Talk:History of Wales/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Britons

Please be aware that the Welsh were part of the original "Britons" They were called "Britons" before and after the Romans left in AD 408, although officially Britain was still part of the Empire until AD 410, when the rescript of Honourius gave the Britons their independence. Also be aware that the term 'Welsh' was given to the Britons by the invading Angles,Saxons and Jutes from Germany(that is the English) ..it means foreigner or alien in German.."England" was never mentioned(named) until the 8th century(AD).

can you tell me who "they" were that called them "Britons"? As this is an English word, and the English called them "Welsh" and not "Britons" how can this word have been used. Was this term used by the Romans or does the word Briton derive from an earlier Celtic word? When did the Welsh start to refer to themselves as cymry and Wales as cymru? --Cap 16:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We cannot identify the two terms so readily. The Britons hadn't spread completely through the island of Great Britain by the time the Scots arrived; the Picts appear not to have been Brythonic Celts, from what little we know of them (including place names - Brythonic ones go past Galloway, but don't reach all Scotland; names like Pitlochrie appear to be Pictish, according to some). PML.

Christianity flourished in Britian('Wales') just 20 years after the Christ was crucified.. Caracturus(Caradoc in Latin)and his father "Bran" brought it to the Isles of Britain during and after the "imprisonment" of the father Bran. See Timothy(2)4.21..which is a letter from the apostle Paul to Timothy...Linus and Claudia are Caradoc's son and daughter resp. and Pudens is Claudia's husband...a Roman officer....

Just 100 years later the British King 'Lucius' declared Britain/Wales to be "Christian" ..The first Christian nation on the face of the earth.

Further remember that the Scots were originally an Irish invading tribe called the "Scotti"...also remember that it was Wales(Britain) that provided the Irish with St Patrick..He was born just 40 miles north-east of where David(St David)was born on the south western coast of Wales.

That's not established. He may have been born in what is now Cornwall, and he may not have been of 100% Brythonic ancestry. PML.

PML Your proof of the "may"'s please.... please 'establish'.. troedyrhiw

That is to misunderstand. The whole point about "not established" and "may" is that we do not have certain knowledge on the point - to ask for "proof" is to ask for something stronger than was asserted. I am citing things I recalled from somewhere, but even if I had the references ready and to hand that wouldn't "prove" their content - the point I was making was that there was still an open question. For what it's worth, as a question of identity "Cornish" is as much "Welsh" in that era from the cultural points that were raised. It was merely a comment on the specific geography. PML.
One of the many problems with the past is that we try to use words with a modern meaning to describe things, peoples and places in the past. For example the use of the word Celt to describe Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Cornwall. The problem here is that Celt is a word used by the Greeks to describe Gauls who were the other side of the Alps. Certainly the people inhabiting the islands did not use the word Celt. Indeed it is unlikely that they would have seen themselves as being the same peoples as the Gauls in France, or "Celts" further afield. We use the term Celt, because of writings from the 18th and 19th centuries, when academics worked out that there were similarities in language and culture of continental Gaul, the inhabitants of pre Roman Britain, and Ireland. And thats why we use the term. What it certainly doesn't mean is that the peoples of this Ireland thought of themselves as "one people" or that they described themselves as Celts.

Angles and Saxons conquered the "whole" of England

I find this statement rather amusing. How could they not conquer the whole of England? They conquered part of the island of Britain which became England, as England only came into being because of this conquest. If they had conquered a smaller area than that is the area that would have become known as England! (though to be fair I can see that what is meant is that the Angles and Saxons conquered what is now England and were unable to conquer what is now called Wales/Cymru) --Cap 16:34, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon invasion of England was not as straightforward as you may think. Even the very nature of the invasion is hotly disputed: i.e. was this an invasion of many people, pushing out or displacing the ex Romano-British Britons, or was this an influx of aristocratic warriors who took over the upper echelons of society. Certainly the history of the invasions show that many "British" Kingdoms survived for considerable periods (e.g. Elmet and Lindsey). Other areas such as Cornwall (kernow) seemed to escape invasion. Other areas, such as south and east Scotland were captured by the Angles, yet they today form part of Scotland. Essentially the history of these Islands is very complex, and the more you study it, the more complex it becomes. --Dumbo1 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Early History

The article starts with the Roman invasion. Can someone fill in please with the archaeology and prehistory of Wales

Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Great

I have put the Llywelyn the Great article up for Peer review. Any comments welcome. Rhion 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

human antiquity

from the article: "the earliest known human remains discovered in modern-day Wales is a human tooth, found in a cave in the valley of the River Elwy in north Wales, whose owner lived about 250,000 years ago in the Lower Palaeolithic period". 250,000 years ago? according to the "evolution" section in the human article "Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago." no matter what book it's from i do not believe that humans were in wales 250kya. though this link claims that neanderthals were in wales "between 60,000 and 40,000 years ago." i believe the claim that humans were in wales 250kya is absurd for many reasons. not only does this contradict the examples given but it also a date close to the estimated emergence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens itself. it should be removed. seeing as that i do not have the book to refrence i would appreciate it if someone could double check it. though i am tempted to remove it and probably will. --Tainter 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Map accuracy

An email was sent to the OTRS team a short while ago, expressing concern about the accuracy of the maps in this article. The email is copied below, as to not confuse the original meaning.

The maps you are using to highlight Welsh History are very inaccurate. For example, in the years to AD410 you have an outline of Wales as it currently

stands. Just to give you a clue, even as late as AD577, Wales included what is now Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, parts of Shropshire,

Cheshire and Cumbria.

Given I know absolutely nothing about Welsh history, I will defer to those who do to investigate whether the emailer was correct. Cheers, Daniel Bryant

Timelines history of British Isles

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youthpléigh 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Map accuracy

I wish to express my concerns at the accuracy of the maps used. They provide a poor picture of Wales/Britain for the particular eras mentioned. There are plenty of resources on Wiki which would suffice and provide a clearer and more accurate picture historically of the British Isles.

De-annexation from England?

『Wales was officially de-annexed from England within the United Kingdom in 1955, with the term "England" being replaced with "England and Wales", and Cardiff was proclaimed as the capital of Wales.』
― from the current version of the article (however, 「officially de-annexed」 in the quotated sentences was underlined by me).

Is this certain and clear? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maps & Historical Accuracy

The maps used for the history of Wales are a complete nonsense and should be removed as soon as possible and replaced with something else. A previous message has suggested there are plenty of resources on Wikipedia. This is indeed true with many references. Why show a map from circa 500AD outlining Britain at the time of the Battle of Badon on Wiki, which apart from a mistake as far as the Low Countries are concerned is fairly accurate, and then another which is nonsense on another page. If you're going to put the page forward as a history of Wales it would help to get as much right as possible especially when it's been brought to the attention of everyone on the talk page more than once

Map accuracy

Interestingly enough, there are much better maps of Britain and the British on pages referring to England and the English! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Kingdoms

A poor description of the kingdoms at the time period and the same old map as used for the Welsh Tribes at the time of the Roman conquest! Where are the celtic kingdoms of Cornwall, Rhedeg, Elmet, etc in the details. Just because they're not within the present Welsh boundaries is no excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When the Celtic west still constituted a continuous geographical area, the words "Wales" and "Welsh" (and for that matter Cymru and Cymraeg) had yet to be coined. There is therefore absolutely no justification for including places such as Cornwall, Rhedeg, Elmet, etc in an article specifically referring to Wales. . . .LinguisticDemographer 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then are we talking about Wales or the Celts here. If we are talking about Wales/Cymru then you are correct at the time in question the words had yet to be coined so why show Wales/Cymru when it didn't really exist in that context and mislead everyone into thinking the borders have been unmoved for thousands of years. It's complete nonsense to show a map of modern day Wales and put in tribes and kingdoms from hundreds and even thousands of years ago. You must also remember that for a time the northern celtic kingdoms constituted north Wales and Cornwall west Wales according to many maps with the Welsh shown as occupying a large part of the west of the British Isles. There are many examples in "commons". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough you do not seem to have taken to task the opening comment on this page, which I agree with, that the invading Anglo Saxons and Jutes named the inhabitants of Britain shortly after AD410 as Welsh and the country Wales. The Welsh were identified by the German and Low Country invaders long before being found in the present day country so why have a map of the modern day country showing tribes and kingdoms for more than 1000 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.75.132 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's complete folly to show modern day maps to depict the history of the region at least a millennia in the past. Nomenclatures aside the history of Britain and history of England on Wiki have more accurate maps of the times in question and I feel should be used in preference to the very simplistic and crude maps presently offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would add that LinguisticDemographer is mistaken in thinking the words Wales and Welsh are a more modern invent. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, especially dealing with the early battles of Hengist in the 460's, specifically refers to the inhabitants as Welsh, obvious either from the Old English or modern translation hence the map references on the main page fall very short of the mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Caerphilly Castle

