Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles/Archive 1

Population genetics
I'm not sure what "genetic history" is, as I understand it "history" is a description of events recorded by people either during or after those events, and the subsequent study of these events. So for example we differentiate between pre-history and history because one is recorded and one is not. Archaeology, the study of prehistoric human life, is not a part of history. Likewise genetics is not a part of history. We already have an article called Population genetics of the British Isles but probably Population genetics of Great Britain and Ireland would be better because I was more or less called a racist a while ago for including Ireland in the term British Isles, apparently it's offensive and we must say "Great Britain and Ireland". Anyway the term "genetic history" doesn't make any sense to me. Alun (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * the title is supposed to parallel Genetic history of Europe. Obviously, "history" here isn't used in the sense of "historiography", but in the sense of "diachronic series of events". See also the Category:Modern human genetic history category. This is pure terminology, just like the "British Isles" nitpicking. The intended scope of this article should be clear, but it can of course be moved to a different title if there is a consensus. The term "British Isles" is not equivalent to "Great Britain and Ireland". The latter includes two islands, while the former includes some 6,000 islands, among them the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Isle of Man. Population genetics of the British Isles is just a redirect, and should point here now. If you prefer, we can move this article to Population genetics of the British Isles, no problem. dab (��) 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally agree that British Isles is better than Great Britain and Ireland, but I've actually been called a racist and an imperialist for using the term "British Isles", I've even been accused of denying Ireland's right to exist, something I found astonishing when it happened. As far as I was concerned British Isles was just a geographic term, but apparently it has a whole host of political connotations that I was previously unaware of. Take a look at the British Isles naming dispute article to see what I mean. As far as I knew the term "genetic history" was not a recognised term in the field of population genetics and seemed to be something of a neologism. Most sites returned when one googles for "genetic history" seem to be dedicated to selling or discussing personal DNA tests and say something like "your personal genetic history". I personally prefer the more normal scientific term "population genetics", it's more widely used and understood. But maybe that's just a question of my own subjective preference, after having a look at PubMed Central there are 303 papers that refer to "genetic history", either for populations such as this, or for individuals as in "personal genetic history" such as this so I'm happy to keep the title as it is. By the way I think it was a good idea to split the articles. Alun (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Great Britain" is of course a single island, formerly known as Albion. "Britain" may be ambiguous, but "British Isles" and "Great Britain" aren't. Ireland is one of the British Isles, and has been since the earliest appearence of the term Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι. It is particularly silly to exclude Ireland seeing that the eponymous Priteni did appear to live in Ireland. This "dispute" is petty squabbling in my book, and I do not think there is an interesting debate in this, and I would prefer not to be distracted by it. --dab (��) 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To a certain extent I agree about the pettyness, though on the other hand people do feel strongly about ethnic identity and it's hard to argue that someone doesn't have the right to identify how they like. Having said that, this is an encyclopaedia and so these considerations must be considered secondary to things like readability and common knowledge. I would point out though that the term "Great Britain" is actually often used to denote the largest island in the archipelago and the smaller surrounding islands, indeed the full name of the UK is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is implicit that all of the smaller islands are included in the term. The article Great Britain attributes this to the different meaning of the term from a geographical or political perspective. Politically Great Britain refers to the Kingdom of Great Britain which was formed from the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England (which included Wales at that point in time), this entity therefore included all of the islands associated with Scotland and England, but not those of Ireland, often the term in this sense is still used, even though this political entity has not existed for centuries. Geographically the term only refers to the largest island in the archipelago. As a Brit living in Finland I am constantly asked to explain why I get annoyed at being called English or when people talk about England when they mean Great Britain or the UK, it's a complicated place and often our assumptions about it are confounded, even for natives. I personally was very surprised to read on Wikipedia that Great Britain can mean the largest Island and all of the smaller islands surrounding it or it can mean just the biggest island. We're a funny lot and we come from a very odd place where it is difficult to easily explain the multiple levels of political and cultural identity we all have. After all that waffle, I'm happy to keep the name of the article as it is but it's also good to be aware than things are not always as straight forward as we might believe. Alun (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree: it isn't "hard to argue". Anyone may call themselves whatever they like. But not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is bound to WP:NAME, which states that we'll stick with the most commonly used term in English. Anyone unhappy with terminology needs to build a case that their preferred terminology is in fact more commonly used in relevant literature. I am sorry, but Great Britain refers to an island, the largest of the archipelago known as "British Isles", with an area of 209,331 km². The Great Britain article is duly graced with Infobox Island. I appreciate the political complications, but they are there in the real world, and they don't take away the fact that the island needs to be referred to somehow. This has to do with the history of imperialism of the Kingdom of Great Britain (named after the island), in the 17th centruy directed against Ireland. This is completely beside the point for the purposes of this article, which only deals with remote prehistory anyway. We just need to stick to the most commonly used geographic terminology and then stick to it, relegating all discussion of "implications" to Terminology of the British Isles. We should at this point proceed to addressing the actual content of this article. --dab (��) 10:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree: it isn't "hard to argue".
 * Well you may find it easy to tell Irish people that they are "British", that's your prerogative but personally I would never be so arrogant as to tell someone else who they are.


 * Wikipedia is bound to WP:NAME, which states that we'll stick with the most commonly used term in English.
 * Umm, did't I actually make this point myself when I wrote: "Having said that, this is an encyclopaedia and so these considerations must be considered secondary to things like readability and common knowledge."?


 * I am sorry, but Great Britain refers to an island,
 * And? I didn't state anywhere that it doesn't refer to an island. I actually said that it refers to an island in some contexts and a group of related islands in other contexts. I don't see where anythig you have written contradicts anything I have written.


