Talk:Welsh people/Archive 2

Proper referencing

This article needs a thourough fact and reference check. There are several citation styles that can be used, I prefer the footnotes method, but if there is a consensus for harvard referencing then I am happy to do that as well. There is much here that needs a proper reference. We cannot assume that things are well known facts and therefore do not need to be referenced. If wikipedia is to gain any sort of credibility, the information contained in it needs to be verified, or it will never be anything more than a collection of the opinions of it's editors, and will remain completelly useless as a reference source in it's own right. Alun 05:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the initial draft of much of the history, as you can see from the top of this talk page. I tried very hard to keep my opinions to the talk page. Are you seriously asking for a citation for every single sentence? Is this to carry through to the details about religion or is it just the history you object to? You have already slapped "this article needs referencing" on about five other articles I watch: do you want sentence-by-sentence citations on those, too? I expect I can provide them for this article, but that paragraph is going to look remarkably ugly, and given those other five articles (thank you), this one is going to take some time. I don't understand why you removed the note about When was Wales? from the references: it is well-known enough to warrant mentioning. (It's also back in the library now, so another reason why it will take some time.) The current favourite referencing style seems to be m:Cite.php: this has the advantage that several facts from the same book can link to the same book reference. This will be very useful for this article. Telsa (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For discussion: references

Here are some initial sources for much of this but there are almost certain to be better ones; and I think at least a couple of sentences need alteration. Since what I'm suggesting change the overall result quite strongly, I put them here for consideration before adding them to the article. Essentially, I have a lot of quotes agreeing that the Celtic invasion stuff is old hat, and that it was more a process of transfer of culture. Going by the tone of discussion on the talk page up to now, I think we (okay, me, but no-one else fixed it) didn't make that plain enough in the original article.

So that said, are people happy for these references to go in? I have absolutely no qualifications in this topic at all, be warned. On the other hand, if you must chastise me for that, please do include what I should have read instead. Note that I will format them a bit better later: I got fed up of typing in the same ISBNs multiple times, when we only need it for the first mention.

• The names that the earliest inhabitants of Wales had for themselves is not recorded.: Referring to Celtic tribes across Britain: "Sadly, their names are only known in the Latinized forms which where given them by classical authors of by their later conquerors, and which set a false tone to discussions from the start. Attempts have been made to reconstruct the Celtic forms, but most archaeologists and prehistorians do not even bother." Norman Davies, The Isles, page 55.

• The tribes the Romans encountered in their time in Britain were known to the Romans as Ordovices, the Demetae, the Silures and the Deceangli: Not found a source yet, just a lot of maps with names scribbled in approximate places; but apparently comes from Ptolemy.

You could use Barry Cunliffe Iron Age communities in Britain' Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987 (2nd ed) ISBN 0-7100-8725-X pp. 115-118 Rhion 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• ...tribes speaking Brythonic, a Celtic language:
  • "It is notable, though, that in the first century, the Romans found essentially the same language was spoken throughout the whole of Britain south of the Forth-Clyde line in Scotland. The process was not limited to Wales. Such uniformity of speech suggests close connections between the tribal groups of Wales, as the emerge from prehistory, and those of south Britain. This pre-Welsh language has been labelled Britonnic or Brythonic: Ross, Davis, Wales: history of a nation, published 2005 by Geddes and Grosset, ISBN 1-84205-018-4.
  • (do we need one to say that Brythonic was Celtic?)

• ..these tribes are traditionally thought to have arrived in Britain from Europe over the preceding centuries.. First, I want to add a sentence along the lines of this, because it needs saying somewhere and this looks the right place: Historians' views on whether they as a group replaced a preexisting people or whether their culture replaced a preexisting culture have changed over time: the latter proposal is now preferred.. References for the pair of sentences as a whole, then. I think it's worth having all three (and maybe more?):
  • "The development of Celtic culture in Wales was formerly identified with the arrival in the country of Celtic colonists, who brought with them not only a language and customs which had developed in central Europe, but also the secret of ironworking. Their possession of this latest step in human technology enabled them to achieve dominance over the already established inhabitants. Since the abandonment of the invasion theory, this rather neat explanation has had to be reconsidered and a somewhat more complex picture emerges." Wales: history of a nation, David Ross.
  • "Until very recently, prehistorians waxed eloquent over scenes of the Celtic conquests. Fierce 'Hallstadt warriors' were said to have landed, swinging their huge iron longswords and driving all before them. Stages were mapped out [...]. This picture is now refuted. The Continental Celts did not so much invade as percolate and permeate." The Isles (p 52), Norman Davies.
  • "The notion that the 'Celticisation' of southern Britain was effected by a huge influx of war-crazed Gauls, Belgae and other Continentals who hammered the Bronzefolk into oblivion and refashioned the island in their own iron image has yielded to the subtler view that it was the culture of the Celts that gradually crept upon the land - their religion, their customs, their language - rather than the Celts themselves in full-scale invasive person." Nigel Jenkins, Garn Goch Iron Age Hillfort, in Footsore on the frontier, published 2001 by Gomer ISBN 1-85902-982-5

• Many people in Wales today regard themselves as Celtic, claiming a heritage back to these tribes. First, you changed "asserting a link" to "claiming a heritage". I want to change it back. I haven't looked for this yet; I suppose citing the words to Yma o hyd will be original research, though? Boo.

