the Minister of Interior, Suleiman Soilou. After all, just a few days ago, the Turkish Interior Minister had announced the new provocative Turkish plan, stating that: "[Turkey] had found a way to reduce the number of cases on its territory; by sending them elsewhere."

Yes, the article needs to be updated. Khirurg (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, I know that editing other editor's comments is prohibited in Wikipedia, but if you don't mind, I modified your translation now, to make Soylu's remarks more accurately translated. Also added quotation marks per source. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) The story has now been broken on every major Greek news site:

• Kathimerini: [62]
• Protothema: [63]
• Ethnos: [64]
• Ta Nea: [65]
• To Vima: [66]
• Tribune.gr: [67]

The story is still developing, should be more soon. Khirurg (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• No Claims of such international crimes require better coverage per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Why are there still no reports in mainstream Western press for such a major claim? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Turkish newspapers confirmed [68] the news that the immigrants are being pushed to Greece amid the Coronavirus outbreak. Not only that, but, unlike the Greek sources, the Turkish ones were more detailed as they included interviews with the immigrants as well, which the Greek sources didn't. The immigrants explained to the Turkish journalists that they were indeed taken forcibly by the Turkish Police from their Coronavirus isolation in migrant camps of the Anatolian mainland to the Aegean coast for their illegal transfer to Greece, after they got stripped them of any cellphones and IDs and were left out in the cold. Also, I am sorry to disappoint you but like I said above: the developments made the OP's RfC obsolete and the proposed text outdated. Thyerefore your "no" is meaningless anymore, as now we got not only the new information we needed, but also sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. Have a good day.

Edit: @Khirurg:, I also have sources from the Greek Ministry of Health which announced that in the event any immigrants manage to enter Greece from Turkey somehow, in blatant Turkish violation of Greece's closed -due to Coronavirus- borders, these immigrants will be quaranteened for half a month to prevent virus's spead in the camps and also I have sources that the Minsitry equipped the Greek coast guard that patrols the Greece-Turkey sea border, with costumes that prevent infection of the Greek personel by immigrants who may be carrying the virus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, nobody has ever, not even once, disputed that the Turkish gov't is pushing migrants to Greece. That is very, very different than the claims of the Turkish gov't pushing migrants to Greece specifically ones infected with coronavirus, specifically because they have coronavirus, specifically as a bioweapon to attack Greece with. --Calthinus (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilentResident, you did not "disappoint" me because I did not come here for some kind of satisfaction. And no, the Turkish source you are trying to make use of does not support the sentence this RfC is about. The dispute is not over whether Turkey is pushing immigrants and refugees to Greece but if there are acceptable concerns about it using people as bioweapons and whether the treatment of immigrants and refugees is justified with those concerns. But it seems to me that some of the "yes" side are starting to realize that that kind of sources can not be misused on Wikipedia articles. Better late than never. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• No. In general, I wouldn't trust any Greek media as a reliable source when it comes to anything involving Turkey, just as I wouldn't trust any Turkish newspaper on anything they write about Greece. Articles like the ones cited above, like [69], just illustrate why. They are junk pieces that fail the most basic rules of responsible journalism, and very obviously so (and just because that's par for the course in the Greek media and there aren't any better ones than those doesn't make those failures any more excusable). Incidentally, one piece in To Vima [70] just let slip that the Greek authorities actually do not have any reasons to believe infected persons are deliberately targeted for being pushed across the border (although they do think that there are moves to push some refugees across). So, no, this still belongs in the realm of political fearmongering and conspiracy theory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - UNDUE. Yes, factually this is reported at say VOA, but it has had no significant impact to talk about it, and this is such a small part of Covid coverage for Greece that it lacks WEIGHT to include. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Surprize, surprize. The protector of the "we are all Albanians" articles.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Copy-pasting here the source FP@S referred to, and translating it for everyone's convenience:

"We do not consider it an organized plan to send foreigners in Greece, infected with Covid-19 and for whom we have no idea that they have been identified and separated by the Turkish services."

Note how in this very same paragraph which FP@S referred to, the senior clarifies that they doen't know whether the immigrants Turkey sends to Greece are idendified and separated due to the Coronavirus. Furthermore, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Turkey, named "Josoor International Solidarity" working in one of the camps that were isolated due to the Coronavirus, confirmed that Turkey's government is indeed sending the immigrants amid the outbreak to Greece, and without water or food. Translation here:

"the NGO Josoor International Solidarity reported that about 250 people from the Osmaniye camp were transported by bus to another camp near Smyrna to be deported to Greece. They are said to have no water and food with them.

