Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles

Viking DNA

In the section pertaining to Viking DNA in Britain, in which it states that they estimate 6% of English DNA is from 'Vikings' and up to 16% in Ireland and Scotland, this seems to be false. The study cited is this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334525855_Population_genomics_of_the_Viking_world

The study itself is rather vague, and actually contradicts itself a few times. But interestingly it seems to have been somewhat misinterpreted in this section, as what it states is that:

"Within the British Isles, it is difficult to assess how much of the Danish-like ancestry is due to pre-existing Anglo-Saxon ancestry; however, the Norwegian-like ancestry is consistently around 4%. The Danish-like contribution is likely to be similar in magnitude and is certainly not larger than 16% as found in Scotland and Ireland.

...

The genetic impacts are stronger in the other direction. The ‘British-like’ populations of Orkney became ‘Scandinavian’ culturally, whilst other British populations found themselves in Iceland and Norway, and beyond. Present-day Norwegians vary between 12 and 25% in their ‘British-like’ ancestry, whilst it is still (a more uniform) 10% in Sweden."

The actual methodology and how it comes to these conclusions appears to be absent, and it contradicts other studies that have shown both smaller and larger concentrations of 'Scandinavian' ancestry in Britain and Ireland. However what is most prescient is that the study makes a point of emphasising that it cannot in any way accurately determine Viking DNA from Anglo Saxon DNA. If we average the 4%-16% as around 10% Scandinavian input, this could very well be Anglo-Saxon genetic input and would actually correlate rather well with Sykes and Oppenheimer. Either way, the methods used to ascertain this information and the fact that multiple studies consistently show different results for 'Scandinavian', 'Viking' and/or 'Anglo-Saxon' genetic influence is concerning. It could also actually be remnants of older British, Irish and Scandinavian admixture as some have theorised before, however this is currently not ascertainable information.

Either way, I think it would be helpful if whomever added the study and the interpretation of it's findings to the article could elaborate more. The section as a whole probably needs a revision, honestly, with more studies being cited and referenced and the current lack of consistent data being mentioned. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Article only mentions "People of the British Isles" project in passing?

I guess that we eventually need to make reporting of this project more central? I see we already have an article on the project. People of the British Isles. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Title Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The phrase "British Isles" to refer to the archipelago is no longer in use by the people of Ireland and an increasing number of people in Britain. As it is a colonial term used to prove British lordship over Ireland, I would like to propose that this article (and all other articles that this relates to) switch to the neutral and unambiguous term "British and Irish Isles", or the less common "Celtic Isles". NightingaleNI (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless that shift has become common enough to become the WP:COMMONNAME that's unlikely to happen at the moment. TylerBurden (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"In this Ocean there happen to be two very large islands which are called Britannic, Albion and Ierna, bigger than any we have mentioned." Aristotle, De Mundo c.iv Sthellier (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In this response there happen to be one very large British imperialist who takes pride in his/her country's slaughter of at least 100 millions of children, women and men around the world. British Isles is a term used by those who would like to see the Irish nation enslaved again 51.37.74.135 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

British Isles is objectionable to people who see it as a colonial term, but I do not agree that British people view it that way. I have never heard of anyone advocating recolonization. I am British and support Irish unification, and use the term British Isles as the name in common use, which is the criterion for usage according to Wikipedia rules. I have never come across British and Irish Isles before and it is very rare. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think this is meant to be malicious, it is just the most commonly used term for the islands in English (and also in other languages). From a personal perspective being neither British or Irish, I certainly do not mean it in any political way, it is strictly a geographic term. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

surely the point is that by continuing to refer to Ireland as a constituent part of the British Isles wikipedia moderators are denying the Irish people the right to identify as non British Islanders. Is it so difficult for English/British people to understand that I and most other Irish people do not wish to be associated in any way with Britain. For many of us the words British and Britain are interchangeable with the words genocide, invasion, oppression and discrimination. We have the right to choose our own identity. I cannot imagine why such malign intent is present in those who seek to deny us that right. Sister Joseph (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the island of Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles. There is no political entity called the British Isles, for the Irish to be part of or not. No population in the world has any rights to alter geography, except perhaps the Dutch. It is quite usual for island archipelagos to be named after their largest island. The Bahamas and Grand Bahama, for example. Urselius (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Not that I encourage it, but shouldn't this be discussed at Talk:British Isles instead of being proxy-trolled over here? –Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

can we not confront a wrong in the place where we find it? Is it not permitted to reach as many readers as possible by raising our concerns about discrimination in any forum where where that discrimination is present? Sister Joseph (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

