Talk:Greeks/Archive 9

Kalash Pseudoscientific Theory
The Kalash pseudoscientific theory should be removed from the article. They really have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks - see Kalash people Botushali (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't start a discussion about pseudoscientific nationalist narratives. And if conspiracy theories are restored, the article will get tagged and go through GA review.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no "conspiracies". The article does not state the Kalash are descended from ancient Macedonians, it says they claim descent. I personally don't think these claims are valid, but it's a fact that these people claim this. Threats to tag the article are disruptive and should be avoided. No one is going to tag anything. Khirurg (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * due to seeing this unusual activity with huge numbers of Albania Topic Area editors coming here into the article of Greeks, with some of them not even having contributed to this article before, I have contacted the admins. I suggest that everyone shows constraint instead of bringing any WP:BALKANS mentality there. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I notified Admins and I am in the progress of notifying the AE staff. The unusually high flock of Albania topic area editors into this article is worrisome. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do what feels best for you, but don't characterize as "worrisome" the right of editors who are involved in Balkan topics and have written many articles related to Greece to take part in whatever discussion they want to. Most people who opposed the move to Vjosa (mostly the same people who oppose the removal of the NG map) had every right to do so despite having no contributions to Vjosa. The NG racialist map has been disputed by many including senior editors of the Greek topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You and most people who opposed the move to Vjosa Sorry, but I didn't oppose the move. I didn't even participate, let alone oppose it... You must have mistaken me for someone else. Vjosa belongs to both Greece and Albania Topic Areas. The article Greeks does not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to refer specifically to you, let me change that - some issues have to do with how you phrase things: . In the Balkans all communities are interconnected. A map which renders invisible other communities who lived in the same regions as Greeks is a problem. Reverse the issue: if at Albanians, a map which rendered Greeks and other communities invisible was used, it would be a problem which would involve many editors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify what my notification sent to the admins is: that they keep an eye on the article. If your conduct here is ok and your edits aren't characterized by WP:NATIONALIST patterns, you will be fine and you have nothing to worry about. However right as we are talking, several of the editors from the Albania Topic Area already made edits emphasizing on diluting Greek presence in various areas and at same time at the RfC they seek to promote maps that dilute Greek presence in Asia Minor. Coincidence? Normally, an edit by itself does not constitute a nationalist edit. But when it is several editors with their contribution logs being timely synchronized into one place and in within few days only and are directing their edits against certain a ethnicity, indicates a nationalist pattern, then I can't help but be worried about this coordinated POV pushing and ask for admin supervision of the area. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nationalist patterns are related to edits which deny the fundamental truth of the Mediterranean: people and communities mixed and created new communities. Ahmet Q. wrote about Greeks who migrated to Egypt and Near Easterners who migrated to Greece. This is the historical reality of the Mediterranean and it's not nationalist to say that ethnic groups are culturally, socially and politically but not biologically constructed. An article about Greeks or any people which creates a narrative about uninterrupted continuity and disputes all sources which challenge it is a problem. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. There is indeed an issue with editors that think in terms fundamental truth and historical reality. Regarding biologically contructed and uninterrupted continuity, I could easily level such accusations against your edits at Albanians, Illyrians and Origin of the Albanians, where they seem to present a picture of uninterrupted continuity, and dismiss all scholarship to the contrary as "outdated". But the sudden spillover into this article marks a huge escalation. Khirurg (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Khirurg, I don't know for Origin of Albanians, Illyrians and Albanians since these topics are out of my scope. However I would gladly have accept Maleschreiber's statement had not been for the contrib logs which show the whole picture, like a look at these November edits:, , , , . I consider these to be rather problematic edits directed against a particular ethnicity (Greek) or promoting a particular another ethnicity (Albanian). A classic case of nationalist editing. It is up to the Admins to see if there is anything worthy tackling. In meantime I suggest the editors show restraint from edits such as these ones directed against very specific nationalities from now and on. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you think that writing that other communities exist is directed against one community, then your narrative constitutes a very problematic one. The world is multicultural. I've written about Greeks of Albanian origin, Turks of Slavic origin, Albanians of Italian origin and even Albanian Yugoslavs of African origin. None was directed against any ethnicity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My work has focused on the Arvanites, a community which has been overlooked and often hidden under the nationalism-s of the 20th century. In our century, people like the Arvanites under the effects of decolonialization in historical research are becoming more and more known and have a voice. I assure you that to say that Arvanites are is not a denial of the fact that Greeks also are. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You did well to notice them but for what purpose? There is a reason why "an Albanian flock" appears in this article. I can not talk about others but I myself saw this open discussion looking at the page of contributions of one of the editors and of course I saw fit to give my opinion on the issue.  Now, here the problem appears with a map that cancels the Albanians and some others in a certain time range where in fact in certain areas there were even a majority. What is argued, at least from me, is the use of a more acceptable map and one was proposed, and I see absolutely no objection to its accuracy except for light colors.  Choosing between one map that has deep inaccuracies, not to say dubious intentions by the author, and another that has unacceptable colors seems to me a big difference.  Bes-ART  Talk  17:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see how any of this is relevant too the original topic of this thread. Durraz0 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment What does any of this have to do with what I put forward? This is very unproductive... Botushali (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice that there is RS that the specific people claim Greek descent. As such there is no reason for removal. Sourced facts need to stay, regardless of the genetic studies.Alexikoua (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, just because there are sources for that factoid doesn't mean it's a notable fact about the Greeks and as such a pertinent issue for this article. A note about it in the Kalash article is fine, but placing it here implies that there actually is a link between the two groups. Especially the way the sentence is placed in the paragraph ("Two thousand years later, there are still …"), which is clearly designed to suggest that it's providing additional support and validity to the preceding statement, which is about the expansion of Greek settlement. That suggested link is clearly invalid – especially since that preceding sentence is really just about expansion to places like Antioch and Alexandria; there's no sourced coverage supporting any notable amount of population movement to places that much further east. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If we really want to re-affirm the present article's GA, is better that the claims by Kalash be moved elsewhere. Having seen myself some GA progresses, I know there will be scrutiny and that sentence can fail the GA assessment. The article needs more quality about Greeks and since the Kalash made the claims in the context of Macedonian ancestry primarily, I think a note at Greek Macedonians article or at Kalash article themselves, suffices. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 07:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As per the comments above, what the Kalash people claim (which is also in the context of ancient culturally-Hellenic societies) is not necessarily relevant to this article that focuses on Modern Greeks. It's fine to include the claim in relevant articles (e.g. Kalash) - with a note that explains that this claim is indeed false according to genetic studies and the like. However, it really has no place here especially in the way it is written. If there is no further contention, I will make the appropriate edit and remove it from the article. Botushali (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to correct your misunderstanding, the article focuses on Greeks not only on modern Greeks. Understanding the scope of the article is fundamental for one to edit the topic otherwise can lead to flawed edit, misconceptions and other related stuff. But the Kalash people indeed is something that can probably can go off. They claim that it does not mean that it is the reality. Othon I (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The statistics, culture, identity, migration etc etc refer to the evolution and contemporary existence of Modern Greeks. There is a page on Ancient Greece which focuses on Ancient Greeks, and one on Ottoman Greeks which specifically refers to the population of Greece during those periods - this is simply a comprehensive outline of what came before Modern Greeks and contributed to their development as the Greeks of today. There is no misunderstanding here. Then again, this is not relevant either and I don't know why people keep commenting irrelevant things on this thread, which was purely intended to discuss the line about the Kalash people. Botushali (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You still fail to understand the scope of the article but I am not going to discuss this now, you as an editor should have the capability to understand the articles you are contributing to. However, my comment was about Kalash and I said that it can go.. Not sure why you did not notice. Best Othon I (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, Greeks encompass and summarizes anything about Greeks, from origins and ancient times to modern times, not just contemporarily. In fact, the existence of the other articles are for the more-in-depth coverage of the equivalent periods of their history. You will see Mycenaean, Classical, etc but there separate articles as well for those who want to be informed more in depth. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: It seems a general consensus has been reached. I will remove the line. Botushali (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Population movements during the Hellenistic age