 * which only deals with remote prehistory anyway.
 * Well if we're talking about remote prehistory, when the region was first populated by AMH it wasn't an island at all, it was a peninsula on the continent of Europe. Alun (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * well, I'm glad we agree then. "AMHs" don't enter into it, since the islands were again uninhabited by the LGM. I won't tell Irish people they "are British" just because Ireland is one of the British Isles. Yet one of the British Isles it is, unless some other terminology should become established (the "Hiberno-British Isles"?). It is not for us to coin new terminology like that. dab (��) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone on Wikipedia called you a racist and an imperialist? I've been called a vandal for reverting back to British Isles (for which I extracted an apology), and there have been a lot of threats of the 'I'm going to report you type', but that sort of name-calling is much worse.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I got over it, it was a couple of years ago when things got really heated on the British Isles talk page, though it was a shock to me to be called something like that. On the other hand it may have made me a mite oversensitive about use of the term, hence my ambivalence here. I've been called a lot worse here since then!! Alun (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need to be disabused of the naive belief that there are no racism implications for this sort of study, here's [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=624342 a group that thinks otherwise], and citing this very article, no less. RashersTierney (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So a genetic study is mentioned by a poster on a white supremacist internet forum. So what? If anything, by showing the fundamental links between human populations, genetic studies should invalidate racist claims that one group is 'superior' to another.Pondle (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice paper
Here's a nice paper giving an alternative view to the "apartheid like social structure" paper. Is it necessary to assume an apartheid like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England? Alun (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also necessary to be a subscriber. Very useful - NOT. RashersTierney (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to be constructive. Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources, often sources are not free, that does not mean that they are not reliable, and it does not mean that others, who possibly do have access to the article, or indeed who might actually want to pay to read this particular article, would not find it interesting/useful. Making sarcastic comments just because you don't have access to a journal is not what the talk page is for, the talk page is for discussing the article. Alun (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An extract from the paper would have made relevant information available to everyone. It might even have fascilitated discussing the article. I accept that pay-per-view or institution-only access in articles may be useful, but here? RashersTierney (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles?
I think not. Get over yourselves. Ireland is Irish. You people and your fanatical claims have done enough to this country. 212.2.163.164 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to British Isles if you have a problem with the terminology. BTW if by "you people" you are referring to people born on the island of Great Britain, then you're barking up the wrong tree, this article was not started by anyone with any connection (that I know) to Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Alun (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I believe that Wikipedia is a wonderful tool that everyone can reference and benefit from, however as an Irish Citizen, I am highly offended when The Republic of Ireland is referred to as a part of the British Isles. Given the history involved, I feel I a more suitable title might be The Genetic History of Ireland (Eire) and the United Kingdom. Ireland ceased to be part of Britain many years ago and I doubt Wikipedia would want to make such an offensive error. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.78.180 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL lets just make it "Cruitne Isles" or Pict Isles, geez get over it

B TW Ireland was never a part of Britain, it was a part of te UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.23.242 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that the title of the page should be changed to Genetic history of the Britain and Ireland or create a separate page for Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose - there is no reason to change this title, it has been stable for some time. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article should be 'split' into 'Genetic history of Great Britain' and 'Genetic history of Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * agree - split the article ClemMcGann (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * agree - the current article under the current title is a racist, imperialist abomination. Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Racist? Lmao get real BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Racism, look it up. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful article, i dont see how this applies to the title of the article though. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From when exactly are we to consider "the population native to the British Isles". RashersTierney (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These kind of political-semantic arguments are a little tedious to me; in the 'real world' the exact title of this article is used by geneticists, and as far as I can see it is not perceived as problematic. I would suggest "Genetic history of Britain and Ireland" as a compromise, but that would leave out the other islands. Pondle (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not address the question? RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending to respond to your comment - I was making a general point before you posted. Perhaps I should have pasted it in further up. Pondle (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be interesting to count these geneticists by nationality! Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd stick a smiley in there quick. Could end in ArbCom ;-) RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UT
 * Here's an Irish-born geneticist using the term "British Isles".Pondle (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fancy. And the message is...RashersTierney (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? Sarah777 was implying that "genetic history of the British Isles" is an exclusively British, even 'racist' (!) term. As far as I can see, the term is used by a variety of geneticists of different backgrounds. The article A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles was written by academics from universities in the UK, Norway, Denmark, Italy and the USA. The term doesn't seem to be perceived as problematic. Pondle (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you find a Wikipedia article titled "Genetic history of the German people" equally unproblematic? RashersTierney (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article deals with several islands collectively. So far as I can tell, most of the substantive research which it reports deals with those islands collectively. There is an article which deals with the geography and natural history of those islands collectively. That article currently has a certain title. It seems to me that the title of this article should reflect the title of the more general article. Unless and until the title of the more general article is changed, in my view it would be confusing to readers to change the title of this article, which should therefore remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll say this, if preserved in its present form, this article could serve as a rather perfect illustration of WHY many Irish people have a problem with the term "British Isles." It jumps back and forth between simply naming the islands "the British Isles" and using 'British' and 'Britons' to collectively describe the people of the islands--"British population", "British ancestry", Origins of the British etc. (Interestingly, other than 'Origins of the British," the other study quoted seems to avoid the "BI" term and is named simply "Blood of the Isles") Nuclare (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My difficulty with this 'history' project goes far beyond the British-Irish thing. In fairness to most British people I know, nothing could be more repugnant to their sense of Britishness than one based on biometrics. I'm a bit surprised that this DNA-based essentialising of identity 'hasn't provoked a backlash against the essentialists. RashersTierney (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view the article should cover the genetic history of the people who live in the islands (which has nothing to do with "biometrics", by the way). It most definitely should not attempt to cover the genetic history of the so-called "British people", whichever definition of that mongrel entity you choose to use; and should even more certainly not attempt to cover, or suggest a connection with, people's senses of cultural identity within any or all of the islands.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A perfect illustration of the fuzzy thinking behind this article. And this particular history discipline has everything to do with bio-metrics. RashersTierney (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephen Oppenheimer himself admits that "connections between culture and genes are likely to be tenuous". And DNA studies do reveal that human ancestries are very complex - who would have thought that you could find typically "West African" Y Chromosomes in long-standing Yorkshire families? Pondle (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a genetic history of Europe article too and I don't see anybody complaining about "imperialism" on there, despite the fact that in real world contemporary politics, materialistic plutocrats are trying to turn the ancient countries of Europe into a United States Lite. Both are geographic terms and its fine outside of political context IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't meaningfully discuss 'identity' outside a political context IMO. RashersTierney (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't discuss "identity"; it discusses genetics. Quite different.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its an amalgamation of 'genetics', 'history', and 'British Isles'. A total dog's supper in fact. RashersTierney (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not really about identity. But 'British' is an identity term and it's being used in a sloppy way at times in the article. But, then again, when one of the chief sources in an article about Britain and Ireland chooses to call itself Origins of the British that's not terribly surprising. Nuclare (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree: Split the article into 'Genetic history of Great Britain' and 'Genetic history of Ireland' as per the suggestion of User:GoodDay. 78.16.179.152 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You cannot split the article into two, that would be a pov fork. On the other hand there are papers published about the genetics of the island of Ireland, that would make an article of it's own. But there are many papers/book published that treat the genetic history of the population of Great Britain and Ireland as a single subject.

2) The article used to be called it something like "Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland". This was because the term British Isles is offensive to many citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Somewhat later the article was split, and this article about the genetic history of the Isles was created. The person who created this article called it "British Isles".

3) This "British Isles" debate is a perennial debate on Wikipedia. But here's one point about Wikipedia, it always uses the most common terminology, it does not coin neologisms, and frankly it doesn't care if some people are offended. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that offend me, but frankly there are more constructive ways to contribute than to fan nationalistic flames. Some people are intent on being offended. This is not an article about politics or nations or states, it is about populations. It is in the main about the deep genetic history of human populations from a geographic entity. The people living in this region at those times would not have identified themselves as British or Irish. Political / ethnic identities change constantly and are of relatively modern invention.