I only changed it because I didn't really understand what asserting a link meant, would something like claiming cultural continuity be better? Alun 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The surviving poem Y Gododdin is in Old Welsh despite the Gododdin (aka Votadini) tribe being based around current lower Scotland and Northumberland, demonstrating the geographical reach of these languages. Okay, two quotes, which happen to fit together quite nicely:
  • "'Hwn yw o gododdin. Aneirin ae cant'. This is the Gododdin. Aneirin sang it. The title line of what is generally accepted as the first Welsh poetry to survive.": When was Wales, essay found in The Welsh in their history, Gwyn A Williams, published 1982 by Croom Helm, ISBN 0-7099-3651-6.
  • "[Aneirin and Taliesin] are considered to be the founders of the Welsh poetic tradition, and it is ironic that they belonged not to Wales, but to Yr Hen Ogledd (The Old North). Indeed, if it is accepted that their work is contemporary with Urien and the attack upon Caetraeth, it could be claimed that they wrote in Cumbric rather than in Welsh, although it is doubtful that there was any great difference between the two languages at that time.": A Pocket Guide to the Welsh Language, Janet Davies, published by University of Wales press 1999 ISBN 0-7083-1516-X

• Eventually Offa's Dyke was erected in the mid-eighth century, forming a barrier between Wales and Mercia.: "When Offa of Mercia cut his great dyke in the eighth century as an agreed frontier, he drew a line between two peoples, each of whom was old and between two embryonic nations, each of whom was new." When was Wales, Gwyn A Williams.

• Gwyn A. Williams argues that even at the time of the erection of Offa's Dyke, the people to its west saw themselves as Roman, citing the number of Latin inscriptions still being made into the eighth century, Actually, he gives other examples too, but anyway: "The people to the west of that line [Offa's Dyke] knew where they were; they were in Rome". When was Wales

• The Welsh words for the English people and the English language today mean Saxon, though not the Welsh word for England. Alun, you added both this sentence and the request for a reference: haven't you got one? More importantly, I don't think this sentence is necessary. The reason I included the Cymry comment was that it was a bit about identifying with a people. Other people then pasted the whole "cognate with.." stuff from other articles. I am not sure we need the whole "Walh" comparison here at all, let alone the name for the neighbours. Would people be happy to trim it down to just the first sentence again?

Yes I agree, we don't need the sentence I added, I was just thinking of how different sais and Lloegr are. Removing all the cognate with.. stuff makes sense to me. Alun 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• There was immigration to Wales after the Norman Conquest, several Normans encouraged immigration to their new lands; the Landsker Line dividing the Pembrokeshire "Englishry" and "Welshry" is still detectable today. The terms Englishry and Welshry are used similarly about Gower. You changed "There were subsequent further influxes of people into the country. After the.." to "There was immigration to Wales after the.." I am going to change it back, because there were more which are nothing to do with the Normans (coal and iron period, for example), and putting the Normans into that sentence makes it look as though immediate post-Norman period is all there was. Anyway, references: I have a quote from a Gower Society book about this, and I think I can find more.

Fair enough, personally I don't like the word influx, which is why I changed it, but it's no biggie. Alun 17:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So, there you are. It doesn't look much now, but it took a while. I know there's a few missing, but would people be happy with these as sources? I don't know how well-regarded all of these people are in their fields (although Welsh history is the field of John Davies and Gwyn Alf Williams, and Nigel Jenkins is a writer who is editing an encyclopedia about Wales; but Norman Davies' period is apparently more this last century, there seem to be multiple David Rosses, and there are bound to be much more detailed studies about the Gododdin available), or whether I have missed out some leading authority. Also, I am inclined to put these entire quotes into the footnotes, just for context. Any objections?

Oh. Someone needs to archive the page. Archiving the "what is ethnicity/race/whatever" debate would shrink it considerably. (If it's not finished, I wonder if it could continue on another page? Or user talk? It's a bit more general than "what are Welsh people", so I'm not sure it needs to be on this page in particular.)

Telsa (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work, and so fast. I usually plod along when trying to find references. Alun 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian Origin.

Take your time and read well.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)

Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Maps.htm

HCC

• Again, this information is pointless and the haplogroups arent anywhere characteristics of Iberia or originate in Iberia. Britons obviously are not of Iberian origin. Epf 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is largely based on Y-chrom. studies only, a small section of DNA and of lineage, and it is important to bear in mind that population genetic studies are stil very much early in devlopment and aren not considered fully conclusive in any way. Epf 22:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

See the English talk page for this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_people HCC

There's a lot of very interesting stuff here - thanks for posting it. However it is important to distinguish between the findings of these studies and the interpretations of those findings. We all need to take care we are not just interpreting them in a way that fits with our own POV on these matters. Rhion 07:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am so interested in knowing about all this like anyone else. I encourage you to do your own research. You can follow this discussion in the English people talk page. I would like to hear about alternative theories too that account for these findings. HCC.

Religion

Should the Drudic religion be included in this section of the article as it was a religion that was practiced widely in Wales.--Rhydd Meddwl 16:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is practised by a large enough percentage of people who classify themselves or who can be objectly classified as Welsh, then sure, it should be. Enzedbrit 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration assistance requested

On the English people page, the user Lord Loxley keeps removing the Welsh from related ethnic groups (among many other biased and POV changes), on the grounds that the Welsh have actually been English since 1536. TharkunColl 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop this revanchism nonsense! Who the fuck do you call the Tudors?! I've got many recent Marcher ancestors and there is not one iota a difference between England and Wales as regards their ethnic heritage--language is a different subject! Lord Loxley 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were true, then the Welsh would all be happy to call themselves English. This is clearly not the case, so it is you who are spouting nonsense I'm afraid. Ethnicity is not about race by the way - perhaps you don't actually know what the word means.TharkunColl 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So am I supposed to choose sides and be in self-conflict--like you are about 1066 in this present day? Your illogical posturings astound no one. England and Wales is a land and people who both trace roots to Roman Britain and Scandinavia, as well as Gaul/France and the Greeks and Romans. We have what one would call a cultural fusion; the differences between England and Wales are about as significant as those between London and York. Please, no paranoid ethnocentric conspiracies! Lord Loxley 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your view, I think there's no need for some of the language used above. I also think that someone's missing the point in restricting this to the English and the Welsh. The truth is that even the Irish are much more like the English than many would like to admit. And then there are the Scots - they think of themselves as an ethnic group, even though they have as much in common with the English as the Welsh (legal issues aside). And that's not to mention all the Saxon, Viking and Pictish blood in the lowlands competing with the Gaelic blood in the north. And why stop there? The Eastern Germans and the Western Slavs have rather a lot in common. The thing is, the whole concept of ethnic group is problematic - and many people could happily claim to belong to several - so what? The differences between any two modern Europeans is much smaller than people realise - between any two human beings for that matter. That doesn't mean we can't keep talking about the Slavs, or the Germans or the English... How about if there were a page about Yorkshire people that listed Lancashire people and London people as related groups? What would be the problem with that? When people in Britain talk about the English nowadays, they don't normally mean the Welsh. And that's also been the case in British law since 1967. garik 14:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out the Celts of England

