Talk:Greeks/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Update

I have removed some older - hypothetical - claims in older sources which have been shown to be wrong in all aDNA studies which took place. The section written by Demetrios1993 about the genetics of Mycenaean Greece contains all aDNA publications and can be used to re-write relevant subsections.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Based on older sources, the article reflected the claim that The Y-chromosome lineage E-V13 appears to have originated in Greece or the southern Balkans and is high in Greeks as well as in Albanians, southern Italians and southern Slavs. E-V13 is also found in Corsicans and Provencals, where an admixture analysis estimated that 17% of the Y-chromosomes of Provence may be attributed to Greek colonization, and is also found at low frequencies on the Anatolian mainland. These results suggest that E-V13 may trace the demographic and socio-cultural impact of Greek colonization in Mediterranean Europe, a contribution that appears to be considerably larger than that of a Neolithic pioneer colonization.

• In fact, this haplogroup hasn't been found in multiple studies which concern not only Neolithic but also EBA to LBA Greece. It's also nowhere to be found in the aDNA record of many areas which were strongly impacted by Greek colonization and it still hasn't been found in most areas of Europe, where it has a substantial presence today. The older authors who attributed its presence in areas like Provence to Greek colonization were hypothesizing such a presence, but it's absolutely not correct as shown in the aDNA record. Hence, Lazarides et al (2022) write:Haplogroup E-V13(476) is an important Southeast European Y-chromosomal lineage, well represented in present-day people of the Balkans.(467, 477-479) Its estimated TMRCA of 4,800 is most consistent with the inference that this represents a Bronze Age expansion(478) rather than Paleolithic/Neolithic expansions as previously proposed. In the ancient data it is only detected (in the Southern Arc) in the Iron Age with four examples at Kapitan Andreevo in Bulgaria (1100-500 BCE) and one from Sv Kriz in Croatia (I5724; 382-206 calBCE). These samples also belong to downstream clades E-Z1057 and E-CTS1273 (with a TRMCA of 4,500 years). Later examples are found in Late Antique and Medieval Spain(449) and Italy(436, 453), while we also find it in Hellenistic and Roman samples from Bulgaria and in a pair of brothers (500-700 CE) from Byzantine Nicaea in Turkey. Its absence in Bronze Age southeastern Europe (n 107) is in remarkable contrast with its ubiquity in the present day, leading us to hypothesize that either it did exist there prior to our sampling but in a specific region from which we have no samples or it arose elsewhere and migrated to southeastern Europe just prior to the earliest sampled individuals. The parent node of E-V13 is E-L618 which is called for an earlier sample from the Lengyel culture in Hungary which was ancestral for the V13 SNP (I1900 4797-4619 calBCE; E-L618(xE-BY64249,E-V13)) and which has an estimated TMRCA of 7,800 years BP. Thus, the evidence appears consistent with a scenario in which E-L618 Y-chromosomes entered Europe during the Neolithic and EV13 representing a remarkably successful lineage within this group that had not yet achieved prominence during the Bronze Age, but had begun to do so by the Iron Age.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, i don't object to your removals Maleschreiber. For example, the existing possibility that E-V13 formed in Greece/southern-Balkans during the Neolithic, doesn't really enhance the reader's understanding about downstream clades that are relevant to the ancestry of the Greeks. Likewise, nor is the mention of Y-DNA haplogroups J2 and E – supposedly indicating direct Early European Farmers' ancestry – particularly illuminating, without going into some detail about downstream clades with younger TMRCAs. However, we shouldn't dismiss King et al.'s (2011) conclusions simply due to the absence of relevant aDNA samples. Even Lazaridis et al. (2022) say that E-V13 lineages began to achieve prominence by the Iron Age (which is when the Greek colonization occurred), and one of their two suggestions is that it could have been present in BA southeastern Europe, but in a specific region from which we have no samples yet. It's also not true that we don't have any aDNA samples that could relate. For example, the more recent paper by Skourtanioti et al. (2023) includes an LBA sample that could turn out as E-V13; if it can be further analyzed. I am referring to XAN014, discovered in Chania (Crete), and dated to c. 1300–1250 BCE through its respective archaeological context. It was identified as E1b1b1a1b (using ISOGG's nomenclature) or E-Z1919, which is just upstream of E1b1b1a1b1 or E-L618. Then, there is also the study by Reitsema et al. (2022), focusing outside the "Southern Arc", on Himera in Sicily, where three samples from 480 BCE were identified as E-V13. Though, their backgrounds are somewhat complicated. Sample I17872 was identified as E1b1b1a1b1 or E-V13, and falls closest to populations from the Caucasus on the PCA. The other two samples, I10946 and I10950, form a single outlier group, and were identified as E1b1b1a1b1a15a~ or E-BY6357* and E1b1b1a1b1a6a~ or E-CTS6377*, respectively. On the PCA, they are intermediate between the main cluster of local Himerans and central European individuals; a differentiation also indicated by the relatively higher proportion of the Western Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) component in ADMIXTURE (software). Valid models of ancestry consist of mixtures of one source related to central or eastern Mediterranean groups (Sicilian, Aegean, or Balkan) and one source related to central or western European groups (France, Spain, Czechia, or Hungary). I don't write all these because i am in favor of reinstating the content. Personally, i don't think E-V13 is an ideal marker for identifying Archaic Greek influence; without excluding it though. In my opinion, we should only include content that discusses Greeks from a broader perspective, without veering too much into relatively minor aspects (e.g. Greek ancestry of Provençale), that would make it more difficult for the reader to follow a topic that unavoidably includes technical jargon; we have the {{see also}} hatnote for that.