Given the new developments that followed the RfC, the proposed text of the RfC has become outdated. A good idea is the OP to close the redudant RfC and initiate a new thread to discuss the preparation of the text for inclusion to the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@FP: Sorry, but you can't summarily dismiss the entire Greek press just like that. Sources like Ta Nea, Kathimerini, To Vima, To Ethnos, and Protothema meet all the criteria for WP:RS. While I do agree that the in.gr piece is junk, there are far better sources than that. And unlike Turkey, Greece has freedom of the press, so you can't equate the two. We can discuss what should and should not go into the article, but a blanket ban on Greek sources? No way. Khirurg (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note, the sources do not say "Turkey is sending migrants with coronavirus", they say "Greek officials worry that Turkey may send migrants with coronavirus". Two completely different things. Khirurg (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the contentious parts, and replaced the previous sources that quoted Syrigos with the sources I had posted above. I think that should resolve the issue now. Khirurg (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

We still have Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved in plans to send migrants with Covid-19 to Greece and Europe. In wikivoice. That's not NPOV. Nor is it WP:DUE esp as it is rather WP:EXTRAORDINARY. --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You can make it NPOV by adding the views of some politicians who said that this has not been confirned. Instead or erasing the other users' contributions, make your own.--Skylax30 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skylax30: If some politicians have said that this has not been confirned, then we can not have Wikipedia saying that they "appear to be actively involved". Wikipedia can not make that analysis. The most Wikipedia can say, is that X or Y claims that they may be actively involved. That is not the same. --T*U (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: TU-nor, Pincrete, Future Perfect at Sunrise, as you editors have not become embroiled in the dumpster fire that this thread has become, there are these sources that discuss Protothema and by the looks of it the media outlet falls under WP:FRINGE:

• accused of popularising Golden Dawn with focus on social assistance by Golden Dawn members, (Ellinas, Oxford University Press, 2018. p.276): [71]

• (Get the Trolls Out' project run by the Media Diversity Institute) accused it of being an outlet that airs anti-Muslim sentiments: [72]

• "a conservative, rather sensationalist Sunday newspaper" (Milioni, Vadratsikas & Papa; Observatorio Journal, 2012, p.31.) [73]

• "“yellow press” newspaper, sensationalist" (Agalliu, The coverage of Golden Dawn by Greek online media, Masters Thesis, 2015, University of Amsterdam, p.11) [74]

Have a look, and see what you make of it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. Media Diversity Institute is an activist NGO. Who funds it? Can you answer that for us? Are "conservative" and "Sunday newspaper" bad things now? Just asking. A Master's thesis won't cut it, either. Actually it's kind of interesting, Agelliu says there is no significant difference in the coverage of GD by Kathimerini, To Vima, and Protothema. So much for the usual "muh Golden Dawn" guilt by association trick. Khirurg (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Elinas, citing Psarras says that Protothema has been "exaggerating and promoting the social activism of Golden Dawn."Resnjari (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As i said "by the looks of it" regarding Protothema. Nothing definitive at this point in time. I politely asked for the opinion of rational editors who have not made this thread turn into a shitstorm. If they want to say something and reply, that's fine, if not, that's cool too. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

So I looked up Psarras, and sure enough, it's just like I thought. He's a journalist for the radical far left Efimerida ton Syntakton [75]. Nope. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