Caerphilly Castle didn't lead to a dispute between Gilbert de Clare and Llywelyn the Last it was built to protect de Clare's lands because of a dispute between de Clare and Llywelyn over who 'owned' south Glamorgan due to different interpretations of a peace treaty between the King of England and Llywelyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waiting on a star.. (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Annexation

I'm not in any way an historian but it is my understanding that Edward I conquered the Principality of Wales, which comprised about two thirds of modern Wales, the rest of which was, at that time, in the hands of the Marcher lordships and others. So is it correct to state 'the death of Llywelyn the Last in 1282 led to the annexation of Wales to the kingdom of England' as the article does? Surely it was just the Principality that was annexed in 1282 with the full annexation of Wales not taking place until the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542?
♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 10:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Laws in Wales Act simply got rid of Welsh Law in the five counties of Wales that were established by Edward. It is not meaningful to use the word annex in my view. Wales was the remnant of Roman-Britain and progressively had its boundaries pushed back by Saxons and then the Normans. --Snowded TALK 10:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't like the word 'annexation' either, but that's what the article says, and that's what I was querying. The Principality was conquered in 1282, the rest of Wales at various other times. So the sentence is wrong and should be replaced. What the Laws in Wales Acts did in essence was unite the lordships with the Principality in the creation of modern Wales. But as I've already stated, I'm not an historian, so I'll leave it to others better qualified than I to decide if the article needs changing.
♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 10:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I was bold and made a change --Snowded TALK 10:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
So I see. But not to the sentence I was complaining about! Which is :'the death of Llywelyn the Last in 1282 led to the annexation of Wales to the kingdom of England' and can be found in the second paragraph. Cheers ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I changed the intro to remove the word 'annexation'.Pondle (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that reads much better and is more factually correct. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Good combined effort! --Snowded TALK 12:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tweeks?

Any editor rewriting the beginning of this article with "The history of Wales is the history of a small country in the United Kingdom ..." must expect some opposition. Camouflaging with the edit summary 'tweeks' would make even someone who AGF, like me, suspicious. Please agree any controversial changes here first (and btw, for the avoidance of doubt, using subjective, unencyclopedic terms (like small) are controversial). Daicaregos (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the issue? Was there anything wrong with my rewrite or the sources I added, or do you just take issue with one word in that one sentence? At any rate I have altered the first sentence to remove "small" as well as "United Kingdom", as that political entity did not exist for most of Welsh history. Other improvements are welcome.--Cúchullain t/c 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read any further than the first sentence. It looked like you were taking the piss. Were you? Daicaregos (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I'd never (purposefully) badmouth any country, especially not one whose literature and culture I've spent years studying. Though I might make an exception for Lloegr.--Cúchullain t/c 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My rewrite of the lead has been reverted again. May I ask what the problem is? I've tried to trim it down to appropriate length and make sure it properly summarizes the article. I've also tried to ensure that everything is attributed to reliable sources, something not done in the previous version. From what I understand Daicaregos only reverted it before due to a misunderstanding over the first sentence; this has since been resolved (at least, nothing more has been said about it.) At any rate the current status quo version is unsatisfactory, but I will withold my planned revamp of the article if others are having specific issues with my edits.--Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Some changes were OK but you also removed some important material in the process. Ledes are always sensitive and its best, if you get a revert, to summarise the proposed changes to allow people to comment. or make a few changes at at time to allow other editors to respond. --Snowded TALK 19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an outline of the changes I made. Basically I tried to keep it concise and remove some of randomness and errors:

  • In the first paragraph, about ancient Wales, I removed the bolding of the blue link to Wales and included Great Britain in the first sentence. I made it clear that Wales, like all of Britain, was inhabited by the Celtic people known as the Britain since the Iron Age (this was cited). I cut the Romans to one sentence and put them in order chonologically. I also included crucial links to the Roman departure from Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and mentioned that Wales evolved as one of the groups into which the Britons fragmented during the early middle ages.
  • The second paragraph, about medieval Wales, I tried put in a chronological order and remove the clutter. It only named one of several rulers who reigned over much or most of Wales, and included too much detail about Owain Glendwr but nothing about the previous rebellions. I removed the confusing line about the "united English kingdom", as the phrase can take multiple meanings, and I made the gradual subjugation by the Normans clearer. I also mentioned Henry VIII and the Laws in Wales Acts.
  • The third paragraph, about the 17th-century on, I just trimmed down. I didn't add or remove much of anything.