Regarding your suggestion to update and expand § Genetics, it's more complicated and time-consuming than the edits i made to Mycenaean Greece (diff1, diff2). Mycenaean Greeks aside, there are in fact additional aDNA studies that discuss Greeks, and there is more to add from studies that concern modern Greeks. Also, due to my limited time, i cannot currently work on a table that will present the Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup frequencies for modern Greeks. By the way, are the results from FTDNA group projects reliable enough for inclusion, and are there any precedents of adding such data to Wikipedia articles? Or we must only use data from genetic studies? For now, i updated/rephrased the section by copying some content from Mycenaean Greece. I also had to remove the subsection heading Autosomal studies, since the preceding content also pertains to atDNA, while the content that follows also discusses Y-DNA and mtDNA. I didn't really work on the last paragraph, aside from some minor edits; namely, three better wikilinks and use of {{sub}}. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's also not true that we don't have any aDNA samples that could relate We really don't. The exact subclade of E-L618 found in LBA Crete is E-BY6578 (a parallel branch to E-V13) which is very minor today. It is the only E-L618+ sample in many BA samples from Greece. There are 8 more such E-L618+ finds from Hungary, while the earliest E-L618 find in Europe comes from Neolithic Croatia. This small subclade doesn't have any sort of demographic significance anywhere. I10946 and I10950 in Himera, Sicily are an example which strongly indicates that E-V13 wasn't related to ancient Greek colonization because none of the local Greeks carried E-V13. Instead these two men were among the mercenaries whom the Himerans hired. Skourtanioti et al (2023) describe the two E-V13 mercenaries as We tested 1-, 2-, and 3-way models of the proximal sources Greece_Crete_BA, Greece_LBA, Sicily_LBA, Sicily_MBA, Balkan_IA, Italy_IA_Republic.SG, Spain_IA, Italy_IA_Republic_o.SG, Hungary_IA_Scythian.SG, Czech_HallstattBylany.SG, Sicily_IA, France_GrandEst_IA1.SG, France_GrandEst_IA2.SG and France_HautsDeFrance_IA2.SG (Table S11). Many 2-way models are feasible, even using the model competition approach, and in all of them Sicily_Himera_480BCE_2 derives at least half of its ancestry from a western European, central European or Balkan IA group The mercenaries included even people from the Baltic area. Thus, I10946 and I10950 were 2 mercenaries who went to Sicily from somewhere north of Greece and died there.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update regarding the subclade of XAN014. What's your source by the way? The only related source i found online is theytree.com, which has apparently confused the sample codes; it refers to XAN016, which the study lists as G2a2b2a or G-P303. The quote you shared concerning the samples I10946 and I10950, is actually from Reitsema et al. (2022), not Skourtanioti et al. (2023); it essentially reflects what i already shared above. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand figures