Eryri has changed the History section to state that the Celts of England were supplanted by Anglo-Saxons. If anything this is based on a study released in 2002 which has consequently been shown to be wrong or misleading by several other studies since. The continued reference to this story can only be for one thing: to try to cement a genetic/ethnic difference between the English and Welsh to further the cause of either English or Welsh nationalism. I do not believe that the Wikipedia forum should promote such agendas. If something is known to be wrong or false, then it should be shown to be such. Wikipedia must be impartial. Enzedbrit 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been a number of studies, with somewhat conflicting results (and with rather dodgy sampling techniques in some cases). Very little is reliably "known" about what actually happened as yet, and a great deal more research will be needed. The section needs to be reworded in a way which makes no assumptions about the matter. I would not like this article to become a battleground for POV warriors in the way that English people has. Wikipedia should not be used to further any nationalisms, and that includes British nationalism just as much as English or Welsh. Rhion 06:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is ever satisfied with one way or the other; they war perpetually over the "truth". Perhaps this part should be omitted, to avoid it always being changed. Lord Loxley 08:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the best thing to do. I've removed the sentence. Rhion 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Migration

Does anyone deny this at all? "Migration from Wales to the rest of Britain has been occurring throughout its history. Particularly during the industrial revolution hundreds of thousands of Welsh people migrated internally to the big cities of England and Scotland or to work in the coal mines of the north of England. As a result, much of the British population today have ancestory from Wales." Why would they?! What about this is false or POV? It is because of this migration that there are Welsh societies around Britain; my Welsh-first language grandfather grew up on the Durham coast where, his aunt told me before her death, whole streets could be walked down with Welsh coming from every door. Enzedbrit 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alot of Welsh migrated to other parts of the UK during the industrial rev., but in the hundreds of thousands ? Really ?

The best thing to do is to provide citations which support it. Rhion 06:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it boils down to the 'can't cite it, it's not true' or 'can you cite that the sky is blue' debate ... 210.246.20.45 10:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember verifiability not truth, if you can't verify it it can't go in however true it is. When a citation is requested it does not necessarily mean that the person requesting the citation disputes the assertion being made. Rather one of the thresholds for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability. We don't just verify disputed things, we verify everything, as a reading of the policy page will confirm. It's also worth having a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check to get a good idea of how important this is. Remember exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, but I think the generally accepted (like this) can be referenced from any decent history resource online. Alun 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Shouldn't the pictures of 4 representatives of Welsh people be changed? The big problem is that I don't know any of them. The second problem is that it looks very disorganized, it should be one image not unlike the scottish and the german. Now as to who should be the representatives, I am not sure... I'm not welsh. Maybe Tom Jones and Bertrand Russell for starters. --mahlered 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming not to know who David Lloyd George is? Alfred Russell Wallace is a reasonable inclusion (though possibly not a must), as he is usually credited as having developed his own theory of natural selection in the 1850s, Darwin had a more developed theory but had procrastinated over publication, Wallace and Darwin cooperated on their theories. Indeed Darwin and Wallace presented papers simultaneously on the subject see On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. And fron the evolution article: The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. I think Lloyd George is a must, the others are more a question of subjectivity, I don't have a problem with Tom Jones, but according to Bertrand Russell's article he was English (but born in Wales). What about a sportsman? Colin Jackson, Simon Jones, Ryan Giggs etc, I'm sure there are more out there. Alun 05:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually thinking again I would suggest these four people: David Lloyd George, Alfred Russell Wallace, Gareth Edwards and Tom Jones. Any better offers?. Alun 05:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming not to know who David Lloyd George is? 

Sadly, I've met a good number of people who really don't know who Lloyd George was. But their lamentable ignorance is no reason to change the page. Still, I support having a mix of old and new faces. garik 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest including Dylan Thomas. A great poet worthy of popular acknowledgement. If you're feeling adventurist, I'd say John Cale as well. But why no women? Aren't there any famous Welsh women? Black-Velvet 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs for migration to England

We could do with some refs for this, it seems strange but it is not so easy to find this online. I did find a bibliography giving a list of references for articles about emmigration from Wales, one of which is C G Pooley, Welsh Migration to England in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 9 (1983).[1] Looks like a University of Swansea website, unfortunatelt it's a 1983 work and so not available online and I have no idea what the paper might contain with regards to a supporting reference. Alun 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Alun, why did you remove my reference? I thought it was good, I found it and I posted it. You have removed it with not consideration on the talk page or edit summary. I think that would be the least courtesy, don't you? Enzedbrit 02:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed your reference, I have moved it to support a claim for Welsh migration to New Zeland. I did this because it doesn't really support the assertion in the article that hundreds of thousands of Welsh people migrated internally to the big cities of England and Scotland or to work in the coal mines of the north of England. As a result, much of the British population today have ancestory from Wales. Although it does claim that Welsh people migrated to England, it makes no reference to hundreds of thousands of migrants. Indeed it implies the opposite, that Welsh migration was rather small Population pressure was never acute in Wales, and when the Welsh did move it was to other parts of Wales or to England rather than overseas. Some English-born immigrants to New Zealand had Welsh parents, reflecting Welsh emigration to the coal-mining and industrial regions of England, and to London, from about the middle of the 19th century. This claim of relatively small levels of Welsh emigration is also supported by this citation from Lamperter The Welsh have always been reluctant emigrants. Much nineteenth century Welsh migration was internal, or was directed across Offa's Dyke into England by the prospect of employment. The total Welsh population has always been small, with no more than 0.5 million before the late eighteenth century and a little over 1.5 million by 1881.[2] It is also true that much migration in the 19th century was the other way, many English people migrated to Wales because of the jobs available in heavy industry and mining in Wales. If anything Wales was short of manpower in this century. The difference between the Welsh population in the 1801 census (587,128) and the censuses of 1851 (1,162,139) and 1911 (2,420,921) reflect migration into Wales during this period and don't support the contention that hundreds of thousands of people moved out of Wales. Indeed such a large level of emigration would have represented a very large proportion of the population moving out of Wales (100,000 would have been about 10% of the population in 1851). Welsh migration to England certainly did occur, but I don't think we can claim that it was in large numbers unless we can get a source that specifically states this, both of our sources at present claim the opposite. It might be worth looking for information about movements during the Great depression, when there may have been considerably more pressure on Welsh people to migrate. If we want to use these cites to support an assertion for Welsh migration to England then we need to rephrase the article to better reflect what the sources are claiming. I appologise for not explaining my reasoning on the talk page when I made the change, I was adding many citations at this time and spent a lot of time searching for citations to add and formatting the text etc. I'll try to be more diligent in explaining myself on the talk page in future. Alun 05:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion of Welsh emigration to England in John Davies History of Wales. However he suggests that the bulk of this emigration was during the Great Depression, not during the Industrial Revolution, so it would not provide a citation to support what is currently written in the article. Rhion 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 69.157.126.241