So Ireland isn't part of the British Isles? What next? Britain isn't part of Europe? Canada isn't part of North America? Norway isn't part of Scandinavia? Does geography even matter?

Not all Irish people subscribe to the Republican narrative, there are at least a million people in Ireland who identify as British, or don't they count? In addition, there are an estimated 14 million people in England with Irish ancestry, something like a quarter of the population. Disentangling the Irish/English/British is a pretty tall order. Sthellier (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is already a Wikipedia page on 'The Plantation of Ulster.' If you wish to explore why descendents of English and Lowland Scots Planters retain an attachment to their homeland, you might try that page. Another example of such an attachment is found in the fact that the proudest boast among England's aristocracy is that they are Norman-French, and not Anglo Saxon/English. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the English themselves do not retain any loyalty to their ancient Germanic Fatherland. Insisting that the Irish accept inclusion in an entity with 'British' in it's name has a weaker historical basis, than asking the English to rename their country Germania Minor. Sister Joseph (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone with English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh ancestry "British Isles" accurately describes who I am and where I come from, if you find that offensive thats a matter for you. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless you were born in, and currently reside in Ireland, the naming dispute is none of your business. Why do you write that you have 'English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh ancestry'? Surely what you meant to say is that you have Irish and British ancestry. Unless of course, that you are suggesting an entirely new name 'THE IRISH ISLAND AND THE ISLAND THAT CONTAINS SCOTLAND WALES AND ENGLAND PLUS ALL THE SMALLER ISLANDS ISLES? The British Isles has a nice ring to it. Just remember that, Ireland is not part of Your island group. Sister Joseph (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not an online forum. This is a talk page for a specific article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree Andrew. I am simply trying to correct an error on the page. Surely we can all agree that the information contained in the article should be accurate and up to date? Sister Joseph (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with you but I respect your right to express your opinion. You have no right to tell me its "none of your business". 82.5.248.162 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Ireland's position as an island seperate from those islands that make up the British Isles is the business of the Irish. Too many British people speak about Ireland in a manner that suggests that they believe the entirety of this island is still occupied by British forces. As an British person, you are mistaken in your belief that the Irish need your input in order to be cured of the sillyness that makes us think that we are not British Islanders. Sister Joseph (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This Article is about WHO we are, our ancestry, our DNA. That DNA connects us, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. I refuse to be cast as "the other". You are bringing politics into a subject where it does not belong. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

We are in agreement. The page is indeed concerned with the Genetics of the British Isles. As Ireland is not part of the British Isles, the island has no place in the discussion. As an Irish islander I see the British Islanders equally as much 'other' as the residents of Mongolia or South Sudan. Sister Joseph (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If only it was so easy to separate the people of the two islands. Unfortunately for you there are too many people like me, with connections to both. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

