Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Genetics This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

==Population genetics==

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

the title is supposed to parallel Genetic history of Europe. Obviously, "history" here isn't used in the sense of "historiography", but in the sense of "diachronic series of events". See also the Category:Modern human genetic history category. This is pure terminology, just like the "British Isles" nitpicking. The intended scope of this article should be clear, but it can of course be moved to a different title if there is a consensus. The term "British Isles" is not equivalent to "Great Britain and Ireland". The latter includes two islands, while the former includes some 6,000 islands, among them the Hebrides, the Orkneys and the Isle of Man. Population genetics of the British Isles is just a redirect, and should point here now. If you prefer, we can move this article to Population genetics of the British Isles, no problem. dab (𒁳) 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally agree that British Isles is better than Great Britain and Ireland, but I've actually been called a racist and an imperialist for using the term "British Isles", I've even been accused of denying Ireland's right to exist, something I found astonishing when it happened. As far as I was concerned British Isles was just a geographic term, but apparently it has a whole host of political connotations that I was previously unaware of. Take a look at the British Isles naming dispute article to see what I mean. As far as I knew the term "genetic history" was not a recognised term in the field of population genetics and seemed to be something of a neologism. Most sites returned when one googles for "genetic history" seem to be dedicated to selling or discussing personal DNA tests and say something like "your personal genetic history".[1] I personally prefer the more normal scientific term "population genetics", it's more widely used and understood. But maybe that's just a question of my own subjective preference, after having a look at PubMed Central there are 303 papers that refer to "genetic history", either for populations such as this, or for individuals as in "personal genetic history" such as this so I'm happy to keep the title as it is. By the way I think it was a good idea to split the articles. Alun (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

To a certain extent I agree about the pettyness, though on the other hand people do feel strongly about ethnic identity and it's hard to argue that someone doesn't have the right to identify how they like. Having said that, this is an encyclopaedia and so these considerations must be considered secondary to things like readability and common knowledge. I would point out though that the term "Great Britain" is actually often used to denote the largest island in the archipelago and the smaller surrounding islands, indeed the full name of the UK is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is implicit that all of the smaller islands are included in the term. The article Great Britain attributes this to the different meaning of the term from a geographical or political perspective. Politically Great Britain refers to the Kingdom of Great Britain which was formed from the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England (which included Wales at that point in time), this entity therefore included all of the islands associated with Scotland and England, but not those of Ireland, often the term in this sense is still used, even though this political entity has not existed for centuries. Geographically the term only refers to the largest island in the archipelago. As a Brit living in Finland I am constantly asked to explain why I get annoyed at being called English or when people talk about England when they mean Great Britain or the UK, it's a complicated place and often our assumptions about it are confounded, even for natives. I personally was very surprised to read on Wikipedia that Great Britain can mean the largest Island and all of the smaller islands surrounding it or it can mean just the biggest island. We're a funny lot and we come from a very odd place where it is difficult to easily explain the multiple levels of political and cultural identity we all have. After all that waffle, I'm happy to keep the name of the article as it is but it's also good to be aware than things are not always as straight forward as we might believe. Alun (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree: it isn't "hard to argue". Anyone may call themselves whatever they like. But not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is bound to WP:NAME, which states that we'll stick with the most commonly used term in English. Anyone unhappy with terminology needs to build a case that their preferred terminology is in fact more commonly used in relevant literature. I am sorry, but Great Britain refers to an island, the largest of the archipelago known as "British Isles", with an area of 209,331 km². The Great Britain article is duly graced with {{Infobox Island}}. I appreciate the political complications, but they are there in the real world, and they don't take away the fact that the island needs to be referred to somehow. This has to do with the history of imperialism of the Kingdom of Great Britain (named after the island), in the 17th centruy directed against Ireland. This is completely beside the point for the purposes of this article, which only deals with remote prehistory anyway. We just need to stick to the most commonly used geographic terminology and then stick to it, relegating all discussion of "implications" to Terminology of the British Isles. We should at this point proceed to addressing the actual content of this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree: it isn't "hard to argue".
Well you may find it easy to tell Irish people that they are "British", that's your prerogative but personally I would never be so arrogant as to tell someone else who they are.
  • Wikipedia is bound to WP:NAME, which states that we'll stick with the most commonly used term in English.
Umm, did't I actually make this point myself when I wrote: "Having said that, this is an encyclopaedia and so these considerations must be considered secondary to things like readability and common knowledge."?
And? I didn't state anywhere that it doesn't refer to an island. I actually said that it refers to an island in some contexts and a group of related islands in other contexts. I don't see where anythig you have written contradicts anything I have written.
  • which only deals with remote prehistory anyway.
Well if we're talking about remote prehistory, when the region was first populated by AMH it wasn't an island at all, it was a peninsula on the continent of Europe. Alun (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
well, I'm glad we agree then. "AMHs" don't enter into it, since the islands were again uninhabited by the LGM. I won't tell Irish people they "are British" just because Ireland is one of the British Isles. Yet one of the British Isles it is, unless some other terminology should become established (the "Hiberno-British Isles"?). It is not for us to coin new terminology like that. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone on Wikipedia called you a racist and an imperialist? I've been called a vandal for reverting back to British Isles (for which I extracted an apology), and there have been a lot of threats of the 'I'm going to report you type', but that sort of name-calling is much worse.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I got over it, it was a couple of years ago when things got really heated on the British Isles talk page, though it was a shock to me to be called something like that. On the other hand it may have made me a mite oversensitive about use of the term, hence my ambivalence here. I've been called a lot worse here since then!! Alun (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice paper

Here's a nice paper giving an alternative view to the "apartheid like social structure" paper. Is it necessary to assume an apartheid like social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England? Alun (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)