1) There was massive immigration into Wales at this time, this is what the source claims, it also states that English people represented the majority of people to migrate to Wales. You are quite right that the source does not claim massive English immigration, it 's good that these cites are checked by people as everyone can misinterpret sources. Maybe we should state that there was massive immigration to Wales at this time, a large proportion of which was by English people, what do you think?Alun 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2) Also, English migration to Wales is not disputed and does not need to be repeated again Your edit appears to contradict the cited source for English immigration into Wales, its location and phrasing strongly implies that the increase in population in Wales is exclusively due to Welsh indigenous population increase. Maybe we shoud think about rephrasing it so it doesn't seem to contradict the recorded immigration.Alun 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3) From what Ive read in this link here, the 80 and 20 figure was taken from ONE sample in England on Y-chromosomes, the MtDNA results show different numbers.) You do not appear to have read very widely arround the subject. Indeed the paper cited Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans states in the first sentence of the abstract We inferred past admixture processes in the European population from genetic diversity at eight loci, including autosomal, mitochondrial and Y-linked polymorphisms. This work used a very large number of samples. There's also this from Science, which discusses both mtDNA and Y-chromosome work Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People, here's a paper that is probably one source for the Science article Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool, and here's another that also gives similar results The Longue Durée of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe, and suggests a paleolithic origin for western Europeans (rather than a central European Celtic migration (or more accurately a migration of people forming the Hallstatt and La Tène cultural groups)). The 80% figure if for the paleolithic influence on British and European populations. I do not think this figure is disputed or indeed that there is any work that contradicts it (if there is some molecular biology work that has produced a substantially different result then it should be included). What would the alternative be? Where do you suppose the European population comes from? There is a significant input from Near East populations in eastern Europe, thought to be due to the neolithic expansion, but this seems not to have had such a large effect in western Europe, there is certainly a cline that is quite evident (with about 80% neolithic in the Balkans through to 80% paleolithic in western Europe, the cline runs more like south-east - north-west). The paper cited seems to show that the relative paleolithic:neolithic contributions between continental Europe and Great Britain are quite different, with about an 80% paleolithic to 20% neolithic input in Great Britain, but nearer 60% (or less) paleolithic on continental Europe, even those parts quite close to Great Britain, there are some quite nice diagrams in the paper illustrating this. However previous Y chromosome and mtDNA work has suggested an 80% paleolithic input for the whole of western Europe. I have included this paper for verification because it is relatively recent, and because, unlike other papers it includes work done on autosomal chromosomes, these lack the gender bias of Y chromosome and mtDNA studies as they are inherited from both parents. They also have the advantage of producing twice as much information from any given individual (per locus), as each sample of DNA is diploid (two chromosomes, so two loci), individuals may have different maternal and paternal alleles (ie be heterozygous) for the respective loci on the maternally and paternally derived chromosomes. Alun 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