4) If you want to change the name of the article, then I'd be more than happy to call it "Genetic history of Great Britain and Ireland".

5) You could engage by actually doing some research and improving the article, rather than generating plenty of bluster but no constructive or substantive contributions. Personally I have no time for nationalism, especially when it descends into name calling.

Alun (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please forgive the brevity of my response, a bit constrained for time at the moment. Your initial title "Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland" was far more precise as a description of what this article is about, as far as I can tell. Even "Prehistoric settlement in the British Isles" would, for me, be relatively unproblematic since in a prehistoric context, they are more obviously a geographic entity. The introduction of 'history' into the title creates difficulties. History is a social construct. My question is, what is being constructed by this fusion of science (genetics) and art (history). I am not being critical for its own sake, nor am I looking for a new battleground to endlessly poke at the 'British Isles' dispute. I'm not sure what critical work has been done so far in this arena of 'genetic histories', but will pursue it if it is insisted that that phrase be retained in the article title. It seems to me that would be unnecessary if the title reverted to something more like your original. RashersTierney (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is now a completely separate article at Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles - that was previously Settlement of the British Isles and before that Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of merging that article with this one, and I don't have a strong view (!!) about whether it should refer to "BI" or "GB&I".  But I do believe, strongly, that the article should clarify rather than confuse the differences between genetic evidence for prehistoric settlement, and cultural / linguistic evidence.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO in a context like this, it is more political to assert that they should have separate articles. The British Isles is not a political unit, it is a geographical archipelago... an archipelago that is permanent. None of the islands are moving anywhere, but political units change over time.

Much of genetic history of the islands is relevent to all. For instance genetics has been able to show that the isles were settled in prehistoric times by people from Iberia. This "truth" was encapsulated in Irish folklore through the Milesian legends, but is relevent to both. Or for instance if you take the population of Ireland in 1850; more of the descendents of these people today live in Great Britain than in Ireland (almost twice as many). Population movement and genetics of the archipelago should be on a geographic basis as they are heavily interlinked. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RashersTierney, I'm a little confused about your argument. Are you trying to attack the validity of using genetics to understand past human migrations? If so, on what basis? As far as I can gather as a non-scientist, this is a respectable, mainstream field of research. I'm sure that individual studies have their methodological flaws and limitations. But we already know, or can infer, that there were various population movements in ancient history and prehistory - genetics simply gives us another source of evidence to understand them. To quote one of Stephen Oppenheimer's replies to a similar critic, do you "long for the good old days when historians, archaeologists and linguists could speculate on European invasions by Indo-Aryans, Kurgan horsemen and Celts, free of troublesome biological evidence"? Pondle (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am wary of how these kinds of studies can and are interpreted, particularly to people with limited knowledge of the science involved ( which is most of us when it comes to analysing probabilities). I am less concerned about the implications for historic migrations than those that refer to 'native populations' and 'founding stock' which are then presented as more authentic than later arrivals. I'm just saying a little less unbounded enthusiasm until broader implications are examined might be judicious. RashersTierney (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but we shouldn't censor the encyclopedia because we're concerned about how some people might interpret or misinterpret it. We just have to present verifiable material in as neutral a fashion as we can. For me (as I said to you in the conversation about racism above), one of the key themes to emerge from the study of population genetics is how closely connected different populations are. All modern humans are related to a small group of people who trekked out of Africa a mere 60,000 years ago. Population genetics looks at differences in gene frequencies that vary continuously (i.e. change gradually across space). We cannot identify a distinctively 'British type' or 'Irish type' as the physical anthropologists and race theorists of yesteryear once tried to (e.g. 'Alpine' and 'Nordic' subrace etc etc.)Pondle (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the discredited physical anthropologists of the '30s and the genetic anthropologists of today are, as you seem to imply, of a different ilk. I also think they are as likely to absolve themselves of all responsibility for political 'misuse' of their endeavours.  RashersTierney (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Modern population geneticists such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, one of the leaders in the field, completely reject the concepts of 'race' that used to be so crucial to physical anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon. If you read one of Cavalli-Sforza's books you'll see him denounce the absurdity of race throughout.Pondle (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not all his co-disciplinarians agree, as highlighted by this article, showing multiple examples of its persistence. IMO the (former) eugenics labs and their associated academics have been a central driving force behind producing this new form of popular entertainment, including here at Trinity, with a pragmatic view to ensuring continued funding for their core research. This isn't the most tidy of debates and we seem to have drifted somewhat from the central issue - the name of this article. But an accurate name is important because it sets the framework for future content. RashersTierney (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well on page 32 of the book you link to the authors do say that "race is neither an accurate or useful concept, unless it is used in such a loose sense as to mean population". But yes, there are some anthropologists (a minority) who still believe in race. As you say, we're off topic here and the name of the article is our main concern. I'm happy with the current title - there are several Genetic history of X articles. But if a collective decision to rename all of them was taken I also think something such as Population genetics of X would be appropriate.Pondle (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The same tired old nonsense from the usual POV pushers. The only valid reason to split this article would be if, despite objective reality and historical fact, it was accepted that the term "British Isles" did not generally include Ireland. Given that this has yet to happen wasting time debating the issue here or trying to set up votes on splittin the article to create a POV fork is nothing more than something of a timewasting, trouble-stirring circle jerk on the part of those who cannot accept that southern Ireland breaking away from the UK has absolutely no bearing upon the fact that the island of ireland is geographically part of the British Isles. siarach (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "4) If you want to change the name of the article, then I'd be more than happy to call it "Genetic history of Great Britain and Ireland"." Well as somebody who comes from one of the British Isles which is neither Ireland or Great Britain i most certainly would not be happy to see this article split because some POV pushers can't handle geographical realities. Unless, that is, you are quite willing to put in the research and the work required to write a distinct article on the genetic history of every individual island that makes up the British isles which happen not to be the "Britain and Ireland" of the proposed compromise title? After all we wouldn't want to risk offending any nutters from Man, Wight, Raasay, Papa Stronsay, Eriskay or wherever who might have some politically motivated dislike of the geographical term "British Isles". It's pretty simple really; either Wikipedia remains true to its principles and we keep articles rooted in objective fact without regard to anyone who might personally be offended by them or we sell out and let POV pushers dictate what is and is not acceptable regardless of reason or objective, verifiable facts. siarach (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all objections to the term are "politically motivated." As I said above, this article itself is good evidence of why many Irish people justifiably object to the name. You talk about verifiable facts, but what are the verifiable sources in regard to this article's subject?: The article seems to be based predominately on the work of two researchers--one names his book "Blood of the Isles" (when, frankly, Blood of the British Isles would have been a snappier sounding title) and the descriptions of the book I've read talk in terms of "Britain and Ireland" as being the subject of the study. The other source is Oppenheimer's "Origins of the British," which based on that 'verifiable' title would imply it's not even about all the British Isles. But, of course, it is. And that's part of the sloppiness that the 'British' of "British Isles" seems to lead to. It's one thing to use "British Isles" as a proper noun name of the islands; it's another thing to translate the noun/proper name "British Isles" into equaling British. Which is what Oppenheimer seems to do and this article does several times: it speaks of "British regions", "British ancestry", the "British population" in instances where the whole study appears to be what is being discussed. There are no absolute facts about what names should or shouldn't be used in regards to this subject. Scholars themselves make a variety of different naming choices on this subject. Nuclare (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. "British Isles" is a recognised geographical term. It is not supposed to imply that they belong to the UK (which would be a political term, if so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy1289 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming. British Isles is a recognised term and in terms of genetic history all parts of the Islands are closely related. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  21:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

