Talk:Greek Cypriots

Legacy
One interesting legacy is that many Greek Cypriots adopted the Muslim title of "Hadji" (bestowed upon Muslims who have completed the hajj to Makkah) to indicate that they had completed a pilgrimage to a significant Christian religious site. Hence, many Greek Cypriot surnames begin with "Hadji-,"

this is not a cypriot characteristic, it is common in all greek speaking areas. Mavros 15:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hadji is also a prefix for people that were doing pilgrimage to the Holy Lands (e.g. Jerusalem, Bethleem), not just Muslim Hadji as in Mecca Gts-tg (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

670.000 Greeks Cypriots
According to Eurostat 2010 the population of Greek Cyprus is 796.000 of which 670.000 are Greek Cypriots http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-10-045/EN/KS-SF-10-045-EN.PDF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siras (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTICE: This talk-page section is a good object lesson on how NOT to participate in Wikipedia discussions. It appears to have been created in 2010, following one older section, and preceding *another* older section. (I'm not even bothering to pay attention to whether the immediately surrounding contribs are in the wiki-relevant (counter-listserv) order.) The merits of its content may be low or high, but the carelessness of placing it *between* older contribs is stunning, and invites anyone not doing exhaustive analysis to presumptively assign low credibility to its contributor. (The inclusion of the URL with a (to me *moderately* official-sounding) EU URL is *far* from enuf to recommend it as a probably-high-reliability resource for our editors.) --Jerzy•t 06:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Add names is Greek and Turkish
I think we should write how Greek Cypriots call themselves (Ελληνοκύπριοι) and also how Turkish Cypriots call them (Kibris Rum). Thus we can link to to the article Rûm. --Kupirijo (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the the formal name is Kıbrıs Rum not Kıbrıslı Rum. --Kupirijo (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Our colleague Kupirijo had used the west-European or cosmopolitan letter "i" in spelling the Turkish word, but 5 months on has learned of, noticed, or either chosen or learned to type or paste, the "Turkish dot-less i" character), and now taken up that desirable practice. This change is helpful, and deserves the praise of us, Kupirijo's colleagues. --Jerzy•t 05:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Achaeans and Myceaneans
I think mentioning Achaeans and Myceaneans in the same sentence is a bit redundant. They are after all the sane people, I think. --Kupirijo (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Zorba seemed to suggest they are all the INsane people! --Jerzy•t 06:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Misleading POV map
Misleading map of cyprus showing 1973 population. By that time, most of the Turkish Cypriots had moved into small enclaves and had abondoned thier land. This picture presents a misleading Point of View. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillMall (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidden comment
hi all - nice article btw - I have hidden the sentence that describes the Greek Cypriot population as "80%" as there has been no citation added since Jan 2009. The numbers cannot be taken simply from the Republic of Cyprus census as this is lacking in many ways and in no way accurately summarises the population of Cyprus. The survey did not include immigrants to the North of Cyprus of British, Russian etc nationality, nor does it include many of the "illegal" Turkish immigrants.

THe biggest problem is that it does not seem to include many of the Turkish Cypriots who have legitimate claim to citizenship

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From the census in 2001 amended in 2005 (yes I know its a while ago lol)
Hi all

THe census of 2001 amended in 2005 gives the Cypriot figures as "Country  of birth: by major age group, April 2001" at 77,676

I appreciate the number may be higher but it seems bizzare that the statement of 200,000 is deemed to be true, let alone an increase to 300,000

CAn someone try and clarify please ? Are the figures currently in the article reporting "Of Greek Cypriot descent" rather than "Greek Cypriot". Obviously if you are born in the UK you are not Greek Cypriot.

ThanksChaosdruid (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not ethnic Greeks
Greek Cypriots are not "ethnic Greeks", the term "Greek" refers, primarily, to their common language. Genetic research on both DNA and blood groups has established that GCs and TCs are part of the same gene pool, which is distinct from that of either "mainland" country. GCs are genetically more akin with people from West Asia (the Levant) and North Africa than Greece. Therefore, they are not "ethnic Greeks". It is the same with "Arabs", peoples who share the same common language, Arabic, but not necessarily the same ethnicity.