4) the Iron Age tribes werent compeltely descended from the Paleolithic and there is no source here which backs the claim, the sources here claim that European populations are mainly descended from the paleolithic inhabitants of Europe. The article didn't claim that the Iron Age tribes are completelly descended from the paleolithic population of Europe, it stated which themselves had a paleolithic indigenous ancestry within the British and Irish Isles, this is true, their ancestry was paleolithic, nowhere does it claim that their ancestry was exclusively paleolithic. It is true that by the Iron Age there had certainly been a Neolithic input into the European population (amounting to about 20% in Great Britain). Alun 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• The information is still from one or two limited studies and much of the same research has been published more than once. The autosomal DNA only shows so much with current genetic analysis, but in either case, the studies still aren't able to test for something like x-chromosome inheritance. Y-chromosome and MtDNA are only part of paternal and maternal lineages and therefore by no means do they give us a complete picture of genetic ancestry. Here is the biggest flaw with your reasoning and reliance from these studies. So far, they have only told us the era from which much of our Y-chrom., MtDNA and (in only a few studies, eg. by Cavalli-Sforza) our autosomal DNA can be traced to. The periods in time were long and the peoples diversified, so for the most part we can't currently claim that we know which people and which specific regions these paleolithic and neolithic markers came from or the history of such lineages. The most important thing I can stress here (and this is admitted by researchers including Cavalli-Sforza) is that this information can not distinguish between very ancient (Paleo., Neo., etc.) and more recent migrations of peoples in the sense that Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc. peoples would have also traced most of their ancestry to the Neolithic and Paleolithic peoples/migrations. Obviously you know that there has been much more migrations in our history than from 5 basic periods (Paleo., Neolith. Near-East/Finno-Urgic, etc.), but the current genetic analysis still doesn't allow us to infer what kind of population settlement, replacement or intermingling took place with more recent migrations (The Bronze Age and those after). In any case, the 80% and 20% figure was for the Y-chromosomes from the sample in England, not the MtDNA (in Ireland and Wales, the Paleolithic y. chrom. percentage was even higher) and the MtDNA frequency/percentage was different (including more markers). It needs to be stressed though that these are only a limited number of tests carried out on certain (largely unspecified) sample populations differing in size. There seems to always be limited information on the type of people sampled in such studies and they are always taken from a small number of specific regions. I do not doubt that the Iron Age tribes had a paleolithic Y-chrom. ancestry (as is shown in these early studies), but this does not mean that significant Iron-age migrations did not occur (as I've previously explained in this paragraph). The studies all themselves acknowledge that the data is not the most reliable and that the results could indicate numerous possibilities with regards to the affects of migrations. The only thing which is for certain from the studies is that we can currently claim that all native Western Europeans have a Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry and that currently we can only somewhat distinguish between peoples of the Neolithic and Paleolithic eras based on only part of our genetic ancestry (Y. Chrom., MtDNA, only limited data from Austomal DNA has been documented in these studies and only thoroughly by Cavalli-Sforza). I hope you see now why these studies (if they can be fully relied upon) do not give us much proof as to the details of post-neolithic/paleolithic migrations. We need to find more ways to accurately map our genetic ancestry, from more sections of our DNA and from more detailed and numerous sampling. As all of the studies which have been carried out make sure to mention, population genetics is still in its early stages and we can not accurately or conclusively say if or if not various migrations happened or the level of influence those peoples had on the current populations. By the way, my apologies for any "personal attacks" (although I still maintain that I made none) in our previous previous heated exchanges on talk:English people. I'm out for now, 69.157.126.241 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

this information can not distinguish between very ancient (Paleo., Neo., etc.) and more recent migrations of peoples in the sense that Bronze Age

• Is anyone claiming it can? The migrations of the Bronze and Iron ages are not facts, they may have happened, they may have not, no one knows. It is disingeneous to claim that these certainly occured. What is the case is that archaeologists are increasingly sceptical of any mass migrations into Great Britain at this time, there is no record for this time except for material culture and this cannot tell us about migrations. Genetic analysis can only tell us so much, the current work seems to indicate that north western Europeans are mainly descended from the paleolothic population thought to have expanded out of the Iberian peninsula, which has the R1b locus. Alun 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• The only thing which is for certain from the studies is that we can currently claim that all native Western Europeans have a Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry

Isn't this exactly what the article states? Moreover, some genetic research seems to support the idea that the Y-chromosomes of people living in the British and Irish Isles are mainly descended from the indigenous European paleolithic population (80%), with about a 20% neolithic input. Alun 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• In any case, the 80% and 20% figure was for the Y-chromosomes from the sample in England, not the MtDNA

Have you read the paper cited in the article Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans? mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA is used there and gives an 80-20 split, and the article Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People states that the Y chromosome data for an 80-20 split are supported by mtDNA work. Alun 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you see now why these studies (if they can be fully relied upon) do not give us much proof as to the details of post-neolithic/paleolithic migrations.

No one claims that they do, but it is a fallacy to claim that any migrations into Great Britain at this time are a certainly. Alun 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The information is still from one or two limited studies

Previously you claimed a single study. There have been more than two studies, three are listed above and show similar results. Of course the more data that are collected the better the picture will be. But the curent work does produce citable material that can be used. We do need to make sure that what we are verifying is actually what the paper states, it would be very bad to try to infer that a paper claims something that it does not. I think that the current wording of the article is more accurate than it was previously, and that is thanks to your observations. Alun 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, my apologies for any "personal attacks" (although I still maintain that I made none)

No problem. You didn't make an intentional personal attack. I was originally very offended, some time later I began to suspect that you had not intended to imply that I was a supporter of the British National Party. It was a misunderstanding and I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to it, I should have realised you didn't intend to be offensive. Alun 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear not to understand what a POV is, if a reliable source states a POV, then it is perfectly acceptable to include that POV in an article as long as it is cited. What is not acceptable is to include only one POV when several exist, we should include the majority and all significant minority POVs, excluding only POVs held by tiny minorities, this is how neutrality is achieved. Alun 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go at rephrasing the paragraph on immigration into Wales during the Industrial Revolution. Rhion 06:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems I'm a vandal now. Oh well, sod it then.Rhion 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, nice rewrite. Alun 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, Wobble, I know what POV is, lol. 69.157.126.241 23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

I'd like to remove this section from the infobox. It's remained unverified for a long time, and these sections seem to be almost impossible to verify. I'm not convinced of the merits of this section, it is always a question of opinion, and then many editors want to make it a question of race or history rather than how modern Welsh people identify. There's also some info in the text of the article that is more enlightening about Welsh people seeing themselves as modern Celts, I think this provides better info. Would anyone object to removal of the section? Alun 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. How would you know what most Welsh people identify with? I also know many Welsh people who see themselves as a seperate group, that is historically, linguistically, and ethnically related to other celtic peoples. But your view like my own is subjective and therefore cannot be used in this article. I believe that what is written on this page should be 100% fact, which is that Welsh people are an ethnic group, that are closely affiliated with other Celtic peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpayne (talk • contribs)

• How would you know what most Welsh people identify with?

I wouldn't, and have not claimed to. I am seeking verifiability. This is a wikipedia policy.Alun 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• your view like my own is subjective and therefore cannot be used in this article.

This is exactly why we seek verifiable reliable sources, without such sources all wikipedia is is a bunch of personal opinion. What we seek in neutrality by including the all of the main points of view from reliable sources. No reliable sources are cited for this section, so it is, as you say just someone's opinion. I am asking to remove this personal opinion untill such time as we can get verifiability. Alun 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that what is written on this page should be 100% fact

What you believe is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't recognise facts, only human knowledge, remember the basis for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. See WP:V.