'Native population': Singular
From when exactly are we to consider "the population native to the British Isles"? RashersTierney (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the term "native" is misleading. As far as I understand it "native" simply means someone born in a place doesn't it? It's even more misleading to use the term "indigenous". Like all populations there has been constant mixing between the various peoples inhabiting the various local regions of Europe. Gene flow has been ongoing throughout Europe for millenia. Obviously that gene flow is greater between geographically proximate regions than it is between geographically distant regions. And obviously the descendants of incomers who were once considered "foreign immigrants" (e.g. Romans, Saxons, Danes, Hugenots etc.) are also the descendants of the very first peoples to colonize the region, these populations have never been reproductively isolated. Alun (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

intro problems
"Population research using DNA became possible in the 1990s."
 * Who says this? I don't think this is true, population genetics has been going on for much longer than this. This needs clarification and to be cited from a reliable source because I'm sceptical. Genetic research does not require DNA analysis, this article is about genetics and not molecular biology. Even the opening sentence makes this mistake "Population research using DNA is initiating research into the genetic history of the British Isles." But it's not true that no genetic research was done prior to the advent of DNA technologies. Much research was done on blood types, that is genetic research, though it does not require DNA technology.

"Prior to this various other research methods were used but these did not prove satisfactory."
 * What were these "other" methods, why were they unsatisfactory? Please avoid weasel words. Such a bold statement needs a citation.

"The first published studies used mitochondrial DNA to study the female line of descent"
 * Cite these first published studies, when was this done? What did they tell us about matrilineal origins?

"and then it became possible to use Y chromosome DNA to study male descent lines."
 * Why did it become possible? What was the time-scale? Does the paternal line give different results to the maternal line?

"Whole genome studies have been made recently."
 * By who? When? What do they tell us? Cite a source. Do the mtDNA, Y chromosome and autosomal studies support each other? What do they tell us about the origins of the population?


 * I am under the impression that Y chromosome, mtDNA and autosomal studies contradict each other somewhat with regards to population origins. This should be included in the intro. Alun (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Studies that have been carried out on the populations of Britain and Ireland, as well as of Europe in general allow comparisons to be made"
 * Which studies? What sorts of comparisons? What do they tell us? What are the conclusions?

"however, such studies are as yet fairly limited in scope and further work is needed."
 * In what way are they limited? Who says they are limited? What don't they tell us? Who says "further work is needed" and why do they say it's important? Cite a source.

A great deal of speculation, many claims made that aren't supported by citations. Someone needs to produce a more coherent intro. I haven't read the rest f the article, but a brief skim over it and it appears to be very disjointed without a clear understanding of what the article is for. Alun (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger(s)
Make your mind up, DinDraithou. Which article do you want this one merged with? The same content can't be usefully merged with two articles. This diff suggests that, actually, you are more concerned about the use of the "BI" term (which, funnily enough, I'd agree with you about) than the Genetic history aspect, which is your purported subject of concern. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to do anything right now. The tags can stay for awhile as reminders of options while we're thinking. I've needed to catch up anyway and have probably twenty articles to read. This and that may appear in my userspace for convenience before I create anything because I like to be thorough, as you'll know if you've ever read me here, and this may turn out to be quite the little project. I don't know yet. DinDraithou (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not trust very much a user who makes such arbitrary accusations about scholars without supporting them.jUNE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.152.172 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from the edit history that DinDraithou is now proposing mergeto:Genetic history of Europe and mergeto:Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles. It is very confusing having the same discussion spread out over two sections can we please consolidate it into one section? If so I suggest that all the conversation continues in the next section-- PBS (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources (possible deletion or merge candidate)
Unfortunately Oppenheimer is considered junk by geneticists and scholars alike and will have to removed from the article, even if he is still treasured by some. Sykes is better but is also out of date, and no article cited is more recent than 2006 except for Cruciani. On top of this we have the understandable concerns about the singular "Genetic history" of the so-called British Isles. Finally, the article is for the most part not terribly well put together, largely because of the nature of its sources, and what good material there is is either covered elsewhere or should be covered elsewhere. Thus it should be retitled and rewritten, simply deleted, or "merged" with Genetic history of Europe, which it should be noted does not cite Oppenheimer. DinDraithou (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That is, it does not cite Oppenheimer anymore. :) DinDraithou (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "...Oppenheimer is considered junk by geneticists and scholars alike.." Ref please.  Reverted until you find them.  You may well be right, but I'm not just going to take your word for it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * DinDraithou is bang on the mark here. This entire article was one long Oppenheimer promo.  A look at its early history will clarify that it is a classic WP:POINT article. In fact, several Wikipedia articles are heavily distorted by Oppenheimer nonsense. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But do you have any refs saying something along the lines that "...Oppenheimer is considered junk by geneticists and scholars alike.."? Daicaregos (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the fact that Oppenheimer is neither a population geneticist nor a trained scholar enough? It should be. The reason I don't need to provide a reference is because he's not relied upon by people who value their careers (meaning he's not cited), or their money (his little company didn't keep its promises). Oppenheimer's a writer of speculative popular works, population genetics fiction, which sold very well but which should never have been used for Wikipedia. It's here because it sold well and was hyped by some interesting fringe elements, mostly aspiring academic socialites, lurking about somewhere in England close to Oxford. We don't cite the Spacing Guild in astrophysics articles and don't need to say why it is that Melange (fictional drug) does not in fact assist modern starship pilots with interstellar navigation. DinDraithou (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's definitely not enough for someone listed as a member of staff (under "associates") of Oxford University's Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, who started similar work in the early 1980s (initially focusing on the Pacific), and who has (co-)authored articles in Science (journal), Nature (journal), American Journal of Human Genetics, Molecular Biology and Evolution, World Archaeology, the Springer book Human mitochondrial DNA and the evolution of Homo sapiens, and the Cambridge University Press book Simulations, Genetics and Human Prehistory – A Focus on Islands. And that's in addition to his books having been published by various respectable publishers and his articles for the respectable mainstream press. And of course his work in his original field (which included publications in the Lancet.)
 * If you want to argue that that's not enough to take him seriously, a priori, then pray tell us your real name and point to your superior credentials to convince us that we can take you more seriously. When did you last publish in a high quality scientific journal on any topic at all? Hans Adler 12:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * References:  Hans Adler 12:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not so much that Oppenheimer is being used at all, it's the way he's being used. As it is, he is quoted, uncritically, as if he were the final word on British and Irish population genetics, all across Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, no-one who's been active in recent debates on this has opposed adding referenced criticism of Oppenheimer, alternative theories or newer data. I don't understand why other editors who are apparently (or claim to be) expert in this field aren't doing so. To paraphrase what Ghmyrtle said elsewhere, isn't it straightforward to draft something along the lines of "A says X, B says Y, the consensus is Z etc etc"...?--Pondle (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I maintain is that he is still unqualified. Oxford has been known in recent years to employ celebrity personalities, apparently for the benefit of the university. Harvard does a lot of the same. From his list of publications I see nothing special leading up to his book, or following it, on the "Origins of the British". It's that ce-le-bri-ty... cheah. DinDraithou (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________