As said below, not the place for this, this is a Wikipedia article talk page, see WP:NOTFORUM. There are many places where you can discuss this in general, but nothing is going to change here unless it's based on Wikipedia policy. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I see the British Islanders equally as much 'other' as the residents of Mongolia or South Sudan - F₃-statistics definitely don't support this assertion. Anyway, no matter what you or I think about the term 'British Isles', unless someone comes up with a really catchy name to replace it, Wikipedia is going to keep using it because it is the most common term for these islands. And this is not the proper venue for such a discussion anyway. Your options are either to discuss this over at British Isles, or attempt to split all articles about the British Isles into two, e.g. Genetic history of Britain (which redirects here) and Genetic history of Ireland (which redirects to a section in another article), and get Genetic history of the British Isles deleted. You really are just wasting your time discussing this here.  Tewdar  16:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Seperate pages would be the ideal result. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia, on this side of the Atlantic, appears to be dominated by British editors and moderators with a 19th century view of the world, there is absolutely no doubt that their prejudices will crush the separate pages idea. Sister Joseph (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The question is, does it make sense to discuss the genetic history of Britain and Ireland within a single article?  Tewdar  17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It does if you are one of those who view Ireland as a British island. Why,why,why do the British think in terms of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales. We are not the same people, we do not want to be your cousins. Last words from me, IRELAND IS NOT PART OF THE BRITISH ISLES. Sister Joseph (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please calm down. "Britsh Isles" is a geographic term, not a political one (as should be obvious from this article). Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

last last word. Of course 'British Isles' is a Geographic term, that is not in question. 'North America' is a Geographic term, and we know that Mexicans, Canadians and Americans who live there are North Americans. 'Scandinavia' is a Geographic term, the people who live there are Scandinavian. Therefore if must follow that those who live in the British Isles are British. Clearly, that is not factual. We can only conclude that Ireland is not part of the British Isles. Sister Joseph (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Last word, really? Promise? @All, let's hat this time sink, then. DFTT. –Austronesier (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This 'Talk' page is concerned with 'Genetic History of the British Isles'. Your comments appear to be unrelated the topic. Perhaps it was an attempt at British humor, meant to amuse other British people? Sister Joseph (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Its interesting how terminology changes, growing up in Ireland the blame rhetoric was generally anti-English rather an anti-British since the Scots and Welsh were considered to be fellow Celts and therefore "not to blame". Either-way I could never come to terms with the idea that the English side of my family were the enemy or people to be shunned. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The 'Talk' is concerned with the accuracy of naming Ireland as a constituent part of the British Isles. I see no 'Blame' being attached to anyone other than Wikipedia. As to "fellow Celts', while genetic connections between Gaels and Britons existed two millenia before the creation of the British, Ierne and Albion were not treated as a single unit. Sister Joseph (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Albion and Ierna were treated as a single unit, called the Britannic Islands as recorded by the Ancient Greeks 2,300 years ago. Great Britain (Albion) took its name from the name of the archipelago not the other way round. The archipelago didn't take its name from the name of larger island. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

please don't embarrass yourself by quoting Wikipedia. The ancient Greek historians and Wikipedia have two things in common. Both rely a lot on hearsay, and neither is a reliable source. Sister Joseph (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Quite right! We mustn't allow ourselves to distracted with the facts. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but unfortunately English-language Wikipedia could also be described as English Wikipedia. We are outnumbered, and might is right.

It is certainly a politically charged term. It's a geographical term as much as Gulf of America is a geographical term.

Why don't we refer to Poland as East Prussia? It's only a geographical term, nothing to be offended about. Wikiejd2 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought we had put this to bed! However...

Much of what is now Poland was East Prussia. Much of what was Poland is now part of Belarus and Ukraine. These are historical and geographical facts.

This discussion was about an attempt to deny the historical and geographical fact of the British Isles.

For my part, at least, it was not intended to offend anyone.