And there you have it. The only additions we might need to make that I can see would be about pre-Iron Age Britain and the establishment of the Principality of Wales (and the Normans' subsequent appropriation of the title Prince of Wales). What specifically do you want (re-)included? I would be more than happy to add it in.--Cúchullain t/c 20:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see maps in historical context rather than using a modern day map/border of the country to show historical tribes and kingdoms (some of which are completely left off the map references). Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion for a week, I am going to resume working on the article. Again, if there are any specific objections, I will be glad to work so that they are taken care of.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think all omissions are now taken care of, and the language has been tightened and the content has been balanced. I plan on going through the rest of the article soon.--Cúchullain t/c 18:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Good job Cúchullain. It reads well with no glaring omissions (AFAICT). Only suggestions I would make now are really minor - 1: Change "Humans first came to what is now Wales, or Cymru in Welsh, at least 29,000 years ago ..." to "Humans first came to what is now Wales, or Cymru in Welsh, at least 230,000 years ago ..." per Prehistoric Wales section; and 2: Tie in British language with Brythonic-speaking peoples in the 1st paragraph. 3 a change to the 2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph from: "While the most powerful ruler was acknowledged as King of the Britons (later Prince of Wales) ..." to "While the most powerful ruler was acknowledged as King of the Britons (later Tywysog Cymru ([Leader or Prince of Wales] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)))..." as the meanings of Tywysog and Prince differs between the two languages. 4 (Possibly) include some mention of Bishop Morgan's Welsh Bible. Although not much is made of it in the article's main text, the Welsh Academy Encylopaedia of Wales has it as "... the most important book ever published in Welsh". Daicaregos (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I implemented most of your suggestions, I think. I also altered the information in the lead and the article about the people who were in Wales ca. 230,000 years ago; these were Neanderthals, not modern humans (who arrived ca. 29,000 ya). I changed the link about these early settlers away from human, which refers to Homo sapiens, as it is unclear whether Neanderthals should be classified as a subspecies. I linked to Brythonic languages in the intro; is that what you meant with #2? I included your Twysog suggestion; this was a necessary distinction. I did alter it a bit so that there aren't two parenthesis inside of each other, but that's a minor note. I also think that the Welsh Bible could be mentioned, as it may be the reason Welsh is still spoken as a native tongue today, whereas Cornish died out.--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Re the language - I meant to link the British language with Brythonic-speaking peoples so that it is clear that they both mean the same thing. I agree with your idea that the Welsh Bible is, to a great extent, responsible for the survival of the language and I think it may also, to a lesser extent, have contributed to an awareness of a separate Welsh nationality. Daicaregos (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I follow on the British language link... I think the Brythonic languages link is better here, as it's not clear when exactly Welsh, Breton, etc. should be considered distinct languages, but they are always members of the Brythonic branch by definition. Do you have a citation for the Welsh Academy Encylopaedia of Wales quote? If so we could add it in with the survival of the distinct Welsh language and culture.--Cúchullain t/c 17:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