I added some information about the effects of population movements in late Hellenistic era, from the Cambridge University Press. I didn't think that my edit was controversial, but I'm ok with having a discussion:

Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Your edit if looked upon it individually, may seem as non-controversial but your edit history shows a definitive editorial bias against a specific group of people where you have a tendency of picking controversial content to add, which emphasizes on weakening the presence of Greek culture or Greek people around. When these individual edits are looked collectively upon:, they stack and do not instill any good-faith in the long term, causing mistrust between you and other the editors. Like how the admins often advise the Balkan topic area editors: its better if you just leave such edits aside and try make neutral edits that aren't about the same groups of people where you saw your edits being reverted. After all, its not like as if you don't have other kinds of edits to make around, right? Try some edits the others won't perceive as controversial for once. Why not follow my example, where, I am working on Infobox images for cities these days. Likewise, I am sure you can do something better than adding content to the article that dilutes Greek presence in Greece in ~30BD, and then jumping into that article's talk RfC to support maps diluting Greek presence in 1900AD in Asia Minor and then come here wondering why you have been reverted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately what you are doing at this moment, seems to me just WP:WITCHHUNTing and I hope someone can explain that the argument of someone or some, based on reliable sources and in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines can not be considered "nationalist edits" and/or "against a community ", perhaps those who are currently as page content have problems and untruths and can be further improved by academics and scholars who today, unlike before are much more freer to write history as it was.  Bes-ART Talk  20:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My advise stands, and is a friendly one and about how to improve the deteriorating situation in this article which this month has seen more reverts than in the previous months. Some competency is required at how to avoid stirring up even more disruption. Now if you want to see it as Witch Hunting, then your problem, not mine. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles hasn't deteriorated. It has improved because narratives which aren't supported in bibliography have been removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. "Improved?" Some competence here please? Reverts and content disputes can endanger a GA status. . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article has been improved. The same edits were removed by admins too. If the article was placed in GA review now, it wouldn't pass it because many sources don't discuss the narratives of the sections. It passed a GA review in 2009 - we're entering 2022 in a month.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was about to correct you now that it was 2019 that it passed review. Only when you mentioned it I checked it now a second time, I realized is indeed 2009, not 2019. However you really need to take in consideration that you have been involved in way too many disputes in the past with several of the editors around here, and bringing there the edit wars from other Balkan articles, won't be helpful. Knowing the editors around here, it will be best of you keep in mind that WP:BRD still stands: if they revert you once, don't revert them back. In this case, bring it here to the talk page and if none else here objects within a reasonable time, even the editor who reverted you, then you may add it back to the article. For me, the edit that adds Bugh, Glenn (2006), seems fine, and if you are really neutral and care about maintaining GA, then we can start with this edit by Ahmet Q..
 * The source states:
 * "However, the evidence of counter-flows precludes us from imagining old Greece as being entirely like late nineteenth-century Ireland after the emigrations of the 1840s and after. Some flows were voluntary, such as those of Syrians to Delos, Demetrias, and Corinth, of Jews to Asia Minor, Greece, and Cyrene, or of Egyptians towards the major Aegean ports. Others were forcible, the products of the slave trade. They formed a continuous low-level Brownian motion throughout the Hellenistic world and beyond, punctuated by occasional peaks, such as the influx of Italian slaves into Greece during the Second Punic War, the deportation of 150,000 Epirotes into slavery in Italy in 167 (Polyb. 30.15), the massive recruitment needed to restart the silvermine production at Laureion after 164, or the glut after 146.41 Though, as usual, we cannot quantify them, such shifts (and no doubt others we cannot yet even detect) not only gave the late Hellenistic world, especially its cities, a much more ethnically mixed population, but also enlarged those cities dramatically, creating at least three new mega-cities (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and perhaps Seleukeia), each large enough to equal if not surpass Babylon. Public order, the demands of the construction industry, and above all the logistics and control of food supply combined to generate wholly new patterns of supply and demand."