I oppose the suggested merger. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any special reason? DinDraithou (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DinDraithou, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I see Oppenheimer's work discussed critically in the blogosphere, but I remain to be convinced that his work "is considered junk by geneticists and scholars alike". Who said that, when, and in which publications? Please provide some reliable sources before making drastic deletions. Thanks.Pondle (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are rather more criteria than that for articles on scientific topics, and your highlighted accusation of weaseling comes across as defending the POV and commercial nature of the article. I'll not discuss blog material, which you're not supposed to use, especially when it's personal like that is and not even focused on the genetics. A Polish friend of mine's blog is EuroGenes if you're interested in informed discussion of actual scientific studies, new ones too. DinDraithou (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is the fact that Oppenheimer is neither a population geneticist nor a trained scholar enough?" No it isn't.  He set out theories, which were in opposition to other theories, and have no doubt been thoroughly rebuffed by others.  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."  "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories like the Face on Mars can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia — as notable popular phenomena."  And so on.  What the article should say about the validity or otherwise of Oppenheimer's theories can be discussed here - but his views have been prominent and widely discussed, and need to be set out here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppenheimer and Sykes are best discussed as in Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA). Their inspired findings are best set out in the best places for them, namely their own articles. There is no requirement that every article which mentions Mars must discuss the Face on Mars. Btw I love how you couldn't resist in White British. DinDraithou (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) I see the sentence "Stephen Oppenheimer also deals with this haplogroup in his book Origins of the British, giving the R1b clan patriarch the Basque name "Ruisko" in honour of what he thought was the Iberian origin of R1b." without a source. That is hardly the best discussion of a controversial subject I have seen in a Wikipedia article. Whether or not this article is accurate or not, is not a justification for deletion or merger unless there is no scientific research and speculation into the genetic history of the British Isles. If there scientific research and speculation then there is no reason why experts on the subject should not rewrite this article so that it does reflect the current state of such research. --PBS (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see from the edit history that DinDraithou is now proposing mergeto:Genetic history of Europe and mergeto:Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles. --PBS (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose such mergers, although the article does need a major clean up. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Move on 12 November 2009
Without any attempt at consensus (eg using WP:RM) DinDraithou made a controversial move "Genetic history of the British Isles" to "Genetic history of Britain" and then repeated if when it was reversed. At some point a cut and past version was copied to this location. I have now zapped that cut and past version the missing history of it now exists in the logs but is now deleted from the article page history here are the missing entries: I have now reverted the moves and edits back to how they were before today. To stop page move wars do not move this page in the next month unless there is a clear consensus to do so expressed through a WP:RM request. -- PBS (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16:43, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Britain over redirect: political concept)
 * 16:44, 12 November 2009 Ghmyrtle (rv undiscussed changes) (undo)
 * 16:47, 12 November 2009 DinDraithou (moved Genetic history of the British Isles to Genetic history of Great Britain: see talk history where already discussed) (rollback | undo)


 * Probably the best idea. There needs to be a good reason and consensus on the reason to do anything like this. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned now this little article can stay as a curiosity. It's really not worth fighting with people who don't read enough on the subject to know what's cited and what's not outside the world of Wikipedia. In fact the way to go might be to fill up the article with even more coffee table trash and outdated studies. I'm sure there's some wonderful stuff out there on Atlantis and Stonehenge. I'll start looking. DinDraithou (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DinDraithou, please read WP:CIVIL. Rudeness, personal attacks, and sarcastic taunting really aren't on.--Pondle (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, but humour always is. Instead of being specific, please be more vague. DinDraithou (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that many people are finding you particularly funny lately.--Pondle (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which people don't you think? DinDraithou (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome sentence
Paleolithic Europeans seem to have been a homogenous population, possibly due to a population bottleneck (or near-extinction event) on the Iberian peninsula, where a small human population is thought to have survived the glaciation, and then expanded into Europe during the Mesolithic period

This is false. I cannot recall any study which asserts confidently that Palaeolithic Europe was genetically homogeneous. If there is one, it would require in-line citation. I think whoever wrote the sentence has confused themselves. The studies have, rather, shown that Mesolithic Europe became more homogenepus because of population bottlenecking with subsequent expansion. The bottlenecking did not cause a homogeneous Palaeolithic population becuase the events occurred subsequently. Hxseek (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a general consensus that one of the main problems with this article is that it does not report all sides of what are technically complex arguments in a rapidly moving area of research. I have no background in genetics.  However, I'd happily support major edits to the article - or particular sentences - if they contribute to a more balanced and up-to-date picture, and - above all - if they are properly referenced, which I think is particularly essential on articles like this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article desperately needs attention from dispassionate expert editors who can communicate the implications of recent studies simply and clearly. I've tried raising the issue at the Wikiproject Human Genetic History talk page.--Pondle (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture
I have created this section for the material from Oppenheimer and Sykes, so that we can expand the old sections freely with high quality sources. A real question is whether much of Oppenheimer should also be considered FRINGE and perhaps be put in an appropriately titled section below this one. DinDraithou (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This entire proposal is so completely inappropriate that I really don't know what to say. You are supposed to acquaint yourself with guidelines before you refer to them in this way. It is beginning to look as if you are deliberately trolling. Hans Adler 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not understand that only popular works call haplogroups Velda and Ruisko? This is why this article will never go anywhere. And to start things off I added high quality sources at the beginning of the article! Now I'm giving up again. DinDraithou (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to develop a consensus approach here. In my view, the radical reshaping of the article and the description of Oppenheimer and Sykes' publications as "Popular culture" was unnecessarily provocative, but equally it is clear from positive discussions elsewhere that DinDraithou is certainly not a "troll" and is able to make valuable academic contributions in contentious areas such as this. I have suggested that one way forward would be for DinDraithou to develop his proposals for improving this article in a sandbox first, and seek comments on that redraft prior to publishing it in article space. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's NPOV to bracket the Oppenheimer and Sykes books as part of 'popular culture', which I associate with mass audience entertainment. Martin Rees of the Royal Society says that popular science books can convey complex ideas. Popular science author Pat Shipman says that her books are used in courses as well as appealing to a general readership. Just because Oppenheimer's and Sykes' books were popular does not invalidate them in itself. Whether they are/were 'right' or not is a different matter.--Pondle (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well they are and they are widely regarded to be unuseful in the professional and amateur communities. But the main reason I moved the material is that it takes up approximately 3/4 of the page when it deserves no more than maybe 1/16 tops. Most of it should simply be removed, but I worried it would simply be restored. As it is no one will waste their time with the main text, knowing whatever they might add that references high quality sources will be almost invisible and make the narrative even more incoherent. There is no way the article can be properly "updated" (written) if editors need to fearfully work around massive amounts of this popular material.