See these sources for a starter:

—Olympian (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The sources I have cited define the Greek Cypriots unambiguously as an ethnic Greek community, i.e. the CIA World Factbook, which lists "Greek" as the main entry under "Ethnic groups". Same with the Cypriot government source, as well as the Catholic Near East Welfare Association source you cited. I fail to see how genetics is at all relevant to the question at hand. Ethnicity is principally a matter of language, culture, history and self-identification. And the Greek flag flies alongside the Cypriot throughout the part of the island not occupied by the Turks. Please refrain from introducing your own personal views or fringe theories into the article.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing that the Greek flag flies alongside the Cypriot is not really the best way to prove your point. I would consider that an attempt at enosis lol.
 * I have read your work though, ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ, on the article and it is very neutral. I agree that ethnicity is as you describe and not genetic. THe first greek settlers moved over 2000 yrs bc but they were small in number and after the island was taken, taken, taken, taken and taken by other ethnic groups over the next 1500 years I am sure that not much genetic differentiation exists between the two ethnic groups until more recent centuries
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a simple statement of fact. The Greek flag is flown everywhere in Cyprus, despite the idea of Enosis not being particularly popular these days. Cyprus also shares a national anthem with Greece. The notion that the Greek Cypriots aren't Greek is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? As for the genetics, I'm sure the same could be said for any two neighbouring ethnic groups who nonetheless have distinct or even conflicting ethnonational identities.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Everywhere ? even in the north ? The Greek cypriots are called so because of their ethnic background, not their genetic one, which you have rightly pointed out previously. The greek cypriots are in fact NOT greek - they are cypriot.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned that it wasn't flown in the Turkish-occupied north. Pray tell, how can Greek Cypriots not be Greek? Greek does not refer exclusively to Greece, as you seem to be implying. Indeed, for much of their modern history most ethnic Greeks lived outside the borders of the modern Greek state.  · ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ ·   23:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted link/facebook source
i took the liberty of removing a link about "Holiday villas for rent in cyprus, paphos". also, the US population source is a facebook group, and i can't find the relevant info in it (although i may have missed it). k kisses 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

population in info box
Facebook and Amazon are not reliable sources! Can someone please change this, otherwise I will. Thank you. Turco  85 ( Talk ) 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek Cypriots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091203184148/http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=22&IndexView=toc to http://cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=22&indexview=toc

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Greek Cypriots flag
There are more than one flag that are in use unofficially by many Greek Cypriots around the world. File:Flag of EOKA.tif A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising this question here in the talk page! This is indeed the correct place for the discussion.
 * One of the main principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, which you can read about here. This means that other editors should be able to check that the information you enter is correct. What you or I know (or think we know) is not admissible unless supported by reliable sources, which you can read about here. In the current case with the flag of Greek Cypriots, you need to find sources, not only for the fact that the flag is used, but also to show that the flag is somehow representative for the population group. When you now state that more than one flag [...] are in use unofficially by many Greek Cypriots around the world, you make it even harder, since you need to show sources for which of those flags, if any, is representative. If there are different subgroups using different flags, one could imagine some sort of gallery, but then each single flag would need to be sourced to its subgroup.