An enlarged extract from the 'MORGAN, William (c.1545-1604) Bishop and translator' entry in the Welsh Academy Encylopaedia of Wales reads: "Morgan's masterpiece was his translation of the Bible (1588), the most important book ever published in Welsh." and further "His Bible is regarded as a classic, which became a model for later writers. It greatly enhanced the scope of Welsh as a literary medium, and vindicated its claim to be regarded as a learned language. Morgan's version of The Book of Common Prayer (1599) was also important." And the reference: <ref>{{cite book|last=Davies|first=John (Ed)|authorlink=John Davies (historian)|title=The Welsh Academy Encylopaedia of Wales|publisher=University of Wales Press|year=2008|location=Cardiff|page=572|isbn=978-0-7083-1953-6 }}</ref> I quote, not intending that it should all be quoted in the article, but so you can know what it says. Daicaregos (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Done (finally). I'm not totally happy with the phrasing; if you can improve it please do. I also added a comment on the importance of Morgan's Bible within the article text.--Cúchullain t/c 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On the bolding issue: MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE indicate that if an article title is just a description, rather than a proper name, the title should not be bolded. MOS:BOLD gives another history article, History of the United States, as an example of such a case.--Cúchullain t/c 07:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what the guidance on bolding says, but to me it just seems wrong - it makes the article appear unfinished, or vandalised, if the title is not emboldened when it appears verbatim in the first sentence. Why does such apparently counter-intuitive guidance exist? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said on Ghmyrtle's talk page: "I'm not sure how it came about, and I'm not sure I'm that much a fan of it either. However, I'm even less a fan of linking within bolding - I think that makes otherwise perfectly fine articles like 2009 Iranian election protests look unprofessional. Not bolding descriptive titles does free us from having to bend over backwards with the phrasing and linking (ie, the article doesn't have to say something like "the history of Wales is the recorded history of the country of Wales"). At any rate if this wants to be a featured article some day it ought to follow the style guides. I suppose we could ask for others' opinions over at MOS:BOLD."--Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems the following has been added to MOS:BOLD in the period since the above discussion: "However, simple descriptions such as “History of the United States”, “List of Portuguese monarchs” or “Timeline of prehistoric Scotland” should be bold." Given the appearance of "History of the United States" in the example exemptions I guess "History of Wales" would also be an exception, so I've gone ahead and bolded the title as per the new guidlines. Daduzi talk 12:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I should have read the MOS talk page more closely since the issue of bolding links came up there. I also noticed that Cúchullain was already active in that discussion. For the time being I've tried shifting the link to Wales to outside the bolded title, but the wording is a tad clumsier than I'd like and the guideline seems to be in a relatively fluid state, so feel free to revert. If you do decide to dump the bold, however, may I suggest dumping the whole "The history of Wales is the history of..." format, as it strikes me as somewhat inelegant and if it's not needed for bolding purposes it'd probably be best to just launch into the text more directly. Daduzi talk 13:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is an issue that affects many, many articles, so it's something that needs to be dealt with as a style guideline ensuring consistency. It will be interesting to see if the changes to MOS:BOLDTITLE will stick, because I just don't think there was any consensus for them. At any rate it's nothing that can't be fixed by a few edits to article leads as we come across them.--Cúchullain t/c 13:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Population genetics