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. From verifiability policy. Alun 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you feel you are being hypocritical here, on one hand you say 'what I believe is irrelevant' but on the other hand, you seek to remove all of the ethnic group boxes as you feel that they are wrong, as the current ethnic populations of countries cannot be defined by that population's ancestors and ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpayne (talk • contribs)

• you seek to remove all of the ethnic group boxes as you feel that they are wrong,

No I don't, I have never said that at all and I have no idea if they are right or wrong, it has nothing to do with my feelings and I have never stated that it has. You will observe that I did not remove the box from this article because there was no consensus for it. On the English people there was a clear consensus against the box. I have said that they should be removed because they are unverified. I also think that they do not reflect proper academic ideas, if they did they would be easy to verify I suspect. Please understand, this si about making Wikipedia neutral and reliable, at present the ethnic groups are just the opinions of some editors, they lack any neutrality (no alternative is given), verifiability (they lack supporting citations) and constitute original research (justifications for inclusion often constitute original thought). Alun 05:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Revet as of 12:17, 20 August 2006

The claim has also been made that Indo-European languages may have been introduced to the British and Irish Isles as early as the early neolithic (or even earlier), with Goidelic and Brythonic languages possibly developing indigenously. Moreover, some genetic research seems to support the idea that the Y-chromosomes of people Alun 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• We don't need to include the possibly, it is already mentioned as a claim, and so is already acknowledged as speculation.
• Stating that it is some genetic research indicates that other genetic research contradicts these findings. Please produce this work if it exists as it should be included in the article. If none exists then I see no problem with the original wording. If you think the current wording is too unequivocal e couls phrase it something like Currently genetic research indicates, what do you think? Alun 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• There are data derived from autosomal and mtDNA studies that support the 80-20 split, or something close to it. The paper cited in the article includes these figures and does not exclusively rely on Y chromosome work, I urge you to read it. Alun 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. How would you know what most Welsh people identify with? I also know many Welsh people who see themselves as a seperate group, that is historically, linguistically, and ethnically related to other celtic peoples. But your view like my own is subjective and therefore cannot be used in this article. I believe that what is written on this page should be 100% fact, which is that Welsh people are an ethnic group, that are closely affiliated with other Celtic peoples.

Related Ethnic Groups

For about 5 years now DNA testing performed by hundreds of organizations has found again and again that the Welsh are genetically very similar to the Basques of northern Spain and south western France " Gene scientists claim to have found proof that the Welsh are the "true" Britons." BBC. "The Welsh and Irish Celts have been found to be the genetic blood-brothers of Basques, scientists have revealed.

The gene patterns of the three races passed down through the male line are all "strikingly similar", researchers concluded.

Link BBC Ethnic links: Many races share common bonds Basques can trace their roots back to the Stone Age and are one of Europe's most distinct people, fiercely proud of their ancestry and traditions. " BBC

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

As for the Welsh language, there is strong linguistic evidence that Welsh, Cornish and Cumbric are closely related to the Hamitic languages of North Africa and that the North African Berbers and most of the pre-celtic tribes of Britain shared a common ancestor that probably came from the Iberian peninsula or southern France. The first languages spoken in the British Isles by homo sapiens were probably not indo-european but rather something scholars would classify as hamitc.

http://www.britam.org/language.html

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:0fi2iWSbyMMJ:www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631215808/Price.pdf+welsh+hamitic+languages&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=firefox-a

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe01 (talk • contribs)

I don't really see what your point is. You are clearly wrong about the Welsh language, I don't think anyone disputes that is is an Indo-European Language. The links you point to do not support your contention that Welsh, Cornish and Cumbric are closely related to the Hamitic languages, indeed the second link (the only one with academic credentials) states Welsh and Irish respectively have many syntactical features that are not generally characteristic of the Indo-European languages but which do have striking parallels in the Hamitic languages of North Africa.....point out that anthropological evidence is consistent with the view that some pre-Celtic stratum in the population could have migrated to Britain from North Africa via Spain....a mixed language resulted which was basically Celtic but which contained syntactical features carried over into it from the other languages. So what? All this shows is that Welsh has some characteristics that may be derived from the language spoken by people living in the area of Great Britain at some point in the paleolithic. This also seems to be the theory of just two academics, it is not a consensus view. But Welsh is an Indo-European Language, the similarities to Hamitic languages are small, and certainly not close as you claim. It would be absurd to try to call these people Welsh or Celtic, or the area they lived in Wales, these were paleolithic hunter gatherers.

The information you present regarding molecular biology do not represent reliable sources, if one wants to cite scientific work then the original scientific papers should be used as sources. I have too often seen what I can only describe as bollocks written by uninformed, biased and essentially stupid journalists who want to make sensationalist claims about scientific work they clearly do not understand. It is also worth pointing out that descent is not the same as ethnicity. Welsh ethnicity is not determined by race, one doesn't have to have a DNA test to prove one's Welshness to be considered Welsh.