 * and as you can see, the edit can be improved alot further before it is re-added back to the article. But considering the editor's problematic contributions log which show a bias against certain ethnic groups, leaves me no option but scrutinize the edits they make and this is an example of scrutiny. If their next edits on this article are perceived to be WP:CHERRYPICKing on sources to POV-push the article in ways remiscent in nationalist Albanian propagandas, then that won't be helpful. And no, what I am saying here is not "witchhunting" as fellow editor Bes-ART may be thinking, but something everyone is supposed to know. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment We discuss subjects based on bibliography. If reliable bibliography discusses such movements and their role in the formation of new communities, they should be mentioned. Motives and personal beliefs aren't part of the discussion in terms of WP:RS.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent job SR, the initial proposal has a certain POV as well as serious CHERRY issues. I believe a more generic statement is warranted in this case. By the way the example of the 150,000 Epirotes as a representative one in the Hellenistic world falls into wp:UNDO if mentioned.Alexikoua (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahmet wrote that What would you change now that you read the full quote?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The key words: "Many Greeks migrated" and "Greece because of these migrations saw a general demographic decrease and depopulation" are not in the source, are editor Ahmet Q's choice of words. One would assume WP:GOODFAITH, that these are the obvious interpretation of what a source says. But comparing what Bugh, Glenn (2006) says with Ahmet Q's quote, its evident that the editor is far from offering an accurate interpretation of what Bugh, Glenn (2006) does actually say. Am I correct or not, Maleschreiber?
 * Btw, thank you, Alexikoua.
 * Maleschreiber, I think I am not the only one here noticing the problems. Alexikoua also noted them. Now I hope with this example of source falsification, I am making clear what kind of controversial edits should be avoided at Greeks in the first place, trigger reverts, and cause the article's destabilization, if the editors truly aspire of being neutral and help improve the article.
 * Before we proceed with the correction of the POV-pushing edits by Ahmet Q, I would appreciate if Maleschreiber and Alexikoua also check the source so that they verify whether I am correct that these key words are indeed missing from the author's text. I want to make sure that I avoid any mistakes here on my effort to correct Ahmet Q's ones. If the key words are somehow in the source but I missed them, then I will apologize to Ahmet Q. :-) Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 01:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just got informed by an Admin from the AE that they added the article Greeks to their watchlist. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 06:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

is the previous section from the one you quoted. The book does describe depopulation and migrations from and into Greece. It should be added back to the article. Durraz0 (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly Durraz0, it is weird that SilentResident did not include that part in her quote, but since the source is available on google anyone can make up their own opinion about it. your accusations of me having  is extremely inappropriate. I don't know if you realize but this constitutes a personal attack. I would advice you to refrain from doing this again and to focus on the actual subject of the discussion. Ahmet Q. (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In your edit we can find this Overall, in many regions of the ancient world including Greece, the Hellenistic era produced a much more ethnically mixed population the sources says this Such shifts (and no doubt others we cannot yet even detect) not only gave the late Hellenistic world, especially its cities, a much more ethnically mixed population, but also enlarged those cities dramatically, creating at least three new mega-cities (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and perhaps Seleukeia). The source mentions the Hellenistic world as broad and does not specify Greece as you did. The cities mentioned are the colonies of the Greeks outside of "old Greece". This needs to be reflected accurately which currently isn't. Additionally, there was no general demographic decrease, the author does not refer to that, there was depopulation of the rural areas (due to the population movements to the cities). The author even specifies that However, the evidence of counter-flows precludes us from imagining old Greece as being entirely like late nineteenth-century Ireland after the emigrations of the 1840s and after I am working on your edit to fix it because it seems slightly flawed, you missed probably some details. No harm done this happens. Othon I (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahmet Q, I asked for verification from Maleschreiber and Alexikoua about the full verification, but your answer doesnt address source falsification:


 * "the scale of depopulation of rural areas of old Greece" is ≠ "Greece because of these migrations saw a general demographic decrease and depopulation"


 * I believe that Ahmet Q should at least provide here the full quote, copy-pasted, so we can know exactly what parts of the source were used so we can make sure we did not miss something. That will clear things outright about whether there is indeed misrepresentation of what the source says. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the source I suggest that Ahmet's edit to become the following: During the Hellenistic period, population movements occurred from Greece to the centres of the Hellenistic world and other Greek colonies. These movements contributed to the creation of at least three new ethnically mixed cities in particular Alexandria, Antioch and Rome however, at the expense of the depopulation of rural areas in Greece. As Greeks moved to the Hellenistic centres of the ancient world, so did people like Jews, Syrians and Egyptians move to the periphery of Greece. Additionally, during the Second Punic War the Romans deported 150,000 Epirotes to Italy as slaves and Italian slaves were introduced in Greece. It should also be noted that these movements also resulted to the generation of a completely new pattern for food and construction supply and demand. New sea routes have been established and knowledge transfer and sharing occurred from one city to another. Thanks. Othon I (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good re-wording, Othon I! Well done. It reflects alot more accurately what Bugh, Glenn (2006) does state and is addressing the problematic combination of "Many Greeks migrated" and "Greece because of these migrations saw a general demographic decrease and depopulation". You have my support, however I think I can come with a proposal that can reflect on source even better to eliminate any likehood that it will be challenged.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks SR. Certainly, please feel free to make a suggestion if you believe that it can be improved. Othon I (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a more general description. The source among other things, describes this a "low-grade Brownian motion" and emphasizes that "its scale should not be exaggerated". I would thus propose something like During the Hellenistic period, population movements occurred from Greece to the centres of the Hellenistic world as well as movements from the periphery to Greece, although the scale of these movements should not be exaggerated. These movements have been described as "low grade Brownian motion" and contributed to the growth of new cities such as Alexandria and Antioch.. I don't think Rome should be included, it never had a large Greek population, certainly not compared to Alexandria and Antioch. Khirurg (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend a simple key word change to Othon's and Khirurg's proposals, i.e. "rural" to be added: "During the Hellenistic period, population movements occurred from rural Greece to the centres of the Hellenistic world and other Greek colonies." (additions in bold) because the source is referring to rural areas. Also per WP:RELEVANT (this article topic are Greeks), the usual practice is to not go into much details about migrations concerning non-Greeks or what destinations these populations had. For this reason, information such as "so did people like Jews, Syrians and Egyptians move to the periphery of Greece" and "three new ethnically mixed cities in particular Alexandria, Antioch and Rome" may be added to more relevant articles such as: Hellenistic Greece, Egyptians, Jews, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome, among others. With these concise proposals, the reader can be updated on the subject without deviating from the topic. When I am editing articles, I always make sure to mention 2 things with WP:RELEVANT in mind: only the subject of the article, and the event involving it/relating to it. That's all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is an important point. Khirurg (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed SR and Khirurg, that's a very good point that I did not consider. SR, could you prepare you final suggestion and place it here? Thanks Othon I (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "During the Hellenistic period, population movements occurred from rural Greece to the centres of the Hellenistic world and Italy, although the scale of these movements should not be exaggerated. These movements have been described as "low grade Brownian motion" and contributed to the growth of new cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, and perhaps Seleukeia". Please note how I added Italy, since the Epirote movements were considerable nevertheless, and there are WP:RS suggesting that Seleukeia was known for having a presence