 * Regarding the flag of Cyprus, which you wanted to put into the infobox, that is not an option. That flag is not the flag of Greek Cypriots, but the flag of the Republic of Cyprus, and therefore, at least in principle and de jure, the flag of all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The flag that it is in used until today by many Greek Cypriots around the world is also put by my in the "list of Greek flags" as a Greek flag used outside Greece. There are no any official use or any sources except photographs of rallys, protest national organizations, folklore Greek Cypriot organizations and Greek sport club fans around the world. It is also in many flag online shops.
 * A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am talking about this one
 * [[File:Flag of EOKA.tif]] A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (I indented your comment for better readability.)
 * I have searched the net for "Greek Cypriot flag", and I come up with a lot of different versions, none of them actually matching the layout of the EOKA flag you present. Here are some examples: Here two versions, At the bottom of the article, In the middle of the picture, Another version, Still another version. All of them are different, so none of them can qualify as the flag of Greek Cypriots. Also, these flags seem to be used mostly in ultra-nationalist demonstrations, which rather disqualifies them of being representative for the whole ethnic group. And as I said, source needed. --T*U (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There are not any sources as the flag is unofficial but only in public use. The most common greek cypriot flag is the one that I already show you but with orange Cyprus. It is used not only by ultranationalists but as i said it's used by many others. https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cy%7Dgr.html https://www.interflag.gr/el/simaies-istorikes/892-greek-cyprus.html https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Greek-Cypriot-ENOTIKI-EOKA-Flag-5x3-100-x-150cm-Greece-Cyprus-Nationalists/222872359442?hash=item33e43a5212:g:87wAAOSw1RVabTce http://www.drasis-kes.org/2016/10/estin-oun-ellas-kai-i-kypros.html http://www.diakonima.gr/2012/03/26/επιμνημόσυνος-λόγος-για-τον-ήρωα-κυρι/enomenes-elliniki-kypriaki-simaia-03/ https://picclick.com/HQ-Greek-Cypriot-Flag-EOKA-ENOTIKH-322452592369.html http://www.epilekta.com/2018/02/blog-post_637.html http://www.defence-point.gr/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/APOEL-Simaia_EOKA.jpg https://antiparakmi.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bc019-kyproselliniki.jpg A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These links you give just underlines the fact that there are lots of different versions. I can count at least five different flags (different size of the map, other elements beside the map or inside the map). There is not just one "Cypriot Greek flag", it is a plethora of flags built on the same idea. Also, the connection to EOKA is very often present, but EOKA is hardly representative for Greek Cypriots in general. It is a bit like seeing Russian communists waving the Soviet flag and conclude that that is the flag of Russians in general. As for sources, we obviously do not find sources that it is official. But we need sources stating that there exists an unofficial Cypriot Greek flag that is representative for the Greeks Cypriots in general. --T*U (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point you are wrong. This flag represents an ethnic group. Cypriots that are basically Greek. It is not political issue. If we don't put a flag like this one, we can just put a image of Greek Cypriots waving this flag without say in that is their flag. We can just say that is a flag which is used by the Greeks of Cyprus in order to show their and "Free Cyprus" identity. In the infobox, we can put the Cyprus flag next to Greek. A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you mean by This flag when there are so many different versions? 2) What evidence can you give that any of the many different flags represents an ethnic group as a whole and is not political issue? 3) Why should we have a picture of image of Greek Cypriots waving this flag unless we can call it their flag? 4) What is it about sources you do not understand? Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Text like a flag which is used by the Greeks of Cyprus in order to show their and "Free Cyprus" identity also needs a source. 5) Finally: The Cyprus flag and the Greek flag are national flags. They can not be used to show ethnicity. No way! --T*U (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Addition: If you are fed up discussing with me, you could always try to get input from others. See WP:3O and WP:RFC for possible ways of attracting the interest of other editors. --T*U (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You are from the occupited area, arent you? A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what that has to do with anything, but the answer is "No": I have not even been to Cyprus. --T*U (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