In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm querying this edit[1]. I don't claim any particular expertise in the field of population genetics but (as far as I'm aware) both Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer are mainstream scientists, so I'm not sure of the relevance of WP:FRINGE. I think the reference to the British population as a whole is relevant, because it establishes the relationship between the peoples of Wales and the rest of the British Isles; as Oppenheimer himself says in Prospect, "new evidence from genetic analysis... indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years."[2] Pondle (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. AFAIK Oppenheimer and Sykes are not considered mainstream. Their theories are not universally accepted. In its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' here the National Museum Wales note "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Seems pretty scathing. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversies and different schools of thought are worth mentioning, but the Museum article's analysis of the field seems weak and non-specific to me. It doesn't challenge the methodology of any *specific* study, it simply makes a couple of sweeping generalisations in a short paragraph. Over the years there have been various genetic studies that have arrived at different conclusions (for example, the work by Weale et al, Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration is criticised by Oppenheimer, who has a radically different view about the origins of the population). It seems a little odd and unsatisfactory to claim that *all* conclusions of population genetics research to-date are equally "implausible".Pondle (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Does it need to be specific? The fact that such a respected institution has questioned genetic research should ring alarm bells. Oppenheimer/Sykes' theories have been quoted unopposed as fact on many articles. That there is disagreement should be noted. I don't propose deleting the theories. But opposition should be noted. Daicaregos (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to note a critical view, but is the author of the Museum article actually attacking Weale et al's conclusions or Oppenheimer & Sykes' diametrically-opposed conclusions? Or both? I'm not a geneticist so I'm not able to offer an intellectually-rigorous defence (or indeed criticism) of this field of research or any of the specific studies within it. Doubtless some studies must have greater statistical power or other methodological superiority to others. I find unspecific generalisations such as that in the Museum article pretty unsatisfactory. Pondle (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I too have concerns. Not so much that this (or simillar) material doesn't have merit or a place on Wikipedia, but the source doesn't specify which "theories" it finds objectionable or incomplete - that's been assumed by the editor. We need something stronger or else a tone down. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
While you can use gene mapping for things like lactose tolerance (one of the key proofs in exaptation views of evolution) its use for determining issues relating to populations is very controversial and the National Library quotation is the sort of thing you would hear from most biologists. If the Oppenheimer view is to be mentioned, it needs to be qualified without any indication that it is "modern" in the sense that it is therefore "right". Linguistic studies are far more relevant in respect of culture and politics anyway--Snowded TALK 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These theories are not mainstream. If they continue to be pushed without qualification there may be a case for submitting their inclusion to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. In the meantime, would anyone care to suggest a qualifier, or is deleting '(and the British population as a whole)' enough? Daicaregos (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it helps to label either set of views as either "fringe" or "mainstream", or for that matter as "modern" or "old", or to say that one institution or writer is more authoritative than another. There are clearly different theories as to what happened genetically, and they need to be summarised here (and set out more fully at Genetic history of the British Isles). One of the problems here may be that different editors inevitably have different personal views on how closely the indigenous Welsh population is related genetically to other populations, but until there is an authoritative scholarly consensus - and I'm not convinced that there currently is, although I freely admit to not being an expert - the content of WP needs to set out a balance between all theories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
So - would anyone care to suggest a qualifier, or is deleting '(and the British population as a whole)' enough? Daicaregos (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be a matter of tempering their statements by removing parts of their conclusions - either it's a valid source and we mention the whole thing, or it's invalid and we discard it all.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sykes is a mainstream geneticist, although his theory is not accepted as mainstream by the majority of geneticists, archaeologist or linguists in Europe. Oppenheimer is, on the other hand, not even a geneticist but a paediatrician who claims, contrary to the weasel-edits of our friend JZA (whom is misinterpreting Oppenheimer's view to fit his own bias), that the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of what is now England were Germanic before the traditional Germanic tribes (the Engla, the Saexa, the Frisian, the Jutes etc) arrived in the area. He claims that, despite the fact that both groups are ultimately descended from Basques, that there has always been a genetic division between the Germanic people and the Celtic people of Britain. It is a nonsense theory (which I only researched to become familiar with so I could disprove it easier). This is absurd when we look at linguistic and archaeological evidence. This theory does, however, by-pass the absurd view that illiterate Germanic heathens taught the native Britons to speak English and adopt English culture but it leaves even more problems, more absurdities. We know that the pre-English were Brythonic because they left a few geographical names and we know that the English language has to be descended from the tongue of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians because it shows s close relationship with the rest of the West Germanic langauges and is infact in the Anglo-Frisian subcategory for this reasdon.