As if he was the only one who reported Proto 8ema as such. But alas, why dont we talk about Greek City Times, which ran this gem https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/04/13/albania-plans-to-replace-greeks-in-northern-epirus-with-jihadists-and-turkish-intelligence-officers/. Ah yes, they were concerned that Albanians wanted to "replace" Greeks in the "Greek cities of Argyrokastro and Korytsas" with "jihadists and Turkish intelligence officers". Other claims include present day North Epirus having a Greek majority. Have these people even been to "North Epirus", let alone Korça of all places (perhaps should be technically "North Macedonia" since it's in geographic Macedonia ... oh... wait...)? Even once? Right. Objective. Quality. Its absolute yellow press, and was published not in 1912 like it sounds like, but two days ago. Yet another one of the "reliable" outlets used to make this claim -- and representing only a ludicrous fringe of Greek society.--Calthinus (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Greek City Times seems to have a penchant for crap that rather nicely defies the conventional left-right distinctions, here they are with their lovely headline ["Greek debt relief talks to resume after German bias"]. Mmm yes, professional.--Calthinus (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, you are not in a WP Albanian Project article and this is not a place for propaganda. Btw, how are you getting on with your albanian language lessons? You could possibly help WP with some translations.--Skylax30 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that some of us are critisizing media on the basis of their treatment of Golden Dawn etc. May I remind 3 things: 1) This is not a general forum, 2) Golden Dawn is a legal political party and you can only vote for or against them, and 3) users' opinion on media is irrelevant. However, the same news is not only in Proto Thema but in many other cites too. Erasing it as "fringe" etc is counterproductive and a waste of time. Actually, the fact that politicians like D. Bakoyanni do bother to dismiss such claims, means that the subject is encyclopaedic. Me violating the 1st of the above laws, I would remind the rest of us that D. Bakoyanni as minister was supporting the entry of Turkey in EU. --Skylax30 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skylax30: It would be nice if you, instead of edit warring to include the "appear to be actively involved" sentence, could comment on the policy-based reservations that have been raised against it. Two points: 1) It seems to be given WP:UNDUE weight when a whole extra sentence is added to the two sentences already included in order to report something that has not been covered by mainstream media, but only by more or less obscure media of unknown reliability. 2) While the two other sentences are introduced by "Greek officials have stated..." and "It was reported that...", the third sentence states in Wikipedia's voice that "Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved..." without any reservations, see WP:WIKIVOICE. --T*U (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt that CNN is among the top graded sources about local politics. Actually this piece of info is backed by a mountain of sources. Support by RS is solid and clear in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know that CNN is a good source, but it does not say that "Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved in plans to send migrants with Covid-19 to Greece and Europe". Neither does your answer meet the reservations about UNDUE and WIKIVOICE. --T*U (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

CNN Greece reads "those sources (describing Turkey's well orchestrated plan to send infected migrants to Europe and Greece) are also stating that the migrant movements are coordinated by the Turkish police and gendarmerie" (Turkish gendarmerie is part of the army). I can't a reason why this should be trimmed or neglected especially when there is a mountain of additional RS material in the news that supports this information.Alexikoua (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Does it? I can't even find a single parenthetical statement in the original [[76]] or the translation by Google if you care [[77]]. It does state " the same information states that the movements of migrants from the interior to the coasts of Asia Minor are carried out under the coordination of the Turkish gendarmerie and the police." (El.: Μάλιστα, οι ίδιες πληροφορίες αναφέρουν πως οι κινήσεις των μεταναστών από το εσωτερικό προς τα παράλια της Μικράς Ασίας πραγματοποιούνται υπό τον συντονισμό της τουρκικής χωροφυλακής και της αστυνομίας). But nothing about those being the migrants that were infected with coronavirus, specifically because they were infected with coronavirus, specifically to infect Greeks (as opposed to just getting them out of Turkey). So, no, it does not support your statement. --Calthinus (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Who could believe it! The same users who claim that Souliotes are Albanians!--Skylax30 (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be shocked, but most people, even most Greeks, do not care nearly as much as you do regarding whether Souliotes had partial Albanian origins. Most people do not care nearly enough to get a [| rather colorful block record due to it]. Now back to the topic at hand, please. --Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

How socking! Equally, most users do not care supporting ottoman interests in WP.--Skylax30 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that since I have unloaded on Greek City Times, its name has mysteriously disappeared from the citation, but the piece alleging "Biological warfare" in its headline remains. Here is another gem from them, from the same author Paul Antonopoulos, not even in a clearly marked "opinion section": ["How coronavirus has weakened Turkey’s goal of military conflict with Greece"]. Ahem.--Calthinus (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