ok A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Must say that I absolutely agree with TU-nor. EOKA is revered today by Greek Cypriots as anti-colonialist independence fighters, but this flag, which symbolises their pro-enosis ideology, hardly has widespread resonance within Cyprus let alone unanimous representation of a community. The proponent needs to supply academic sources that any flag they insert represent these communities as a whole as one would expect such literature to be available if that had been the case. That will, of course, never be the case as there is no unanimously agreed upon "Greek Cypriot flag". This flag in particular is only really used in extreme nationalist demonstrations nowadays . As such, no way. --GGT (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Genetic studies
Sarno et al. 2017 conclude that:, but Demetrios only included the first part of the conclusion. Why isn't the article mentioning the full conclusion?

Other parts I added from the source:
 * Heraclides et al. 2017:


 * Heraclides et al. 2017:
 * Heraclides et al. 2017:

Why are they source misrepresentation? has to explain reverts. Genetic studies have been used selectively. All differences between Greek Cypriots and mainland Greeks have been removed, similarities between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and differences between Turkish Cypriots and Turks have been overemphasized because there is omission of the full studies. Also, where in any source I mentioned, is there any "aggressive POV"? Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Pardon for my ignorance and intrusion but, your additions are out of scope. The fact that it serves your POV it does not mean that you can include it in this article. This article is about Greek Cypriots and not about how the genetics (sic) of Albania or Kosovo are clustering with. It is not something strange for Albanians to cluster with Greeks because many places in southern Illyria (Albania) were colonised by Ancient Greeks e.g. Epidamnos, Ancient Aulon and goes on and for sure there was the Theme of Dyrrhachium during the Byzantine Empire. Well here is a funny sort of example regarding Eleni Foureira's DNA test showing the results of "68.9% Greek and South Italian, 29.8% Balkan, and 1.3% Ashkenazi Jewish". In any case, I strongly support to not include your additions due to being off topic. These are covered in the respective Greeks and Albanians articles. Best Othon I (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MyHeritageDNA clusters people in broad geographical categories. One of them is "Greek and Southern Italian". There's no ancestral correlation with any population based on just the name of the category. The 2 ancient Greek colonies which existed in Albania and which had a 90% native population are not linked to any modern population distribution. Albanians from eastern Kosovo don't cluster with Peloponnesian Greeks ... because in Apollonia (southern Albania) 2000 years ago about 10% of the population came from ancient Greece. The "Greek and Southern Italian" is not linked to a specific ancient Greek grouping. Many Greeks score lower on the "Greek and Southern Italian" than many Albanians and if they are non-mainland Greeks they may score as much as 3X lower than the average Albanian.. Every person from Greece who does ancestry testing can see his matches and if they're male, their position on a y-dna tree. And for many mainland Greeks their position shows medieval divergence/migration from the north to the south. And some come from even more northern locations than those traditionally related to the ancestors of Albanians in antiquity. --Maleschreiber (talk)
 * Side comment: This relation doesn't make mainland Greeks .. Albanians. Identity is historically and socially determined and obviously not all mainland Greeks are descendants of medieval migrants, nor can a population can have only one source of ancestry. But the existing partial common heritage creates room for better relations between countries and people, if we emphasize it as common heritage and not as a Balkan nationalist narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: According to MyHeritage, "[p]eople with Greek and South Italian ethnicity have ancient roots in the Greek peninsula, centered around the Aegean and Ionian Seas", which as a statement compliments the countries it is most frequently found; though the ancient attribution that is claimed seems more of an advertising element, or at least subjective of them. Furthermore, aside of a relatively small collection of results that are uploaded on YouTube, and which are subjectively explained, it should be noted that according to official MyHeritage statistics that pertain to their full database, the "Greek and South Italian ethnicity" is most prevalent (site) in Greece (89%), then Albania (83.6%), North Macedonia (80.3%), Cyprus (69%), Bulgaria (64.8%), and Italy (57%). Now, i am not saying this to support that whoever gets "Greek and South Italian" as a result, it is proof that he/she certainly has Greek ancestry, but it is apparent that it is most frequently found among Greeks, and in the southern Balkans of all places. Personally, i received much more information on my autosomal DNA by playing around with GEDmatch calculators, than from MyHeritage. Regarding this post by George Papailias (administrator of the project), with whom i have discussed extensively in private, it's outdated and written by him at a time that he hadn't yet understood the highly suggestive, and not indicative nature of SNP tracker models. Further analysis of the available data shows that his clade, I-A480, formed in the eastern Alps (where variance and frequency of its sister clade I-Y3562 is almost exclusively found among Slovenians, and with a similar TMRCA) at approximately 200 BCE, likely by a Celt (judging from the distribution and TMRCAs of upstream clades and the ancient history of Slovenia). I-A480, due to the