So these theories are not mainstream because they are considered abusrd by most respected geneticist amd historians but they are notable due to the fact that they caused such a buzz. The Mummy (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets too heated - it's already spread over a number of pages - can I suggest that there be a centralised discussion, perhaps at Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles, and, until there is some agreement there on the best way forward, that editors refrain from making edits on the subject which may be contentious. Can I also suggest that all editors remind themselves of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and try to avoid words like "nonsense" and "absurd". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We need to fix it, but I suggest avoiding any article with the phrase "British Isles" as a collective location. It would be better under Britain/Great Britain or the UK working group. Whatever, as the Mummy says we are dealing with a theory that is heavily pushed but has little basis within scientific groups. --Snowded TALK 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You may well be right, but do any editors here genuinely have greater authority on this than Oppenheimer, say? There may well be evidence that his theory "has little basis within scientific groups", but can we please be directed towards that evidence? There is a danger that the discussion here will become bogged down in unfruitful arguments as to who is "right" or "talking nonsense", but I'm minded to discount opinions like that in editing this (or any other) article - which in my view should set out the facts of what is asserted on either side and leave it up to the reader to come to a view which is informed by a balanced presentation of the arguments. Re "British Isles", I take the point re the article title, and wouldn't want this argument to be sidetracked into a discussion of that - the content of that article seemed to me to be the most appropriate to provide the basis for a discussion, but if others prefer, say, British people, that's fine by me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
In answer to the question "... but do any editors here genuinely have greater authority on this than Oppenheimer, say?": as far as I can tell, any of us are as equally well qualified as Stephen Oppenheimer to theorise on genetics. Oppenheimer appears to be a medical doctor, specialising in pediatrics and tropical medicine, with no formal training in genetics. Daicaregos (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's his "official" profile - [3]. Seems stronger than my CV. I don't want anyone to think I'm "pushing" Oppenheimer - clearly there are strong counter-arguments, but they seem to be stronger against his linguistic theories than his genetic ones - [4], [5], [6], etc. - but also [7]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think at this point it should be on whoever is introducing the Oppenheimer and Sykes material to defend it. We've seen quite enough to cast doubt over it; regardless of whatever inclinations opponents may have, the supporters are going to have to give us a bit more than citations directly to the challenged material.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Oppenheimer and Sykes have had their work published in WP:RS - respectable publishing houses such as Constable[8] and Norton[9] and a quality magazine, Prospect[10]. If there are specific criticisms of their methodology or conclusions in reliable sources, these should be included too, but I am utterly opposed to any attempts to bias the article through deletion. Pondle (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It isn't neutral as currently expressed. The use of "traditional" to typecast views other than the controversial ones of O&S implies that the latter is correct when it is still contested.--Snowded TALK 11:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that further work is needed in this section. The first sentence in the paragraph (referring to the 'traditional view' that there were successive waves of population replacement) needs a citation; we should also discuss other relevant genetic research such as this paper by Capelli et al.[11] I believe their results were featured in the BBC programme Blood of the Vikings - I have a copy of the book that accompanied the series. It has a subtly different conclusion to Sykes and Oppenheimer (if I'm interpreting them correctly!) Pondle (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit: I made a WP:BOLD change to this section[12] On reflection, I thought that it might be better to summarise the genetic research briefly, rather than go into detail. Most of the controversy is actually about Germanic influence in England, the studies seem pretty consistent in stressing continuity in Wales.Pondle (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Good call. Far less controversial than before. Daicaregos (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The issues with the reliability of Openheimer appears to be coming up again. I think it had better stay out until it is demonstrated that it is a useful source. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's in because it's referenced. Verifiability, not truth. If people really bothered to engage in discussion with other editors, there is little doubt that a consensus could be reached, so long as it draws on referenced sources, both those that quote or support Oppenheimer and those that reject him. Far bigger disputes have been resolved through discussion. But we need sources, not edit wars and assertions from people who think they know what is right and what is wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, this looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT on DinDraithou's part. Accusations that various researchers are "out of date" or are otherwise unreliable are empty statements of personal opinion, unless supported by reliable sources. We've been over this before...--Pondle (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit of putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? The common practice is for those adding or re-adding challenged material to defend it, not for challengers to have to dredge up critical citations before any action is taken. The Oppenheimer line is cited only to a magazine article, which in turn cites another magazine article and his foundation's website. This might be a passable citation were he a recognized authority in the field, but it appears he's not: he's a medical doctor, not a geneticist. The fact that this same general-interest magazine article has been inserted all across Wikipedia as a great authority raises additional red flags. This is more than enough justification to remove it until someone can demonstrate that it's reliable.--Cúchullain t/c 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that Oppenheimer didn't originally train as a geneticist, and I'm quite happy to see a critical discussion of his theories - somebody please provide some references! However, Oppenheimer's work on British populations has been published by mainstream publishing houses, newspapers and in a quality magazine; some of his other studies of historic human migrations have also been published in academic journals.[13] I see no case to exclude his views completely.