The source is not reliable. The numbers regarding estimation seem exaggerated and there are no other sources that support such estimations, at least that I could find. Rootcragsar (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect population estimations.

The Second source ( Clogg 2013) as to the number of Greeks worldwide is unreliable, and within its composition states that the information it lists is unreliable. In addition, the figures for individual nations are erroneous and exaggerated, often different from what the source placed beside them posits.

I am not sure why Authors are trying to bloat the number of extant Greeks, but even if by only a few million, the inaccuracy erodes the trustworthiness of Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. Ed 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

Population estimations should be garnered from Greek government sources, Hellenic organizations and the CIA world factbook.

Revert of the etymology information

@Demetrios: I should note here that the comment in your revert of my edit adding the etymology of the English name to this article is not really valid. ‘Names’ section mentions the word ‘Greeks’ in some of its writing, but centres around endonyms, not exonyms, which is what ‘Etymology’ section was supposed to fix about the article. I don’t think that this information should be 1) so hidden away in this article, 2) inaccessible to readers. You could’ve tried merging two sections if you thought that this was clearly unacceptable. stjn 00:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies to Demetrios, meant to ping @Demetrios1993. stjn 00:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stjn: In my edit summary i wrote that § Names "should definitely be rephrased or expanded with more information from Names of the Greeks", and that "the same section could also include information on the etymology of some important ethnonyms." I didn't say that your contribution was unacceptable; in fact, you can go ahead and reinstate it with a third fourth level heading under § Names, and also move the whole section further up if you deem it necessary. I only removed it because we already had a relevant section, and i thought it would be better for it to be considerably revised; including information about etymology, as well as variants that stem from Ionians, and medieval endonyms such as Rhomaioi or Romioi. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that the "Names" subsection already fits well into the "Identity" section. I agree with Demetrios that there could be an expansion of "Names" and I think the etymology that was added by @Stjn would in fact be fitting and helpful there. Piccco (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Origins

Could somebody please unravel the reasons of the different "Views" cited for the different dates of greek origin? HJJHolm (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Greeks are NOT native to Europe.

Lazaridis, well-known Greek DNA researcher has demonstrated that the Greeks are natives of western Asia - Anatolia, to be more precise (Lazaridis et al. 2017, Lazaridis et al. 2014).

The claim that the Greeks are native to any of the regions mentioned in the text, other than Anatolia, is incorrect and it should be removed from the text. 181.58.39.98 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Balkan and Anatolia

What period in history Anatolia peninsula had more Greeks or greek speakers than Balkan peninsula? Kaiyr (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

DRC & Tanzania

I'm unaware of any significant Greek communities in DRC or Tanzania albeit a very few European expats to which Greeks might be some of them; thus I do not see the need to highlight the maps of DRC and Tanzania. RickyBlair668 (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Slavic DNA in Greece

The significant Slavic genetic contribution in the today Greeks is undoubted, but the data about it is constantly being removed. Today, the Greek state does not recognize its Slavic minorities, claiming that they do not exist. However, Wikipedia is not censored, I hope. Jingiby (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What does "the Greek state does not recognize its Slavic minorities" have to do with anything? There are numerous studies on the subject, yet you are interested only in this one. E.g. the study on the Peloponnese by Stamatoyannopoulos et al. 2017 found much lower values than this paper. Khirurg (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The study was added by another editor, not by me. It was deleted by you 3 times. This is the most recent study on the issue and the only archeogenetic one. Jingiby (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted yet again, on the apparent grounds of “balance”, whatever that’s supposed to mean… Botushali (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jingiby: It's not the "only archeogenetic one". You haven't even read the article properly. Khirurg (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Population sort by quantity