By the way, I am Irish but not all Irish people blindly subscribe to the Republican narrative! Sthellier (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Naturally I agree that 'not all Irish subscribe to the republican narrative'. In fact many of them have never been able to rid themselves of the inferiority complex that leads them to subscribe to the unreformed British Imperialist narrative. (The word Imperialist is used deliberately. Sister Joseph (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It is reported that around 6 million people in England have at least one Irish born grandparent and are therefore entitled to an Irish passport; that's more than the entire population of Ireland itself. Overall a quarter of the population have some Irish ancestry. The numbers speak for themselves, you are wrong, we are cousins. Sthellier (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As you mention cousins, I'm sure that you are aware that the vast majority of common English people will find their closest cousins in northern Deutschland, while the English upper class will find theirs among the French of Norman origin. An additional very small percentage of the English, those descended from Gallic Celts who conquered the island, will find thei cousins among the modern Gauls. If as you claim, the Irish are also your cousins, surely the Wikipedia page being discussed should look at the genetic connections of Ireland, Britain, Deutschland and France? Sister Joseph (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There will come a time where genetics has progressed further, and this geographic article will need splitting. (Indeed someone will inevitably try to make sub-articles before the literature really justifies it!) But for now you are just spouting 19th century ideas, which were not developed with the assistance of genetics. Genetic studies which can address these speculations have only just started. The studies so far have focussed mostly on the English and therefore not gone very far yet in studying the differences between the older British subpopulations and the Irish ones. It is in any case clear enough that the genetic history of Britain on its own (without Ireland) involves not only an Anglo-Saxon element from the other side of the north sea, but also various Irish-like populations. All these various sub-populations of these isles are related, interlinked topics. Once again trying to be practical, as Wikipedia editors we try to avoid dividing up topics which would essentially be mirrors of each other from different perspectives, like one about heat and one about cold.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to agree we are related to our nearest neighbours on the continent but we are discussing the British Isles. Sthellier (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Precisely, you are talking about the British Isles. Therefore, as a resident of Ireland, an island which is not part of the British Isles, I will leave the discussion to the residents of that island group. Of course, as we know that the British are incapable of respecting other countries borders, I will not be surprised when you continue to refuse to respect Ireland's position. Sister Joseph (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

So by disagreeing with you I am disrespecting "Ireland's position". What exactly is "Ireland's position", whatever you decide? This is laughable, who put you in charge? I have the right to express an opinion and shall continue to do so, whether you like it or not. Sthellier (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing an interest in learning of Ireland's position. In a nutshell, I will say that Ireland's position is that we reject any assertion that the peoples of these Islands are different branches of the same family. Sister Joseph (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sthellier's point to you is that what you say, (we reject...) is no more authoritative on Wikipedia than your antiquated and history-blind ideas about population replacements. If you don't have any sources to discuss, this discussion can be closed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are well aware, the rejection of the 19th century view of English origins has very little to do with developments in genetics. The rejection of Anglo Saxon origins started in England with the Great War and became establishment policy during WW2. This resulted in the Anglo Saxon language being renamed Old English. Other attempts to deny English origins included the claim that invading Germanic peoples had absorbed, rather than replaced, the Romano Britons and that migration from western and northern Britain, as well as from Ireland, had also contributed to the watering down of Anglo Saxon blood. The insistence on including Ireland in your British Isles serves to further strengthen English claims that, when taken as a whole, the islands and their inhabitants are not primarily Germanic in origin. Sister Joseph (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this response clarifies your position as a purely personal one, and there is not much more worth saying about it. Living in a place gives no of us any special rights as WP editors. The British Isles is just a geographical term. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

British Isles is a political term. Its use is an assertion that the island group is British. If this were not the case the British would not be so anxious to defend and promote its usage. I agree that this is something personal for me. The reason is that, I consider it a personal insult for any person to claim that I am a British Islander, and therefore British. Sister Joseph (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That is a totally ridiculous stance. Anyone with an interest in or knowledge of geography and geographical nomenclature has a legitimate interest. Urselius (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

All you would have to do here is present some top-quality genetics sources to convince everyone that treating the genetic history of Britain and Ireland as a single topic is not appropriate, and that therefore this article should not exist. Your current approach, consisting mainly of aggressive insults and unsupported assertions, is not likely to succeed. Tewdar  19:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