lack of its presence in the western Balkans, seems to have immediately carried on to the southern Balkans, reaching northern Greece by at least 350 CE according to this alternative SNP tracker model, while TMRCA, distribution, and variance of downstream clades shows that it was with high certainty in Greece by c. 800 CE. Can't recall exactly, but of the 16 total samples under I-A480, 10 are Greek, 2 Bulgarian, 1 Serbian, 1 Aromanian, while for the last 2 (Gunar and Fish) i am not certain. Last, regarding the genetic affinity between Greeks and Albanians, you seem to be suggesting that it is mostly due to the medieval southward migration (which didn't only consist of Albanians), but in the Sarno et al. (2017) paper, and specifically at Figure 5, it shows the "Southern Balkan" cluster's times of admixture prior of 1000 CE, meaning many centuries prior of the Albanian migrations to southern Greece, hence the attribution to the Slavs by the paper. I do agree with you that "the existing partial common heritage creates room for better relations between [our] countries and people". Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Demetrios for the valuable clarification. Genetics is a complicated subject, and its easily misused by people that do not understand it or that have specific agendas. Now, I'm all for "better relations", but "better relations" start with better behavior, especially here on wikipedia. A good example of better behavior would be not starting flamewars in articles unrelated to one's usual interests for the sole purpose of "sticking it" to users one dislikes. "Existing partial common heritage" is all fine and dandy, but is not in itself sufficient for better relations. Khirurg (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * you understand that you have made an argument of ignorance regarding the MyHeritage topic? Please read carefully Demetrios1993 comment above and then you will most probably that MyHeritage considers the result "Greek and South Italian" as "People with Greek and South Italian ethnicity have ancient roots in the Greek peninsula, centered around the Aegean and Ionian Seas and not somewhere in Albania?. Also, more Greeks (89%) score than fewer Albanians (83,6%) as "Greek and South Italian". I can't really get the nature of your argument of ignorance. There is no need to feel uncomfortable with something already proven. Othon I (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That "Greek and South Italian" appears in 89% of people who have tested in Greece and 83.6% in Albania doesn't suggest any direction for population flows. The difference is too small. The determining factor is related to the % expressed via this category among people tested in each country. Greenlanders are 87.1% "Scandivanian", Danes 84.2% and Swedes 80%. But nobody is suggesting that Swedes and Danes came from Greenland. According to MyHeritage, Until the end of 2021, we'll get better results about population clusters.  The Greek peninsula has historically been the demographic concentration point for the central and southern Balkans. Pre-medieval links may mask ghost populations which belonged to the same general cluster as the ancestors of Albanians, but I think that Pre-Proto-Albanians and MBA/LBA Proto-Greeks weren't that different overall.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is not a platform to discuss all these. But in short, the new "Genetic Groups" by MyHeritage are interesting. To be honest i wasn't aware of them until Maleschreiber mentioned it. I don't think a public link exists that includes all of them like there is for the "Ethnicities" distribution around the world. Fortunately, "Genetic Groups" are available for all prior clients of the company, and anyone with a profile can view all of the existing groups even if not belonging to them. Specifically, there are 101 groups under the "Greek and South Italian" ethnicity. The note that accompanies the list is the following, So, "ethnicities" are relevant broader groups, while "genetic groups" are more refined categories. But still, by viewing a number of them, i was able to see that each has a different timeline which generally dates back to 1600-1900 CE, thus not that ancient. As for the second point you address Maleschreiber, i do agree with you that the ancestors of Albanians and Greeks, from an autosomal (atDNA) perspective, generally belonged to the same macro-cluster (comprised of the central and southern Balkans, as well as southern Italy and probably western Anatolia) from at least the Iron Age. Though, i wouldn't personally support that either pre-proto-Greeks or pre-proto-Albanians belonged to it. Pre-proto-Greeks certainly didn't belong to it, because they would have been predominantly Yamnaya-like (generally 50% EHG and 50% CHG) in admixture; i am thinking members of the Catacomb culture as likely candidates. Likewise, the identity of pre-proto-Albanians, though admittedly palaeo-Balkan, is still a debated subject, with most hypotheses being revolved around Illyrians, Daco-Moesians, or Thracians; even a combination of the aforementioned in varying degrees, and these people didn't constitute a single autosomal cluster. Personally, due to my view that the proto-Albanian Urheimat was within these boundaries i created, i believe there was a degree of hybridization because this area – especially during the early Roman imperial period – was probably the most multi-ethnic in the Balkans, with at least four linguistic groups being present; namely Illyrian proper, Dalmatian-Pannonian, Thracian proper and Moesian (sub-Danubian branch of Daco-Moesian), and as if those were not enough, the Romans in the 1st century CE allowed two mass relocations of more than 150,000 Geto-Dacians (trans-Danubian branch of Daco-Moesian) to Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior (50,000 in the years of Augustus and over 100,000 in the years of Nero). By the way, this triangular area i show is based on the borders of the Drina river that separates the Eastern Balkan Romance from the Western Balkan Romance, the Jireček line that separates Latin from Greek as lingua francas, and the Danube separating the Latin-speaking Romans from Barbaricum; all relevant for understanding proto-Albanian. Regardless of all that, i would like to point out that Greek-Albanian autosomal affinity is also based on the fact that the two populations have almost identical frequencies for the three main European ancestral groups – Western Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers and Yamnaya – as shown in this three-way mixture model (Figure 3) published here. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not really trying to debate here. Data from commercial DNA companies such as MyHeritage are just facts. Malescreiber just made an argument of ignorance that I am trying to understand the reasons behind. Mentioning that " Greenlanders are 87.1% "Scandinavian", Danes 84.2% and Swedes 80%. But nobody is suggesting that Swedes and Danes came from Greenland" is a crystal clear intentional misinterpretation of the text he is reading. That ultimately means the vice-versa, that Greenlanders come from Scandinavians which is true due to the Viking expansion and the Erik the Red mission to Greenland. For the same reasons, Albanians score high on Greek and South Italian DNA and not Greeks on Albanian DNA (which is not a category for MyHeritage in any case). We need to be constructive with our comments and the comments of the aforementioned user are not a great example. Thanks for your time Othon I (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ahmet Q: You want me to point out how your edits are aggressively POV and intellectually dishonest? By all means.
 * First, in this edit you changed A 2017 study, found that both Greek Cypriots' and Turkish Cypriots' patrilineal ancestry derives primarily from a single pre-Ottoman local gene pool to A 2017 study (Heraclides et al), found that both Greek Cypriots' and Turkish Cypriots' patrilineal ancestry derives primarily from a single pre-Ottoman local gene pool or can be explained via the introduction of Turkish patrilineal ancestry and heavy admixture with the local Greek Cypriot population. This refers to this high percentage of shared haplotypes between them could be explained either by a common local (pre-Ottoman) ancestry for both communities and a recent (few centuries) divergence (scenario 1 in Introduction), or a non-local (i.e. Turkish) paternal origin of TCy and extensive mixing with the local GCy population during the Ottoman era (scenario 2 in Introduction) in the paper. But if you read the paper in its entirety, or cited it faithfully, you would have seen that the paper states 1) This analysis reveals that none of these are found in Turkey (S11 Table), which does not support a Turkish origin of GCy-TCy shared haplotypes and 2) This observation thus further strengthens the notion of a common paternal ancestry between GCy and TCy (scenario 1) and 3) In fact, Greeks show similar differentiation from both GCy and TCy (i.e., they are equally distant from them), which, further supports scenario 1 (common local ancestry of GCy and TCy) rather than scenario 2 (recent non-local ancestry of TCy and subsequent intermixing with GCy) and 4) Concentrating to more recent history, the lack of shared haplotypes observed between GCy and Turks in the current study, indicates an apparently null (or extremely limited) penetration of Turkish paternal haplotypes into the GCy gene pool, despite 300 years of Ottoman rule of the island and 5) the moderate genetic differentiation (Rst) between TCy and Turks (Table 2) does not support the notion that TCy primarily derive from the same paternal gene pool as mainland Turks (scenario 2 in Introduction). Even the abstract (surely you read the abstract?) states: reveals that despite some differences in haplotype sharing and haplogroup structure, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share primarily a common pre-Ottoman paternal ancestry. Thus, the source clearly supports scenario 1 (that GCy and TCy share a common pre-Ottoman origin) in favor of scenario 2 (post-Ottoman admixture as the source of genetic similarity between GCy and TCy). Your edits explicitly removed that part and instead made it seem like the source gives equal support to scenario 1 and scenario 2, which is absolutely not the case. It's as if you are trying to mislead the readers into thinking that the paper supports a more "Turkish" origin for GCy, which the paper explicitly contradicts. Why did you do this? Did you not read the paper in its entirety (incompetence) or did you read it in its entirety but decided to leave the "inconvenient" parts out (intellectual dishonesty)? Were you hoping no one would notice?
 * You also removed the text The frequency of total haplotypes shared between Greek and Turkish Cypriots is 7-8%, with analysis showing that none of these being found in Turkey, thus not supporting a Turkish origin for the shared haplotypes., even though it is backed by the source. Why did you do this?
 * You also wrote About 24% of all Cypriots are descendants of Levantine migrations from the Neolithic to the present era, but again, that's NOT what the source says. It say: A previous study analyzing detailed SNP data for determining ancient ancestry among Cypriots, revealed that around 24% of Cypriot patrilinages are descendent from the Levant. Do you see the difference? If not, you shouldn't dabble in genetics.
 * You also removed Furthermore, from the Greek sub-populations, Cretan Greeks were found to be the closest to Cypriots. even though that is also backed by the source.
 * The stuff about Albania, Kosovo and mainland Greece are "slightly differentiated" and cluster together is off-topic as it has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Why did you add it?
 * The map of the Fertile Crescent is also completely off-topic. Why did you add it?