 * Ghmyrtle, thank you for the nice words and the good suggestion but I really don't want to try to shape the whole thing. I only wanted to make it look possible to others and didn't expect moving those passages would prompt such a response. I hoped the response might be positive. Oh well. DinDraithou (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The basic issue is that a clear summary of the most up-to-date research needs to be upfront in this article, written in a way that is accessible to non-specialists. If there is ongoing dispute, or differences of opinion, whether between different academics, or between academics and popularisers, they need to be set out and explained.  There is then scope for the popularisers' arguments (and I agree with Pondle that they have written "popular science" - "popular culture" can be interpreted as being a pejorative phrase in this context) to be set out (much more briefly than at present), and critiqued.  The "problem" is that WP needs people with an academic knowledge of genetics to be involved in articles like this - it cannot be right for WP simply to either summarise the views of the popularisers, or alternatively to rely on highly technical articles like the articles on various haplotypes.  There needs to be a coming together of up-to-date research and accessible explanation.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My two cents were called for. Oppenheimer and Sykes are popularizers of science. They also of course have some scientific standing, but the books which tend be cited on the internet, including Wikipedia, have the following problems: Not sure if this helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were highly speculative, trying to paint a picture from very little data.
 * They did not take account of all data, and all possible interpretations of the data which was available at that time (you can not paint a picture with lots of options)
 * They are old books that are out of date on many or most things. (Things move fast in genetics.)
 * Speaking as a layman with a passing interest in this topic, but absolutely no relevant expertise, I understand that Oppenheimer and Sykes must have their weaknesses, and by now their theories might be obsolete. But we can't just take anyone's word for it; as Ghmyrtle has said, we need expert editors to provide an accessible explanation of the state-of-the-art in this field, properly referenced. I don't know who will be willing and able to take up the challenge.--Pondle (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Properly referenced is the key word. Once an editor has set off my nationalism alarm bells I am not going to trust them and will insist on scrupulous sourcing, observation of rules regarding improper synthesis, etc., the same way that we do for promoters of fringe theories. Everything else would be imprudent. Hans Adler 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the challenges of writing Wikipedia articles in this field is that there is hardly any secondary literature - literature to guide us concerning what is most mainstream and up-to-date. All we can do is cite the primary literature, which of course requires going through the details to show how each out-dated idea became out-dated. Of course what is newer and what is older is uncontroversial, but if someone wants to stick their feet in the ground and call this synthesis, requiring too much original and non-obvious thinking in order to know which new articles to take most seriously, then we have a problem. The implication of making such a strong claim is however surely not that by citing this Wikipedia rule and claiming it is being broken that you get the right to chase away people who disagree with you and leave disputed old material in Wikipedia. I and many others would say that a lot of what is currently in this article coming from Sykes and Oppenheimer is plain wrong, borderline fiction even when it was written, and uncontroversially known to be wrong now. I do not think that just leaving it there is a good option. The real implication of claiming that this field's primary publications are not good enough sources is that the article should not exist, because the sources are not good enough to reach a consensus. However that would seem silly in this case, because the primary sources are basically non-controversial to people who know them and the only people raising doubts are ones saying they do not follow the field closely. So I am not sure that is the point you are trying to make Hans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it is not beyond the more academically trained contributors on other articles here to set out, in reasonably accessible and neutral terms, a few sentences explaining, in broad outline, the work that has been carried out by recent researchers - including an explanation of the areas of research that are still uncertain and/or contentious. Once that overall framework is set out, it will be possible for, perhaps, a wider range of editors to place the work of the popularizers like Oppenheimer into a more balanced and neutral context - and, if it is misleading and/or outdated, to cut a lot of the detail out.  One of the problems here is that some of the articles contributed, here and elsewhere, by academics on haplotypes and so forth are, frankly, unintelligible to the average educated reader (including me, and for what it's worth I do have a First Class degree in an unrelated subject) .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ghmyrtle. We have a guideline to make technical articles accessible and generally avoid unnecessary complexity. This is an encyclopedia for a general reader.--Pondle (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's really kind of irritating and you don't seem to understand what is really technical. Nothing in this article is techical and it is most akin to watching a child audience program (a bad one) on the Discovery or Science channels. The now near-flagship Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) is not technical. You seem to asking for these special subject articles to unncessarily explain what you are not interested in enough to piece together from here and there like everyone else does. It is not the job of these articles to piece it all together for you today, so you can then forget it all tomorrow. You may think you should know something about it, but you are really just uninterested, and I know that because this stuff is not even close to hard. DinDraithou (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh come on DinDraethou. I've never seen a "child's science programme" use a term such as 'phylogeographic mapping', which is included in this article without explanation. As it says in the MoS, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not "to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary".--Pondle (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are all talking past each other. What I was responding to was a controversy about citing Sykes and Oppenheimer. Discussion of these two sources is now the core and structure of the whole article, but as I mentioned, they are wrong. Just adding a few footnotes won't do it I fear. If that would do the trick then I'd just do it and not post here first. I guess I am saying that nearly all of that material should be deleted. Maybe Oppenheimer and Sykes can live on in footnotes themselves, but the current article needs a new backbone. Or at least this is my opinion and contribution to the discussion I thought was still not closed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, please would someone tell us "children" what the core of the article should say?? There are some of us who would desperately like to improve this article - and if that requires taking out, or substantially modifying, what is currently the bulk of the article, that may well be fine.  The problem is that there seems to be a view that the Oppenheimer and Sykes text should be deleted - but I have yet to see any substantial text, that is understandable to the general reader, which should replace it.  It cannot just be deleted without any explanation other than "I think / we think it's wrong".  It is very frustrating.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to delete nearly all of it a while back, but was reverted. Later I tried to move it all into its own section, but was reverted. Now I am a 'nationalist'. I wonder what will happen if you try to remove Oppenheimer and Sykes from the backbone. DinDraithou (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * DinDraithou, if you want to put this article on a different, more correct basis then that's fine so long as the basis actually exists in reliable sources. That's not what you seemed to be doing here, and since the topic is strongly related to the (sub-)national conflicts that are going on in the UK and your user page makes it very clear that you are strongly interested in such things and you have resorted to name-calling instead of proffering scientific arguments or reliable sources, I think it's perfectly appropriate to suspect a nationalist motivation.
 * Andrew, you seem to have a more constructive attitude. Oppenheimer and Sykes are very widely read and widely cited on this topic. If they are wrong we still need to explain their positions and explain why they are wrong. That's the kind of information that their thousands of readers expect to find here. And if you want to say flatly that they are wrong that's fine so long as you have excellent sources for doing so. If, however, the best thing you can find is other people saying something else in reliable sources, then you can present that as well, with appropriate weight. But if the only thing you have is a few highly technical publications that basically consist in numbers and nothing else, with not even so much as a review by an other expert that says "The most recent data seems reliable and hard to reconcile with the theory of X", then, I am afraid, this article will have to represent the positions that have actually been published, whether they are right or not.
 * If I have understood DinDraithou correctly in the past, then he has been claiming that in this field for some reason the "real" experts don't publish proper papers but only tables with numbers or something like that. If that's true then that's a very strange problem in that field of study and should be rectified as soon as possible in the field itself. Wikipedia's purpose is not to correct malfunctions in the scientific process. It is to accurately describe the state of academic debate. If the "real" experts don't participate in academic debate, we can't cite them.
 * Moreover, the experience in other fields shows that in the majority of cases the "real" experts who are not getting published aren't experts at all but proponents of fringe theories. Wikipedia is unable to find out whether this applies here as well or not, so we are not going to bend the rules for this specific case. Hans Adler 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think both your experience and authority are pretty limited, Hans. Besides revert warring there is little you can do to stop the transformation. Apparently you have nothing to contribute. Be sure that if Andrew gets going some of his peers here will eventually follow. DinDraithou (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, I am perfectly aware that this area suffers from the pre-scientific approach that is still too common in archeology and some neighbouring areas, and that it needs fresh air from proper scientific research. But the problem with the archeology approach is precisely that they are relying on the authority of speculations by well-known personalities rather than proper scientific arguments. Your speculations or those of your or Andrew's anonymous "peers" are not an improvement over speculations by identified widely printed and discussed authors with academic positions. Wikipedia is not the proper place for the original publication of your research, and that includes synthetic claims. If you are not competent enough or not sure enough about a claim to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, or if it wouldn't survive a peer review, then it doesn't get published by Wikipedia either.