But 'treating the genetic history of Britain as a single unit' IS entirely appropriate. As you so sensibly suggest, smply replace 'British Isles' with 'Britain and Ireland. I'm so glad that we have found common ground ar last. Sister Joseph (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to say 'treating the genetic history of Britain and Ireland as a single unit' is appropriate? If so, I agree. Not convinced on the name change though, which as mentioned is more appropriately discussed at British Isles, or even Wikipedia:Requested_moves, not here, because this article is specifically about genetic history.  Tewdar  20:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my omission. I see no problem with, 'the genetic history of Britain and Ireland', the genetic history of The Basque Country and Ireland, the genetic history of the Fertile Crescent and Ireland etc. However, WP's insistence on including Ireland in the 'British Isles' is a problem. Sister Joseph (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

the genetic history of The Basque Country and Ireland, the genetic history of the Fertile Crescent and Ireland I'll get started on those right after I've finished The genetic history of Sāmoa and Ireland 🙄  Tewdar  21:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the genetic links between Samoa and Ireland. On the other hand, the genetic links between Ireland and The Fertile Crescent, and between Ireland and the Basque Country have already been well documented. Of course I realize that in your Anglocentric world such subjects are too 'foreign' to be worthy of your time. Just change the title to, The Genetic History of Britain and Ireland. Sister Joseph (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm completely Anglocentric.  Tewdar  22:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Slán a mhac. I hope wikipedia's intransigence doesn't result in some people feeling that they have no option but to resort to vandalism of pages that include Ireland in the British Isles. Sister Joseph (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Duw genowgh hwi, ha nos da dhiso, ow howeth.  Tewdar  22:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

reviving a written only version of a dead language does not change the genetic makeup of today's Angio Saxon Cornwall. Arthur Gernow would be lonely if he returned. Sister Joseph (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of this discussion is way off topic but concerning the title of THIS article I don't personally have a problem with the term "Britain and Ireland". Concerning the topic boundary of this article I think it is correct that the way we split Europe's population up for articles should be based upon what we find in the best population genetics publications. That's how WP works. In practice it means the situation can change if there are significant new publications. Personally though I think we do not need a major article for every country in Europe, unless they should happen to all turn out to be very genetically distinct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Britain"? Does it mean the island of Great Britain (Albion) or the UK? Perhaps GB (or the UK) plus the Isle of Man? What about the Channel Islands?

As for "Ireland" is that the Republic of Ireland or the island of Ireland? Good luck! 82.5.248.162 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You can take Britain to mean anything you like it to mean. As for me, I care not, I have less interest in Britain than I have in England. As for Ireland, I mean the entire island, both the part under British occupation and the Free part. Sister Joseph (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

You peddle falsehoods. Northern Ireland is the result of the Protestant/Unionist people of that area of Ireland insisting, to the point of threatening armed insurrection, that they had no wish to be part of a country ruled from Dublin, which they feared, probably justifiably, would be effectively ruled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The British government was intent on giving autonomy to the whole island of Ireland, but was railroaded into the partition by the Ulster Unionists. The history of Ireland is very complex and not amenable to the purblind sloganizing you seem to espouse. Urselius (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"would be effectively ruled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy" As much as a threat as the domination by a clique of bigoted and corrupt priests posed to the population, they always had the option to flee Ireland and to join the Irish diaspora.Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

A little like suggesting that the entire population of the UK had the option to go to Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1940. I rather think that the Unionist population were quite attached to their homes, farms, businesses and communities. Compromises, such as the partition of Ireland, are often unfortunate and seldom pretty, but are usually better than the alternative. The alternative in 1921 would have been UDI by the Ulster Protestants and an even bloodier civil war in Ireland than what transpired within the new Free State, and that was bad enough. Dublin was shelled again by gunboats in the Liffey, only this time it was by Free State forces shelling the rump-IRA, with the ordinary Dubliners in between. Urselius (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to discuss this concern. If WP develops a new policy on this terminology then articles like this can follow.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