With this VoA report [[78]] I could accept keeping the "Greek sources are concerned..." sentence, as at least now it has gotten some degree of international coverage. --Calthinus (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Edit, as Pincrete noted, this source too is not reporting the supposed biological warfare, but instead the Greek media coverage of allegations that the supposed biological warfare may happen in a supposed possible future. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I suggest you stay focused on content instead of attacking co-editors. Don't do that again it's not productive.Alexikoua (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the attack in the above sentence? --Calthinus (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to be kidding ok? You insist to commend on block logs of users you personally don't like in the middle of discussions. Simply saying that's not productive in discussions if you are interested to build an encyclopedia .Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief, but when the "they are sending infected people" story broke a few days ago, I looked at the various sources. All of them seemed to refer back to a single report, which did its best to imply as much as possible, but used every device (such as rhetorical questions ... is it really true, are they really sending infected people because it seems ...), every device to imply much, while explicitly saying nothing really. Now every source is speaking of 'reportedly' ie again claiming nothing except that everyone else is reporting this. There's a danger that there is nothing more substantive here than an inference which has become a rumour which has not become any more solid because of repetition.

I am uncertain as to whether anything should be included, but if included, IMO, it should be attributed to the original reporter/publication because 'reportedly', whether used by a news outlet or by us, is simply saying "I've no idea whether this is true, nor even what the basis of the claim is, but everyone else is passing on this story, so I will too". It's a cop-out IMO. I hasten to say that I'm not very knowledgeable about Gk sources, nor am I a Gk speaker - but that is fairly academic if the sources are claiming little more than "this is what the other papers report", which appeared to me to be the case. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Addendum This text " Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved in plans to send migrants with Covid-19 to Greece and Europe", apart from the fact that the text is 'weasel-ly' in the way that it uses 'appear to be' (are they or not?), is otherwise making an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, that Turkey is currently engaged in deliberate biological warfare. The claim is supported by this ref: Worries Grow Turkey Will Send COVID-19 Migrants to Greece which makes no claims whatsoever about what Turkey IS doing, but rather discusses what (unnamed) Greeks fear they MIGHT do. Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Good analysis. I had to rethink my analysis further above per this. I've quarantined the Turkey-related parts of section, and tagged them as having a dispute on the grounds of UNDUE and POV -- which has been going on for weeks, of course, and should have been tagged earlier. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary on this since Turkey was sending refuges to Greece even before the corona crisis. The topic is part of the migration crisis & per [[79]] financial times: "It also sought to use human beings as pawns in an attempt to blackmail the EU". FT is not a Greek source". Alexikoua (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The creation of a separate "Turkey" section (so it can be tag-bombed) is absurd and unprecedented and is not going to fly. Khirurg (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN Khirurg, you do not call the shots. Alexikoua, for the gazillionth time there has never been a dispute about Turkey using refugees as pawns but biological warfare with a contagion your own country is in a crisis over is incredibly WP:EXTRAORDINARY. --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything about "biological warfare". You are creating a straw man and use that to demand WP:EXTRAORDINARY. All we do is report what the sources say. Khirurg (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's why you guys put in a ref that literally says "Biological warfare" in the title. Right. --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Greek City Times. Anything else? Also please avoid inflammatory language such as "you guys". Who is "you guys"? Let's hear it. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, progress. What else? Well, see Pincrete's complaint about National Herald. As he noted This text " Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved in plans to send migrants with Covid-19 to Greece and Europe", apart from the fact that the text is 'weasel-ly' in the way that it uses 'appear to be' (are they or not?), is otherwise making an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, that Turkey is currently engaged in deliberate biological warfare. The claim is supported by this ref: Worries Grow Turkey Will Send COVID-19 Migrants to Greece which makes no claims whatsoever about what Turkey IS doing, but rather discusses what (unnamed) Greeks fear they MIGHT do.. This is what the page says Some media reported that Turkish military and police appear to be actively involved in plans to send migrants with Covid-19 to Greece and Europe.[234] [235] My view is this is UNDUE. It appears he agrees. That means there is a dispute -- so just as much as sections I wrote were tagged when they were under dispute. So there should be a tag. I'm pretty ambiguous about the subsection name, "Turkey" was not the best. We could have "Allegations regarding migrants being pushed from Turkey". But if there is a dispute about a topically compact part of the section, they should be tagged just like any other.--Calthinus (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

National Herald is a reliable source, and the material is relevant, and it's only one sentence. So you can't use WP:UNDUE to keep out relevant sourced material. No undue weight is given here, it's only one sentence. By the way you didn't answer what "you guys" refers to. I'd like an answer. Khirurg (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As has been discussed, the NH did not report it. It reported the reports of it. So it is not its own reliability that is to be weighed. --Calthinus (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The NH is quoted faithfully. And you still haven't answered what you meant by "you guys". Answer. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