In summary, it seems in your edits you a) misquoted and selectively quoted the source to push a particular POV, b) removed sourced content that didn't fit that POV, and c) added off-topic material to further push POV. Your edits are POV in their entirety, so do not even think about trying to ram them through by force. This article is outside your usual area of interest. Can you explain to us your sudden interest in it? Because I can't help avoid the impression that your edits here have an ulterior motive. I hope that is not the case. Oh, and one last thing: This had better be the last time you refer to me as usual POV-pushing editor. Clear? Khirurg (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "but Demetrios only included the first part of the conclusion. Why isn't the article mentioning the full conclusion?" – Ahmet
 * I included only the part that pertained to Cypriots. The content you added is off-topic. Since it's not a study that focused exclusively on Cypriots, i didn't make a summary of the whole paper to include the "full conclusion" (which by the way isn't limited to the genetic domains of the 'Mediterranean genetic continuum' and the 'Southern Balkans'). Furthermore, i am very familiar with this difference, and have even brought it up in a discussion with other fellow editors (diff). Your comment implies that i withheld information to misrepresent the "full conclusion". I wouldn't be informing others about it, here in Wikipedia, if that was the case. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that everyone has a - small or big - POV and it's a natural aspect of real life. I think that for some of Ahmet's edits there can be found a formulation which is acceptable to everyone, but some should be mentioned as they were originally formulated. Ahmet mentioned this edit:  Heraclides et al. 2017:  Why was this removed? It's a faithful reproduction of information from the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's excessive amount of detail devoted to a single source (we already have a paragraph devoted to this entire paper), so WP:UNDUE. It's also taken out of context, for the usual POV reasons. So, no. Khirurg (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it UNDUE to mention the major difference between Greeks and Greek Cypriots, but not UNDUE to mention the difference between Turks and Turkish Cypriots in the article about Greek Cypriots?--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see "major differences between Turks and Turkish Cypriots" anywhere. Did you read the article? Khirurg (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is very far outside your usual area of "interest". Why the sudden interest and persistence all of a sudden? Care to explain? Khirurg (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An interesting topic isn't necessarily an editing subject. It's better to specialize in editing. Side comment: I didn't ask you about your interest in Bar/Tivar, Montenegro. Now, if you can't agree to include major finds about Greek Cypriots, then this should go to RfC.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you read the paper, but if you did, you would see that it gives additional context for the differences in the I and R haplogroups between mainland Greeks and Greek Cypriots: These haplogroup differences indicate differential migrations into Cyprus and mainland Greece, at different points in history and prehistory. I2 is considered the major haplogroup among Mesolithic European Hunter-Gatherers[60], who apparently were either absent from Cyprus or were totally diluted (nearly extinguished) by subsequent migrations. Although the exact origins and migratory patterns of R1a and R1b are still under rigorous investigation, it seems that they are linked to Bronze Age migrations from the Western Eurasian Steppe and Eastern Europe into Southern (including Greece) and Western Europe[61]. Apparently, such migrations (especially as regards R1a) into Cyprus were limited.. The paper also states: In terms of Rst pairwise genetic differences, indicating deeper shared paternal ancestry than the shared haplotype analysis, Greeks appear genetically close to Cypriots So we can't just cherry pick the parts you like out of context, you see? We have to be intellectually honest and give the full picture. Additionally, the paper state However, despite the very low genetic differentiation between Cypriots, Calabrian Italians, and Lebanese, the former appear to differentiate, in terms of Y-haplogroup frequencies, both from Middle Eastern (including Lebanese) and from Southeast European Mediterranean (including South Italians) populations. The main feature distinguishing Cypriots from Lebanese and other Middle Easterners included in our analysis is their much lower frequency of haplogroup J1. This observation clearly suggests that although Cypriots and Lebanese share common paternal roots, the latter received a substantial influx from populations high in J1, probably during the early Arab conquest era (7th cent. AD).. So there are important difference between the Cypriots and Lebanese, yet you do not seem at all interested in that. Why is that? Btw, you did not answer my question: Why the sudden interest in this topic? Could it be that you came here to back Ahmet Q, who clearly stalked Demetrios1993 here, and got into a discussion he seems to be having...difficulty with? As for an RfC, I would like to remind you that nothing gets added without consensus. And if the usual tag team of Balkan accounts of a particular ethnicity shows up and starts to spam the RfC with !votes (as with every RfC you seem involved in), be aware that I will seek as much admin oversight as possible, up to and including arbitration. If I were you, I really wouldn't want to draw attention to this kind of behavior. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we agree on writing If this can't be agreed on, I'll ask if it should be included via RfC. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to give a more complete picture, it really should be In terms of Rst pairwise genetic differences, which indicate deeper shared paternal ancestry than shared haplotypes, Greeks appear genetically close to Cypriots, and equidistant from Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In terms of Y-DNA haplogroups, the major difference between mainland Greeks and Greek Cypriots is the low frequency of haplogroups, I2, R1a and R1b among Greek Cypriots in comparison to the population of mainland Greece. The biggest differentiation factor between Greek Cypriots and Middle Easterners including the Lebanese is the much lower frequency of haplogroup J1 among Greel Cypriots.. I could possibly agree to something like that. Khirurg (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am ok with the following text: Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in the editing discussion, but I think that wrote a good summary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The latest text from Demetrios looks good to me. Khirurg (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good compromise. Ahmet Q. (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the clueless people on population genetics. Do not edit the genetic study section, let people that actually know about this stuff add the relevant information. Haplogroups do not show actual genetic similarity, they are a very small part of the DNA, The Y-DNA haplogroup is inherited from father to son and does not mix, its simply like surnames, lineages and is subject to founded effects. While Autosomal DNA is the DNA inherited by both parents and only that can show actual genetic similarity. Autosomal DNA studies should always be first. Before any of you make ignorant edits on the genetic sections take a look at this:
 * https://genes-of-the-ancients.blogspot.com/2023/04/ancient-greek-ancestry-and-closest.html
 * The ancient Greeks themselves were closer genetically to the Levant than Anglos, Slavs, Germans etc. Cypriots are the closest people genetically to the Minoans and to the ancient Greeks of West Anatolia.
 * MyHeritage uses mainland Greek DNA samples, mainland Greeks are mixed with Slavs, obviously its not a good proxy for Greek ancestry in Greek Cypriots, its misleading. Itisme3248 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