5 minutes spent looking at Andrew Lancaster contributions will confirm that he views the world thru Union Jack tinted glasses. This comment is not meant as an insult, I simply think that others should be aware of the Andrew Lancaster agenda. Sister Joseph (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no such agenda, and this is also not meant as an insult to people with agendas. I accept that we all have various biases even if we try not to, and we need to be aware of that, but for anyone who looked more than 5 minutes at my edits this would be a strange one to claim for me. I'm actually not sure what edits of mine could have led to this conclusion, even after 5 minutes. In the spirit of trying to be careful of all of our biases I suppose that like many students of European history I could be described as a sceptic about the myths which drive European nationalisms in general (certainly including Union Jack nationalism). Like many Europeans I make a strong distinction between these very modern types of "jealous" nationalisms which demand that people commit to a single national identity, like robots, and the love of one's country or countries more broadly defined which have always existed in Europe. Having said all this, I don't see this particular naming question as one which is particularly important to me and my biases at all. I think we just need a term that people can understand. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Still talking about this? Personally I agree that the term 'British Isles' is at the very least insensitive especially in Ireland and I have noticed some movement towards the use of 'Britain and Ireland' recently, especially in academic contexts. However yet again, this is not the proper venue for such a discussion, please stop crapping up this one genetics article with a discussion that should be taking place somewhere else.  Tewdar  07:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

if someone is standing behind you with a baseball bat in order to force you to read this Talk just let me know so that I can arrange someone to go rescue you. Sister Joseph (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Knowing some geography does not constitute an agenda. Having a nationalist POV and pushing it inappropriately, however, probably does. Urselius (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My only purpose is to show that the Irish reject attempts to include Ireland in the British Isles. You cannot imagine the shame I would feel if readers of the WP page in question were to form the opinion that the Irish are British Islanders. Sister Joseph (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Celts

The arrival of the Celts in the first millennium BC is significant enough to justify a separate section. It is more important in its own right than the passing reference in the last paragraph of the Bronze Age section implies. There is also an argument that the Bronze Age section should be renamed "Bell Beaker Folk" since we are talking about genetics. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Genetic studies provide evidence for at least three migrations from the Copper Age to the Iron Age which are all possible candidates for the introduction of Celtic languages to these islands, and there is no consensus which one (if it was any of those) it was. We probably don't need a section to say this. The Bell Beaker period in Britain and Ireland only lasts into the Early Bronze Age, so renaming the Bronze Age section 'Bell Beaker Folk' would be inaccurate, for archaeology as well as genetics.  Tewdar  13:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The Celtic people/culture are usually associated with the Iron Age not the Bronze. 82.5.248.162 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04287-4  Tewdar  18:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1518445113  Tewdar  18:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a recent Iron Age study too. Tewdar  18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This article is about genetic evidence and not about language groups, or archaeology (or modern political sentiments). There can be links between the different types of articles, based upon what the best published sources say about such links. But it is not up to us to merge all the different threads of research unless the relevant experts are really sure that their fields are talking about the same things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether the Celts were a genetically distinct people or a language/cultural group has long been debated. The DNA evidence seems to support the latter. The Celts now seem to be classified as a later wave of Bell Beaker Folk, if so should that be more explicitly stated? 82.5.248.162 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. Any links between genetics and Celtic languages are highly speculative, as shown by the three articles above.  Tewdar  08:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If it is a serious speculation made by experts it can be mentioned in the article in that way of course. But then we should give suitable weight to all such speculations, not only that one. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, the possible 'Celtic' links with the Late Bronze Age migration into Britain and haplogroup R1b are already mentioned. We could add speculation from the recent Iron Age paper and older Early Bronze Age articles if you like.  Tewdar  12:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at the rest of the article a section on Celtic languages might not be a bad idea.  Tewdar  14:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those updates. One more thing: should the Normans get a mention? 82.5.248.162 (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think there should be a section on Celtic languages. Too little is known about their origin in Britain to contribute usefully to the article on genetics. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Should this new article exist?

Could editors and watchers of this topic please consider this new article: Continuity Model of British Ancestry. I have raised questions about whether the article should exist, and feedback is needed, including feedback about how the topic there would overlap with this article. Also more generally is there a well-known things called the "continuity model" of British Ancestry? (And secondly, if this new article is just a collection of old publications which raised doubts about various proposed migrations in different periods, then should it all really be in one single article.) See the talk page. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I've proposed that this new article should not exist. WP:Articles for deletion/Continuity Model of British Ancestry. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)