This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
Continuity Model of British Ancestry is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Can someone please give evidence that this is (recently) a notable and distinct topic in a (relevant) scholarly field? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I notice that the sources are old and appear to be WP:FRINGE ideas. Secondly, if the aim of this article will be to discuss ONE type of argument, but uniting many different periods, it certainly looks like WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, and it will also inevitably be a WP:FORK of the article which handle conventional scholarly positions about each of the periods in question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said on another talk page, Andrew, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia :-) The references show that this topic is notable.
@JASpencer: I recommend using and citing RICHARDS, M., C. CAPELLI & J.F. WILSON. 2008. ̳"Genetics and the origins of the British population", in Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Chichester: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0020804. As a high-quality tertiary source, it would help to show the notability of this topic, and is a good summary of where the Continuity Model was at around 2008. Do let me know if you can't access it and I'll send you a copy :-) Alarichall (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall: which reference shows this? Give a quotation showing how this topic is referred to. Don't just tell me they exist. (See WP:ONUS.) I see some obsolete old fringe theories, and I also see no evidence that anyone (including these sources) has ever published anything linking them all up and calling them a model. It looks like this topic is a problem under a large number of guidelines including WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. I also can't see a clear definition in the article about how this article's topic is defined. That's a fundamental problem as well, both for editors and readers. This has absolutely nothing to do with not being a paper encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is close to a fringe theory now, but it wasn't 15 years ago. It permeated popular views. TV programmes like Britain AD (and Britain BC if you want a non Saxon example) were dominant both at an academic and a popular history level. I suspect @Alarichall is more sympathetic to the view than I am, and I'll leave it to him to defend its current non fringe status - but it is a view that should be recorded and treated with respect. Also some of its less extreme findings (at least post Beaker People) are incorporated into the current synthesis. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose all of the parts of this article are discussed in other articles or am I wrong? As a SINGLE TOPIC, it does not deserve an article unless it is (as a single unified topic) notable and discussed in reliable sources. I have asked for evidence of this. I am hearing crickets so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiley encyclopedia article "Genetics and the Origins of the British Population" that @Alarichall mentioned is a reliable source and is marinated with this view. It can be found in the Wikipedia Library under Wiley. JASpencer (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marination is not good enough, as it clearly implies this is an original synthesis. Can you cite some text which mentions the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and mentions a list of notable publications united by it, corresponding to the list given here? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW 2008 means this article is from before the use of any kind of ancient DNA at all, or even autosomal studies of modern populations. This is in other words essentially from a time BEFORE the DNA studies which are now considered strong enough for meaningful statements to be made sometimes. This article appears to be purely about a snapshot of a period when DNA studies were being attempted for the first time. They are dreaming of bigger Y DNA studies but we know now these can't give these answers. This is all superseded, and known to be wrong. Furthermore the only mention in the article of models is clearly referring to what they call the "traditional model" from outside genetics involving massive population replacement. It does NOT mention any new opposed model coming from genetics, but only that better data is starting to suggest things might be more complex. The article hopes for more in the future. As far as I can see this article can't be used to prove the existence of the model this article is about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that to an extent @TSventon and am open to it, but as a counterpoint unlike 1500 years of writing on the Anglo-Saxon settlement the genetic history of the British Isles has had 30 years, so not really had that much time to have numerous arguments, to be affected by (and to affect) vastly different intellectual environments and to develop recurring themes. There's essentially one argument - were our genetics a product of invasions? Perhaps a large area such as archaeogenetics may have a historiography by now as that area has more than one argument going on. JASpencer (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the field or movement is not yet well established in reliable sources then by definition it is not yet ready for Wikipedia. We don't aim to have articles about everything which has every appeared in a BBC programme or tertiary source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: given that population genetics is not a branch of history-writing how can it have a historiography? Of course historians of ideas could potentially study the history of population genetics one day, but it has just started, so are there really any notable publications about this yet? Not every topic, not even in history, has notable publications specifically about the history of ideas. (And we are talking about a few articles about DIFFERENT topics, published during a very short period, so they may never come to be seen as being united under any specific historical topic.) Am I missing something? Also in Wikipedia it is certainly not common for articles to all have corresponding articles about the history of the ideas connected to them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: But if this article here is not specifically about genetics, then what would be the difference between this article and the other new one which was recently created? (Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain) Secondly, IFF the difference is that this one will unite discussion of that, with discussion of different periods such as the Iron Age, or Neolithic, then how would we be justifying/sourcing (a) the connection between publications about completely different topics and (b) the distinction between the only thing which unites those topics (study of population changes) and Genetic history of the British Isles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alarichall and JASpencer: as mentioned above, at first sight, the old encyclopedia article you've cited here on the talk page as justification for this article's existence does not even imply the existence of any distinct "model" or movement. It is an article from before the existence of any strong genetic evidence. It reviews some of the small amount of path breaking work prior to the time, which (at least now in retrospect, but I would say also as it was seen on WP at the time) did not yet really provide any strong evidence regarding ancient migrations. It only suggested that there were signs that FUTURE work might challenge the "traditional model". It does not describe any single non traditional "model". This article therefore appears to be an original thesis of yours being published in Wikipedia. It unites obsolete publications about different topics (for example different periods) into a single movement that never existed. (What united the authors mentioned is that they were pioneers playing with the new technology. Nothing else that I can see.) Unless you can find a real justification for this article, it looks like this article should be deleted. Have you found any better sourcing or rationale?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect that on the evidence in the article as it is an Article for Deletion would result in keeping this, perhaps with a rename. It was clearly an established view with a lot of popular support and the fact that it's got fewer adherents now is not a reason for getting rid of this article. JASpencer (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, maybe you would understand things better if you also tried to define this supposed "model" which you're failing to find sources for. If a couple of articles once raised doubts about a model (the traditional model) then this clearly doesn't mean they all shared any opposed model, does it? It would at best simply mean that they might all be mentioned in articles about that OTHER model. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think think the various sources for (Palaeo/Meso/Neolithic)/Metal Age etc. continuity theories add up to anything resembling a unified topic. Any notable information here can be merged at (Genetic) History of the British Isles and elsewhere. Tewdar 11:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The continuity model is that there were no significant individual events that added to the British gene pool after the first post glacial settlement. JASpencer (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JASpencer: you answered that The continuity model is that there were no significant individual events that added to the British gene pool after the first post glacial settlement. Putting aside that you have no source mentioning this model, if that's all you mean then this is just a single proposition that something didn't happen. This clearly isn't a "model". (I also have doubts about whether there is any RS which truly agrees with this proposition, because you've made it extremely simplistic, apparently in order to obscure the big differences between the publications you're trying to lump together. No wonder you first explained the sources in terms of marinades!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