Welsh people are not genetically similar to the Basques. Welsh people, along with Basques and all other european populations have markers on the Y chromosomes of men that are thought to indicate that a majority of all European (men) are descended from the paleolithic population of Europe. Basque people are thought to represent a population that is genetically very similar to the early paleolithic populations of Europe, for this reason they are often used as a putative paleolithic population, or if you like a yardstick against which to measure other populations. What the research shows is that Welsh ad Irish people have a similar degree of variability within the Y chromosome allele distribution to those of Basque people, other Europeans have significant proportions of the same paleolithic markers, but also contain other markers, possibly derived from other source populations. If this shows anything it just shows that Welsh, Irish and Basque people have been more isolated from incomming populations into Europe. That is, there has been less ingression into these communities by neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age , Roman, English, Viking etc people than into other European/British areas. Your link to the map derived from the work of Capelli et al. shows this clearly, the R1b allele is clearly the predominant one in the British Isles, and throughout Western Europe, with a decrease in intensity as one moves eastwards, [3] it is thought to have spread from the Iberian peninsula after the last Ice age, so a very long time ago (12,000 years).[4] Alun 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Welsh are closely related to the Basques and are descended more so from the Iberian hunter gathers than most other european populations. Haplotype r1b is 90% in Wales and the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South Western France, this genetic statistic proves that thee two groups are very closely related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe01 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to know how Welsh people are closely related to Basque people, because you provide no evidence. The evidence only shows that genetically speaking Welsh and Basque Y chromosomes may be derived from the same source population, as are all other western European populations, but with these two populations remaining relatively reproductively isolated in the intervening time, but given a small population founder effect it doesn't really prove anything, and certainly proves nothing regarding ethnic identity. What is the evidence that Basque populations accurately represent the Iberian population of 10,000 years ago, and don't represent merely a subset of this population? As I said before all of this speculation is based on certain assumptions that may or may not be true, the main assumption is that the Basque population represents a good theoretical paleolithic source population against which to measure other European populations. Any claim of a close relationship between Basque and Welsh people is very dubious indeed, all of western Europe shows majority proportions of the R1b haplotype in the Y chromosome population, we're all probably descended from the same source population. So Welsh and Basque peoples are more inbred, big deal. These data don't prove any continuity of contact over the ten millenia or so since the two populations diverged, and given the massive distances and differences in language and culture there seems to have been little or no large scale contact between the populations in antiquity. I really fail to understand what your point is or how it is relevant to the article. Alun 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would object. How would you know what most Welsh people identify with? I also know many Welsh people who see themselves as a seperate group, that is historically, linguistically, and ethnically related to other celtic peoples. But your view like my own is subjective and therefore cannot be used in this article. I believe that what is written on this page should be 100% fact, which is that Welsh people are an ethnic group, that are closely affiliated with other Celtic peoples.

Also

I changed the wording of the sentence because the wording made it sound as if the genetic research the link was referring to was fully conclusive, reliable and repeatedy tested, which it isnt (as is population genetics as whole). Few studies have been carried out, each with controversial "conclusions" on the subject matter. In any case, the findings in this link do not add any more or less weight to the cultural diffusionist theory of some academics (the cultural diffuionist theory itself notably under increased crticism of late). I explained this in an earlier discourse above which points out why this test (largely based on MtDNA and Y-chrom., with some limited autosomal testing*) does not help differ between older paleolithic and neolithic age migrations and later bronze age, iron age, etc. migrations. Epf 05:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (*I say "limited" because its very controversial how autosomal testing is currently carried out in these studies since the autosomal markers are not as identifiable in aiding genetic genealogy as Y Chrom. or MtDNA markers)

It's good to make the wording as neutral as possible. You are quite right, the distribution of genetic markers throughout the Isles is heterogeneous. In this work they were bunched together as it covered a geographically large area, the whole of Europe. I used the term British and Irish Isles because some time ago there was a detailed discussion over at Talk:British Isles, and it appears that for many inhabitants of the Republic of Ireland the term British Isles is offensive, they prefer British and Irish Isles or Anglo-Celtic Isles for the whole archipelago. It is still standard usage to use British Isles, but be aware that to the majority of people British Isles still includes the whole Island of Ireland, and changing it from British and Irish Isles might serve little more than to offend Irish people. Alun 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news about the Origins of the Welsh and the British.

In addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes into account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Now we have another Oxford study whose reference has been just published two days ago in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought (really, who would have thought that they come from the Spanish!.

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.

It seems that here we have very interesting new information for the article.

Veritas et Severitas 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The first link you provide is actually cited in the Welsh people article. The second one appears to be little more than publicity for Sykes's book and there appears to be no new research done. See the discussion here Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Major_new_genetic_study_2006_Oxford. Alun 09:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

More information about Skyes research here. http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1393742006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globe01 (talk • contribs)

This doesn't look like new research. It looks like a popular science book explaining current scientific thinking. Most of this stuff is already in wikipedia. Alun 05:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Roll back

As regards the roll back by me:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.129.80.183&diff=77578344&oldid=77577178 --Bhadani 19:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More info

---

national genographic data on british isles to support the r1b evidence.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Is genetics all there is here?

This discussion page is currently 56kb long and almost impossible to edit sensibly. And it is all about genetics and how to interpret genetic studies. Is that all there is to people? All that seems to happen on this discussion page is two or three people discussing studies (or press releases and/or press articles about said studies). At length. And no-one seems to be getting any near consensus. There is another 74kb of archive, over half of which is the same stuff. The history piece of the article is full of "citeneeded" on comments from history books and full of links to genetic studies. I regret ever adding the comment that there are people in Wales who assert a link with previous Celtic ancestors. My intended point at the time was not whether such a link exists, but that there is something of a self-image of Celts, from Celtica (attraction near Machynlleth now defunct) to Celtic Warriors (rugby team now.. urr.. defunct. Um). I realise that this is tricky stuff to describe with a neutral point of view, but tons has been written on self-image and self-identity and there was plenty of scope for expansion there. And now even that has now been turned into stuff about what that might mean genetically: "The consensus in Wales today is that they regard themselves as Celtic, claiming a heritage back to the Iron Age tribes, which themselves, based on modern genetic analysis, would appear to have had a predominantly paleolithic and neolithic indigenous ancestry".

You know, if I went down to the pub and asked "where do we come from?" (doubtless to be followed by "I mean, really, when you get down to it" and "what's it all about, hmm?"), I really doubt that most people would say "well, although the common shorthand is Celtic, in fact there is a traceable line back to the Iron Age, which itself can be shown to be derived from a predominantly stone age indigenous ancestry". I strongly query that the latest press releases on genetic research are the stuff of national identity. Except when the Western Mail has a slow news day.

But every time I check my watchlist, people (mostly the same few) are editing and re-editing the article and the discussion, changing stuff in their old posts (which makes it really difficult to follow, btw), disputing interpretations of data, and creating a 56kb (57 now, I expect, sorry!) page. And the genetics stuff is all over other "some adjective People" pages too. Not that I care too much about that, because I don't read them, but can't you settle on one location to hash it all out in? If it must be on this article, how about a subpage of the discussion?