History Section "Ancient Cyprus"
This section does not seem to have anything to do with the history of the Greek Cypriots. In particular it does not establish a connection between the Greek Cypriot people and that period.

It mentions how archeological evidence suggests an unsystematic Greek settlement of the island which occurred from 1400 BC and how that accelerated further down-the-line but it makes no effort to establish a link between the modern Greek Cypriots and the "Greek" (Mycenaean-Dorian) cultures to which reference is being made.

Have there been any studies that establish a direct, unbroken ethnolinguistic heritage between the Mycenaeans, Dorians and the modern Greek Cypriots?

Maybe in the meantime this section can do with a disclaimer (does one exist?) that says "although this is being used by XXXX to suggest a connection no actual connection has thus far been established"?

Perhaps the ambiguous usage of the word Greek here could also do with a revision? Nargothronde (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you proposing that the ancient Cypriot Greek population has nothing to do with its modern descendants? Aearthrise (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not agreeing with any of your suggestions. Greek history in Cyprus began with Mycenaean/Achaean Greeks, and even the genetics of Greek Cypriots show such influence. There is no requirement for them to speak a Mycenaean (Arcadocypriot/Achaean) Greek dialect for such information to be justified in their article. There is an unbroken Greek ethnolinguistic heritage. Also, you misunderstood what the paragraph says about the Dorian invasion in the southern Greek mainland and Aegean. If anything, more information should be added for the Hellenistic/Roman periods, and the early adoption of Christianity in the island. 62.74.15.65 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between modern Greek history and Greek history as is being referred to here. Mycanaean / Achaean / Dorian etc history began with Mycanaean / Achaean / Dorian etc history. The same as how modern Greek Cypriot history began with modern Greek Cypriot history, which in-turn traces itself to modern Greek history, which in-turn has the same trappings of not being ethnically / linguistically / culturally etc connected to the Mycanaean / Achaean / Dorian etc people. The genetics of the Greek Cypriots also do not show a direct, unbroken, matrilineal or patrilineal link to the Mycanaean / Achaean / Dorian etc people, who, by the way, since we're on the topic of genetics here, were clearly an imported steppe people and culture themselves, not some ethnically homogenous race (and they knew it too). The same trappings unfortunately also apply to the language, which is not even an indicator of heritage as you are trying to assert. If that were true then the Turkish Cypriots would have as much as claim to connection to the ancient Greeks and their language etc as you try to assert the Greek Cypriots as having. Nargothronde (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one of the other key issues I'm noticing here is that the ethnogenesis of the Greek Cypriot people (and in particular the extent and meaning of any connection with that period) is not a topic that has had any empirical study committed to it. At least as far as I'm aware. But as far as this section goes, bottom line is, there are no sources to substantiate a connection between the Greek Cypriot people and that period. If such a connection can be made and supported with multiple strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources, then there would be no problem. Nargothronde (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're starting with the assumption that there was an ethnic-linguistic-cultural group during that period that identifies with a direct unbroken continuity with the modern Greek Cypriots. Nothing in this section supports that. Nargothronde (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, there is no difference. Modern Greek history is a branch of the broader Greek history. Mycenaeans/Achaeans and Dorians are also part of that same broader Greek history. Even in antiquity, just because someone might have been Ionian and the other Dorian, it doesn't mean they were not ethnically/linguistically/culturally connected, as you seem to be suggesting here, just because the language (for example) of the vast majority of modern Greeks (including Greek Cypriots) originates from Koine Greek, which in turn originates mostly from Attic-Ionic Greek, and not Mycenaean/Arcadocypriot/Achaean or Doric. As for genetics, i don't know about matrilineal haplogroups, but many of the main patrilineal haplogroups presented in the Genetic studies section are also found among ancient Greeks that have been tested. For example, the most common haplogroup of Greek Cypriots is J2a-M410, which is also a common haplogroup among ancient Greeks. There are more haplogroups that they share. Of course, this doesn't mean that all J2a-M410 came from Greeks (some came from Neolithic/Bronze Age Anatolians and Phoenicians no doubt), but when you compare it with autosomal results which are discussed in the same section, it does indicate influence from Mycenaean/Achaean Greeks, among others. Cypriots are included in the modern populations that are least differentiated from Mycenaeans Greeks. Also, they show close affinity to Calabrian (southern Italy) people, with experts saying that it can be explained as a result of a common ancient Greek (Achaean) genetic contribution. By the way, you also don't know what you are talking about when you say that Mycenaeans/Achaeans and Dorians were imported steppe people and culture. You make it sound as if the steppe influence was huge, when it is proven to be very small. For example, according to the article about Mycenaean Greece, Mycenaeans only had ~3.3–5.5% Eastern European ancestry that is attributed to the Indo-Europeans of the steppe. Most of their DNA came from Neolithic farmers, as is the case with modern Greek mainlanders and Greek Cypriots. So no, autosomally at least, there is no huge influence from Indo-Europeans. The influence is mostly linguistic and cultural, but even for these, pre-Indo-European people like Minoans probably had an equally important influence. I am not going to look for sources because this discussion is a waste of time, and it is very obvious that you are not here to improve the article, but to push a certain POV. But as an example, even Britannica says that Greek Cypriots descend from "a mixture of aboriginal inhabitants and immigrants from the Peloponnese who colonized Cyprus starting about 1200 BCE and assimilated subsequent settlers up to the 16th century." By aboriginal inhabitants they probably refer to descendants of Neolithic farmers, and by 1200 BCE Peloponnesian immigrants, they certainly refer to Mycenaean Greeks. 62.74.19.244 (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)