@User:Khirurg, When contributing to Wikipedia, lists are typically sorted based on criteria that are relevant and objective. Sorting by population quantity is common because it provides a clear, measurable standard that is widely accepted. This approach helps maintain neutrality and consistency across Wikipedia articles. You are suggesting an exception to this standard to push a particular viewpoint or because it personally bothers you WP:JDL , it does not align with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and verifiability. Also i would like you to remind me what happened the last "edit war" since it seems this discussion it's personal for you, remembering what has happened to me 2 years ago and bringing unprofessional amateuristic arguements that have nothing to do with the article. Also Native or Not its something that has nothing to do with the population sorting keep your POV out of the discussion. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I find Khirurg’s edit summary here unproductive - Greeks are native to southern Albania, this seems to bother you a great deal, but that's just how it is. Remember what happened the last time you edit-warred. I don’t think it’s a standard practice on Wikipedia to list population stats according to where they’re supposedly native to. In fact, the USA, Germany, Australia, the UK and Canada are all listed before Albania. Are Greeks native to these countries as well? The whole list should be re-arranged based on population IMO.

Also, @RoyalHeritageAlb, the final part of Khirurg’s edit summary says this: Remember what happened the last time you edit-warred. This is coming from a user who keeps a list of “taunts” ([[1]]) which contains the following three examples:

1. ...something which you have been blocked for

2. Do I have to remind you of your very long block log

3. you have already been blocked countless times

Basically, Khirurg considers himself a victim of taunts when people remind him of previous blocks, something he has just now done towards you in the above edit summary. As such, Khirurg is indirectly admitting to deliberately taunting you. I’d recommend keeping a record of this just in case you’re unfortunate enough to be involved in a dispute with him in which the admins are involved. Botushali (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Greece genetics

Dear co-workers, in "genetics", You refer to Lazaridis 2022, which is partly outdated by Lazaridis et al. (2024). It would be very nice if the true writer of all thesw wonderful entries could update this. Thak You very much!!! HJJHolm (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

@Khirurg Well religious minorities are key facts which the article also mentions, over 10% are irreligious and many are also muslim, and there also exists a sizeable pagan and jewish communities of greeks this seems to be another POV pushing case. Plakosa (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources you are using are reliable. NSRN.org is a partisan advocacy website and the 10% figure is a gross overestimation. Greek Muslims are generally not considered part of the Greek nation, as the many sources in that article attest. By the way you edit very aggressively for an account created on October 10. Have you edited wikipedia before? Khirurg (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because they don't live in greece doesn't mean they are not greeks, also various polls also say greece its 80 to 91% christian, as reported by 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom Greece by the US state department

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/greece/

How do I edit "aggressively"? No I haven't edited before, why is that a issue. Plakosa (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Plakosa It is clear that you do not have WP:CONSENSUS for your changes and you still engage in an WP:EDITWAR. Do not go on other people's accounts and falsely accuse them of editwarring. You are the one introducing new changes and the WP:ONUS is on you to convince others that your edits are constructive. You have been told multiple times that the infobox summarizes "key points" and not every single piece of information mentioned in the body per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:UNDUE. I have linked the former policy several times in my edit summaries, but you haven't paid any attention. Judaism and Hellenism among Greeks are minuscule minorities; Islam is also very small. Irreligion is also small and irrelevant. Greeks are predominantly and traditionally associated with Greek Orthodoxy, just like Serbs with Serbian Orthodoxy, Croats with Catholicism etc. This is what a "key point" in the infobox looks like. Please, familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL. Piccco (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)