of these people as well, besides Alexandria and Antioch. I suggest we leave this out: "Public order, the demands of the construction industry, and above all the logistics and control of food supply combined to generate wholly new patterns of supply and demand." since this happens with migrations nevertheless and regardless of people, and thus better have this kind of information added to the history of cities and economy in the region rather than attributing it solely to specific groups of people, i.e. Greeks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source talks about regions in Greece. "Low grade Brownian motion" can be described in different terms because Brownian fluctuations are difficult to understand for many and the change in population levels from and to has to be noted in a way. During the Hellenistic period, population movements occurred from Greece to the centres of the Hellenistic world as well as from Mediterranean regions to Greece, although the scale of these movements should not be exaggerated. These movements contributed to the growth of new cities such as Alexandria and Antioch. Apart from voluntary migrations they included the forced movement of 150,000 Epirotes in Italy and Italian slaves in Greece. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahmet Q., the forceful movements such as of 150.000 Epirotes may be added and mentioned expicitely in the article Epirotes if they must, not here. Here, they may only be mentioned summarily. i.e. "Hundreds of thousands of Epirotes were deported to Italy in slavery" (but even that may have to be reworked and shrinked since the Hellenistic section is too small and this may give it undue weight still). What I am telling to you is no different than what the article Greeks has already done for other similar cases, i.e. the Pontic genocide. The article Greeks avoids explicitely giving pop figures or details about Pontic Greek movements as well. This is because the present article's scope isn't to go into details about individual subgroups of Greeks but to mention their most notable events summarily.
 * About Brownian motions, you are right. I agree that "Low grade Brownian motion" can be described in different terms because Brownian fluctuations are difficult to understand for many and the change in population levels from and to has to be noted in a way." Considering this, I would like to change my proposal above and remove any mention of Brownian motions from it, and rather move them to articles about the Hellenistic era if they have to be mentioned at all. The present article's focus is about the Greek people and only. And unless the author explicitly mentions that the migrations of Greeks caused/contributed to the migrations of foreigners, these foreign migrations are not WP:RELEVANT here. If the case here was different, i.e. the author linked these migrations explicitly, then the editors ought to have them mentioned only summarily and briefly, if they agree to ever add them. The same is true not only about Hellenistic period's movements but also movements of other periods: the article carefully avoids any mention of Armenian movements during their Genocide which concurred with the Greek movements during the Greek Genocide, for obvious reasons even though the Genocide scholars agree that they relate due to being part of the same genocide policy by the Ottoman authorities. Hope I am clear. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have to mention Brownian motion, but I also don't think we need to mention the Epirote thing either. Best to keep it general, otherwise I'm worried this will lead to mention all kinds of specific movements, which will result in article clutter. I would strongly prefer to keep things succinct in this article, per WP:SS. Khirurg (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Khirurg. I have reworded the initial however, our topic is Greeks and my text and Ahmet's had some slightly WP:COATRACK material. The movement of 150k slaves to Italy and the introduction of Italian slaves in Greece or the impact of these moves do not really fit to a summary article as such. However, are important to add to the related articles to provide more depth. SR's text is what will suffice. Othon I (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Brand new book summarising the history of the Greeks
"The Greeks: A Global History" Roderick Beaton, Basic Books, Nov 2, 2021 - History - 608 pages, ISBN: 1541618289. In The Greeks, Beaton traces this history from the Bronze Age Mycenaeans who built powerful fortresses at home and strong trade routes abroad, to the dramatic Eurasian conquests of Alexander the Great, to the pious Byzantines who sought to export Christianity worldwide, to today’s Greek diaspora, which flourishes on five continents. The product of decades of research, this is the story of the Greeks and their global impact told as never before. I thoroughly believe that it will provide great contribution to the article especially for the Middle Ages and the Ottoman times. Othon I (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)