--Pondle (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's put down the censorship card, please, this is not even remotely a case of that. It's a case of several users doubting the usefulness of a particular source. And DinDraithou's overzealousness aside, there's quite good cause: we're talking about a pop science piece in a general interest magazine espousing an MD's theories on population genetics, and whether it can properly be considered a reliable piece of scholarship. As the ones restoring the material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it. It's a bit backwards to expect others to come up with citations refuting the material, when you haven't provided any that support its inclusion in the first place. The question should not be "what make the source unreliable", but "what makes it reliable"? To quote yourself, please provide some references!--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said above: Oppenheimer's theory has also been published in a book[14]. The back cover of the hardback edition includes quotes from Colin Renfrew and Peter Forster[15], claiming that his work is "well-informed", "challenging", and "contributes significantly" to the body of evidence in the field. I don't know whether he's right, but his theory must be mentioned.--Pondle (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
So why is only the magazine article being cited? You must agree that that is not optimal, even if we're going to mention the theory. At any rate I would like to see more justification than just the book's own blurbs. And no, there's no necessity that this theory needs to be mentioned in a general overview of the history of Wales - see my below comment on undue weight.--Cúchullain t/c 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to cite the book, but I see no problem with the magazine article - after all, it's by the same author, summarising the thesis in his book. I don't see any problem with WP:UNDUE, studies in population genetics are relevant and my previous edit (which was supported by an editor critical of Oppenheimer[16]) reduced that material to a mere 18-word sentence. As for a critical, third party discussion of Oppenheimer - I wish I could find one. I've asked for comment at the relevant Wikiproject, but no-one has expressed an interest.--Pondle (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No one doubts that studies in population genetics are relevant to history articles, we're just doubting the relevance of this particular one. If no good third party discussion of a contentious work can be found, it's probably not a good idea to just cite it uncritically. We should wait until we can back it up with. At any rate it's not a good sign that the theory is widespread and accepted enough to be used in the main History of Wales article.--Cúchullain t/c 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The way forward here - once DinDraithou's excessive enthusiasm has been sorted out - seems to me to be for the issue of Oppenheimer's reliability to be discussed at Genetic history of the British Isles (or whatever that article might be called in the future - subject to discussion at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force, I suggest), and whatever is ultimately decided there be rolled out for consistency across other articles including this one. This is clearly a contentious issue and it makes no sense to me for editors on one article to take a different view on that controversy to editors on any other. My own opinion is that Oppenheimer should be referenced, and those with counter-arguments should be referenced - readers should be given sufficient information to make up their own minds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine, if there were some centralized discussion going on somewhere. If you'd like to open one, I'd be very interested in participating. But barring that, discussion of whether particular sources or material are appropriate for an article are best dealt with at the article itself. In this case I can't see that this magazine article has any relevance here whatsoever. We should not be including such views, per UNDUE. Not that a similar ideas are already expressed and attributed to more reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There are various threads at Genetic history of the British Isles which, as I've suggested here and elsewhere, seems the best place for a centralised discussion. But it is primarily DinDraithou who seeks to change that article, and the onus therefore is on him - assuming he is unhappy with the outcome of previous discussions there - to start a new discussion before making any major changes to that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat my last comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents:
The battle here is against "celebrity" being where it shouldn't. "Celebrity" is unfortunately not refutable, and so will simply have to be replaced with the right material, which is a fantastically laborious process. Population genetics 2001-2007 was all about celebrity, and then came Karafet et al in 2008 with properly done dating. I will discuss it in the upcoming article. Some users here I believe are a little bit into celebrity pop genetics, and that influences their editing decisions.
The problem with Oppenheimer is that he relied on bad dating to create a whole mess of questionable theories. With the new age of R1b most of what he and Sykes had to say is impossible and so no one needs to bother to refute them. The ancestors of the Atlantic Celts were simply not in Ice Age Iberia, which of course means they are as genuinely West Indo-European as anyone.
The upcoming article btw is User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland. DinDraithou (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine, if there are new studies that present alternative hypotheses, or offer direct criticism of Oppenheimer, Sykes et al, then by all means cite them. But we must avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Pondle (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
DinDraithou still seems not to grasp the point that, although some of us think he could be right, we cannot rely on his assertions that he is right. We need evidence that reputable scholars have come to different conclusions to Oppenheimer, and we can then shape the text to ensure that readers have both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop mentioning me. When you do I have to waste my time like this, when I could be sharing knowledge. You could learn an awful lot from Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) and Genetic history of Europe, although I wonder if you have the capacity. Each contains and leads to all kinds of wonderful knowledge. Once you've explored some, you'll be of some account, and I'll welcome discussion on my talk page. DinDraithou (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being offensive. It's not too difficult, is it, to come up with a text that says person X says this, person Y says that, and the scholarly consensus (with refs, obviously) is as follows... Try taking that approach - it's all that anyone wants. Make sure you read WP:BLOGS. And PS, Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) is a very bad article, as it is virtually incomprehensible to anyone without prior knowledge of the subject. Genetic history of Europe is much better, but stops at the Roman period without referring to later population movements - disappointing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Wales/Archive_1&oldid=864468082"