<Cricket noises> - Just like I thought. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought i would have a go at addressing some issues. The particular part of the article was becoming a WP:COATRACK for allegations about Turkey. Thus I split the section as was done previously -as it goes to some way addressing POV issues, and used the better label "Allegations regarding Turkey". It's long past time this material was separated from the matter of refugees, lest people come to the conclusion that Wikipedia has been made to paint refugees as bioweapons.Resnjari (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The separate "Turkey" section and accompanying tagbombing is a poisoning the well. The "refugees as bioweapons" canard is a straw man. Khirurg (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There are some things that can be addressed. For instance it says "some media reported". Is it media reports from just Greek media or further afield? If it’s not other media, a qualifier would do well to be added to make it clear. Also detaching those last bits into a separate subsection of that refugees and migrants subsection, would make less POVish than keeping it as one. Because the situation on that aspect is between concerns, reports, and uncertainties and would go to some way to making it NPOV without placing tags or continue with endless whatever this thread has morphed into now.Resnjari (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It is strange that mr. Resnjari is worried that the immigrants are "painted as bioweapons" by Greeks but not worry at all about the Turkish government for trying to use them as pawns amid the Coronavirus outbreak. The German newspaper Die Welt in its Greek language here: [80] criticized few days ago Turkey's actions against Greece amid the outbreak as (attention here:) "dangerous", stating: "The epidemic may not have passed, but it looks like the [Turkish] Interior Minister wants to carry out his threat [against Greece]. Buses carry for free the migrants to the Mediterranean [coast] to board boats for one of the Greek islands. With this new route, Turkey is trying to put pressure on the EU. This is a tactical irresponsibility, which, with the coronavirus outbreak becomes extremely dangerous." This isn't an unnamed Greek official or a Greek or Turkish newspaper, but Die Welt, a German newspaper. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

SilentResident This is relevant actually, Die Welt. I'd be down to work together on a section that notes the role of Turkey in exacerbating the crisis. Just not one that looks like refugees are being described as biohazards, which yes, I felt this one very much did. This is a good find. --02:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The section does not describe the migrants as "biohazards". That is yet another of your innumerable straw men. Since Turkey's actions are strictly with regards to migrants, it should be in the same section. No separate section. Khirurg (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey don't take it out mr.Resnjari as you say. All i want is RS sources that are not in the realm of allegations. Plus this source you present is not the wiki article itself. More reliable sources lead to less this or that. Thanks for the news article. Yes, refugees and their plight are something that interests me. I outlined this much earlier in my comments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The topic needs some further expansion since additional material comes in surface each day. The creation of a separate section was a matter of time. I assume this rfc is considered closed.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Bar chart versus line graph

The bar chart was the stable version until it was changed to a line chart very recently. I prefer the bar chart because it is very indicative of the trends and it also includes the daily totals. The line chart includes meaningless interpolations of discrete data and the zigzags are visually distracting and needless. It also does not include daily values, except by looking at the vertical axis but this is a real hassle. One editor seems to not like the bar chart but that is not a reason to abandon the chart that has become the standard chart for most covid19 articles. Dr. K. 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Dr.K., I never asserted that we should abandon the bar chart just because I "don't like it". It's not that I like one and hate the other. I think I explained clearly here why I believe the line graph is a better choice for the article at this time. The fact that the bar chart was the stable version doesn't mean it can't ever be changed. As the days pass and the x-axis is extended, daily numbers of new cases/deaths are no longer that important and we need some chart that displays the overall trend -the line graph is just better for this. However, if there's a consensus on not using it in COVID19 articles in general, please let me know and I'll respect it. If not, I'll be interested to read other opinions and so, in any case, thank you for creating this section here, I was about to do it myself. Esslet (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I for one find the bar chart very useful and would like to keep it. Khirurg (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I too prefer the bar graphs and would like them to stay (PS. I have been making edits in this article for about a month, but hadn't bothered to log in...) Kalambaki2 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So it seems to basically be just a matter of personal preference at this point. Well, bar chart it is then Esslet (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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 [81]) 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 [82]. 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)