 * It turns out that my Wikipedia experience and authority aren't all that limited. I rarely edit war, since there are much more effective ways to deal with POV pushing. From this experience I can tell you: If you are actually right, acting as if you were pushing a fringe theory is the most stupid approach possible. Hans Adler 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hans, and I think some people in this conversation are talking at cross purposes. The first port of call, should be to find a paper by an expert in the field written in the last year or so that clearly states that the science and conclusions of Oppenheimer and Sykes books are outdated, rubbish or whatever. Any such paper would of course simultaneously include a survey of more recent papers and the conclusions that they draw. Even if such a paper does not exist (rubbishing Oppenheimer and Sykes), there must be a paper that presents a more recent proposition citing recent work in the field. In which case the older research can remain in the article with a paragraph on more recent opinions (that allows a reader to see how the field is developing). What we can not do is add to this article Wikipedia editors unsourced opinions on the subject, because that would be a sin. -- PBS (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New and old studies
OK, I seem to have maybe jumped in too quickly and indeed there is some talking at cross purposes. If I understand correctly, the accusation being made against Din is that he writes too technically, while Sykes and Oppenheimer are easy to read. Din seems to be taking that criticism at face value and assuming that he is dealing with people who are going to defend Sykes and Oppenheimer at all costs. Actually I don't see a lot of evidence that Din is insisting on writing bad English just because he rightfully criticizes such things as ethnic sounding "clan names" instead of haplogroup names which are used everywhere. (Sykes and Oppenheimer don't even use the same names.) And I think it would also be worth Din trying to make proposals again and see what happens, without assuming that he is dealing with luddites. In other words I propose all sides just assume the best and start trying concrete proposals again. I'll start with some pointers:-
 * Here is a new article which finally makes a clear case for what people in the field knew for a while, that R1b did not come from Spain to the UK: . Unfortunately I can say even this article is years behind what is known but not yet published.
 * I propose that long discussions about the careers and cleverness of Sykes and Oppenheimer are unencyclopedic and/or off topic and should be removed.
 * There are lots of un-sourced op-ed style comments such as the claim that Welsh people today claim "a heritage back to the Iron Age tribes". Do they really? I do not recall ever meeting any person without a specialist interest who had an opinion about whether their ancestry in a region was back to the Iron Age as opposed to the Bronze Age or Stone Age or Roman era! I bet you can find a source for this, but it is obviously way off topic and controversial, so leaving in this kind of material is a bad idea.
 * The key sources for British Y DNA are known and should be cited. There is Capelli, Weale, and yes, there Sykes is a geneticist, and his data surveys are important too. Any others? We can make a simple table of major haplogroup frequencies?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Capelli is an important one and contains a pretty comprehensive data table: also at.
 * .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for raising the quality of the debate considerably. I hope we can all keep it on this level. The Balaresque et al paper is a very stimulating read. Hans Adler 11:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree - now all we need to do (!) is to summarise it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think one of the practical problems which has held Din back is the old practical one on Wikipedia of "too much to do, where to start". For some sections it might be a good idea to start playing with a draft page? The structure right now is very difficult to just tweak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I might try to help, but not before next week. Hans Adler 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No deadlines. I also am not sure of time availability, but I've put this on watch now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster you wrote "There are lots of un-sourced op-ed style comments such as the claim that Welsh people today claim "a heritage back to the Iron Age tribes". ... but it is obviously way off topic and controversial, so leaving in this kind of material is a bad idea." It may be off topic but it is the standard in the building of Welsh national identity (along with, chapel, male voice choirs, and the intention to win the next Rugby World Cup) and is defiantly not controversial. The Welsh consider themselves a Celtic nation descended from the iron age Celts, (whether or not that is true). It is reinforced by the national curriculum (see History in the national curriculum for Wales (English version), page 12 (a document from Welsh Government national curriculum page). --PBS (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Views like "The Welsh consider themselves a Celtic nation descended from the iron age Celts, (whether or not that is true)" are indeed standard and conventional in defining Welsh identity.  That is why challenges to that view are controversial.  But, modern scientific evidence still needs to be reported here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that views of Welsh prehistory have changed. The Encyclopedia of Wales says that "the present tendency is... to maintain that Wales had received the greater part of its original stock of peoples by c.2000 BC" and "there is growing support for the view that... what were traditionally considered elements of Celticism were in fact indigenous British developments".--Pondle (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that to say that many Welsh are descended from the Iron Age tribes that were in the area before the Romans is probably uncontroversial. The uncertainties include (1) where did they come from, and how long had they been living in the same area - that is, were they descended from Neolithic people living in Wales?; (2) how different is that pattern of population history from the pattern that applied in other areas of Britain, particularly England?; (3) the relationship between the genetic development of the population within Wales and their cultural and specifically linguistic development, as clearly Welsh is a "Celtic" language; (4) did the Welsh language develop indigenously, or was it brought in by invaders or settlers ("Celts") from Europe?  Some of these questions may have answers of which I am ignorant, others may not.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe my point was not clear. I have no problem saying that the Welsh see themselves as Celtic. But do they take a national position from childhood about things like the iron age or anything else exact about the details of all the complex discussions about how academics and others DEFINE Celtic? I do not think so? I never heard this mentioned even by rugby players. :) What are the words "iron age" (just those) adding to the article and how are they sourced?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frequently the commonly perceived pop national history is decades behind academic research and frequently emphasise things which a more neutral history might not do as biased history is part of a nation building exercise. For example look at the different interpretations of the part played by the different nations that took part in the battle of Waterloo by the different nations which took part in the battle, or the squabble over Montgomery's contribution in the Battle of the Bulge, or the emphasis on the development of inventions such as the telephone and television (was the telephone invented in the USA or by a Scot?). I thought the source I provided answered you question " What are the words "iron age" (just those) adding to the article and how are they sourced?" it says "the daily life of people living in either the time of the Iron Age Celts or the Romans" which is an indicator of the type of thing kids in Wales learn in primary school and as such is common knowledge in Wales (and England which follows a similar curriculum). But as I said before I am not sure if this particular sentence is needed in this article, the only point I was making was that it is not controversial, but well known in Britain that the Welsh see themselves as descended from "Iron Age Celts". -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that they do. Celts in a vague way yes, Iron Age, not. Is it really worth arguing about though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We of course now have Bramanti et al 2009 plus Malmström et al 2009 saying that European mtDNA is predominantly Neolithic. DinDraithou (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if they are specific about much in Britain? I guess that the article has to point out differences and similarities with Europe and we'll need to be careful about quoting articles about Europe as a whole.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then we can't use Balaresque or virtually anything from the last few years, because this article artifically limits us socio-culturally. In that case it should be deleted and its good content distributed to other/new articles. DinDraithou (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please - there is no need to delete this article, and suggestions that it should be deleted just detract from the discussion. It needs to be improved - substantially.  If the article title is a problem, that should be addressed as a separate issue.  But the priority is to improve the content of the article, by using whatever relevant information is available.  If some of the information which perhaps should be used can't be used because it covers a wider area, so be it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so be it. The British Isles are not a sufficiently distinct region in Europe from the point of view of genetics. That is the problem. The perspectives for the creation of this article were historical, and 'cultural' from a specifically British perspective. The inclusion of Ireland is especially artificial given the existence and classification of Goidelic and what we know from archaeology. This article will need to defend its existence in the introduction as well as in the main discussion. If it can't, it should be deleted. DinDraithou (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How are you defining "sufficiently distinct"? There are surveys which talk about things which even differ between regions in Britain. And frankly I think you know better than some of your interlocuters how this could be put together. There is nothing wrong if you want to give up on this article yourself, but I do not think you've made a case for deletion. However, I think you could improve this article quite a lot if you wanted? I get the feeling your disappointment with its current state is perhaps understandably getting you a bit too negative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's exactly it. These are little regions of Europe, not of the so-called British Isles. The genetic histories of England-Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, are quite distinct from one another. In each we have evidence of unique cultural features reflecting and continuing to influence their genetics. The existence of this article obscures that. DinDraithou (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, editors are perfectly free to improve Genetic history of Europe first, and then to come back and make consistent changes and improvements to this one. The more reliable information that non-specialist editors have, the more likely they are to come to properly informed decisions on this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another new study:


 * Collard et al, Radiocarbon evidence indicates that migrants introduced farming to Britain, Journal of Archaeological Science doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.11.016 DinDraithou (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links Din and Andrew. I just noticed an article from the 19th which notes the PLoS article that Andrew linked to at the beginning of this section: Most British men are descended from ancient farmers.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am curious why none of Walter Bodmer's work has been cited here? He is soon to be releasing the full results of the People of the British Isles project, and preliminary results were released in 2007 on the Face of Britain series and the book of the same name. Heinz von Biboo (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more for the list. Someone going to do anything with all these? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning E1b1b in England.
 * Concerning Ireland: http://www.jogg.info/51/files/Wright.htm
 * An analysis of the Oppenheimer data http://www.jogg.info/32/campbell.htm
 * I think this one might be very useful: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msp022
 * Surnames, Genetic genealogy http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525%2809%2900133-4
 * http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239/
 * McEvoy B, Bradley DG. Y-chromosomes and the extent of patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames. Hum Genet. 2006 Mar;119(1-2):212-9. Epub 2006 Jan 12. PMID: 16408222
 * McEvoy B, Brady C, Moore LT, Bradley DG. The scale and nature of Viking settlement in Ireland from Y-chromosome admixture analysis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006 Dec;14(12):1228-94. Epub 2006 Sep 6. PMID: 16957681
 * "In the name of the father: surnames and genetics" - Mark A. Jobling http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/SurnamesForWeb.pdf
 * THE HUMAN Y CHROMOSOME AN EVOLUTIONARY MARKER COMES OF AGE - Mark A. Jobling* and Chris Tyler-Smith http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/Jobling-NRG.Review.pdf
 * "In the name of the father: surnames and genetics" - Mark A. Jobling http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/SurnamesForWeb.pdf
 * THE HUMAN Y CHROMOSOME AN EVOLUTIONARY MARKER COMES OF AGE - Mark A. Jobling* and Chris Tyler-Smith http://homepage.eircom.net/~ihdp/ihdp/documents/Jobling-NRG.Review.pdf


 * Re the comment: "Someone going to do anything with all these?" The article needs to be improved either by someone with a background in genetics - or at least a substantial understanding of the academic terminology - or by someone who is prepared to devote a lot of time to gaining that understanding.  And, who is then prepared and able to summarise the material in a balanced way - which itself requires specific skills.  Either we wait for someone to come along here with those skills, or we wait for someone in the real world to prepare and publish a summary of up-to-date research - or, we somehow, between us, do the best we can here to bridge the gap that exists between the research and the public understanding of it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just started working on R1b and am not sure this is really an article I'll be spending a lot of time on, but I think that starting from scratch and reading the most recent articles first, any logical thinker may well be able to get something much better on this article. Like Din I would suggest not feeling too much remorse for the old version. I have it on my watch list so I can at least drop by when things are going on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this one: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/301 Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-Based Sampling: The Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in Northwest England --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)