Sorry to be so plaintive. But I just lose all heart to edit the rest of this article when there is a constant low-grade set of reversions along the lines of some/many, claimed/proven, tis/tisn't on one single aspect. Reading the history of the article in 250-edit chunks is depressing, because "tis/tisn't" sums up a lot of it.

Telsa (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. There has been some thought of starting an article specifically about genetic research and the biological origins of British people, this would probably be a good solution, it would focus thee debate better and a small section from it could be included here. Alun 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah thats a good idea alun, there might aswell be seperate articles on the genetics of a nations population for all countries with the amount of obsession people have with discussing genetics in counrties peoples discussion pages globe01

I've been thinking a bit about this. My thoughts are as follows: We could split the article Immigration to the United Kingdom in two, a pre 1066 article called something like Prehisorical migration to Great Britain, and another article Historical migration to Great Britain (the UK part of the article is wrong as much of the article covers immigration that precedes the formation of the UK anyway). In the Prehistorical migration article we could cover all points of view regarding movements of people, from the mass migratory theories of Gilds/Bede and the Victorians through to modern archaeologists who doubt mass migrations and recent evidence from genetic research. Because this article would be about the movements of people, rather than about ethnic groups or nations we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the endless speculation as to whether biological descent is the main component of ethnic identity. It leaves the people pages free to concentrate of culture, history, society etc, all we need do is include a short section outlining the basic theories regarding biological origin, with a more information redirect to the main article about movements of people. It would also help to shorten and focus the immigration article, which currently has a huge scope and covers things as diverse as Neolithic migrations to modern day immigration law (including discussion of things like illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Of course such a big change would require a consensus from the editors of several pages, but I thought I'd mention it here first as Telsa has queried the necessity for so much attention to this topic on so many pages. This has been extensively debated on Anglo-Saxons, Briton, English people and Irish people as well as here (and probably on other pages as well. I think my solution could rationalise this quite a bit. What's the consensus on this page? Alun 18:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bollocks to it then. Alun 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied to that on your talk page.Telsa (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You know, if I went down to the pub and asked "where do we come from?" (doubtless to be followed by "I mean, really, when you get down to it" and "what's it all about, hmm?"), I really doubt that most people would say "well, although the common shorthand is Celtic, in fact there is a traceable line back to the Iron Age, which itself can be shown to be derived from a predominantly stone age indigenous ancestry".

I don't doubt this is what people would say at all. You may not get these exact words, but you'd get something like, Welsh people were here first sort of answer, which is the same thing. Indeed it is one of the main sources of pride for most Welsh people that they see themselves as direct descendants of the original inhabitants of Great Britain, IMHO. Anyway this is an encyclopaedia, is it supposed to reflect what people down the pub think, or is it supposed to reflect current academic thought? Alun 06:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard far more reference to "Celt" than to anything earlier, but shrug. I don't think I am making my point clearly, so I shall stop trying to. As for current academic thought, I lack any background to assess whether these genetic studies are in fact mainstream solid science or just cherry-picked from a field that is very young, and to be honest, I am not that interested. Your ideas about new articles look fine to me. There are (or certainly were) history groups who specialised in population studies, but about all I know about them is that they existed: they may be a useful place to look for information. Given my clear inability to express what I mean (and it's not the first time on the talk page to this article), I think I shall not get involved there, and rather leave this article and any new ones to other people. Telsa (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Important: Not all of us Cymries like to be called "Welsh"

Note the term "Welsh" is generally not always a good word to name our people, because some of us "Welsh" people in Wales object to the term in times, was used to offend and insult others in Great Britain (like "to Welsh them up" or "Welshing them") had violent meanings to promote ethnic and regional tensions against the "Welsh". Many of us preferably self-named ourselves Cymry, Cimries or Camries from an earlier source in our language (consult the Wikipedia article on Welsh people). I'm not suggesting do away with the term, but in a political correct world we live in (Wikipedia has focused on what may accidentally offend or disparage groups of people), the terminology of "Welsh" send horrifying mental images of some historic level of prejudice and discrimination against us Cymries for over hundreds of years. The major reason why many Cymries left Wales in the 18th and 19th centuries to North America, Australia and South Africa (even into Northern France, where thousands of older local residents has family in Wales) was to preserve our language and culture. The issue was when the culture was endangered by an approaching British conformity, anything "Welsh" was treated an unfavourable act and legal penalties were inflicted by English authorities for anyone who did "Welsh" cultural behaviours. I knew in the mid 1800s, Wales school houses punished students for openly speaking the language around instructors or teachers, and were rigourously disciplined for doing so. The children set at the corner or by the chalkboard had wore an embarrassing sign "Welsh Not" for English speaking children to observe how "those bad unpatriotic Welsh kids" are having a different culture. The Argentine-Welsh community struggles to preserve their cultural integrity in the year 2006, but the anti-British and nationalist mood during the Falkland Islands war (1982) made several thousand of people from the region emigrate to Canada and/or Chile. I never heard of the Argentine people adopted the term for reasons as a pejorative, but be in mind in part of ethnic sensitivity on the usage of "Welsh". 63.3.14.1 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Welsh_settlement_in_Argentina"

I'd never heard of Cimries or Camries, and a Google search confirms this. Cimries have no meaningful results and Camries are either cars or misspellings of 'carries'. Gareth 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• • No, because he should have said "Cambrians", you see, England should had called us Cambria. It would had been better than "Welsh". Though I personally don't mind the word, but I don't mind Cymry or Cambrian myself Amlder20 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Should "Some people in Wales of Welsh extraction object to the term "Welsh" and instead self-title themselves Cymry" really be in the lead? I don't know of anybody who objects to the term "Welsh" - I certainly don't (though I reserve the right to knock out the teeth of the next person who puts "fucking" in front of it and "bastard" behind). We use "Cymry" when speaking Welsh, "Welsh when speaking English. Rhion 14:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe it shouldn't be included at all in the entire article, especially when there's no reference given. 81.111.118.10 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)