Talk:Irish people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Y- Chromosome analysis

Yet intriguingly, recent Y-chromosome (male descent) DNA studies have shown that most Irish people (in addition to the Welsh, some Scots and English) are close genetic relatives of the Basque people, setting them all apart from most European peoples (mtDNA, or female descent shows their maternal ancestors to be of broad north European origin)
My reading of the Nature paper does not indicate that the Y-chromosome work sets them all apart from most European peoples. In fact what it says is
we estimate that hg 1 (haplogroup 1) frequencies follow a cline within Europe, extending from the Near East (1.8% in Turkey) to a peak in the Spanish Basque country (89%) in the west. This cline mirrors other genetic gradients in Europe and is best explained by the migration of Neolithic farmers from the Near East.
My understanding of this is that certain genetic markers become more frequent the further west one travels in Europe, with a peak frequency in the far west. To state that this sets them appart from most European peoples is either a deliberate distortion of the science, or most likely a misunderstanding of it. It does not necessarily make Irish men who possess these Y-chromosome markers more genetically similar to Basque people, it just means that their Y-chromosomes are more similar, but Y-chromosomes are a special case, which is why they are used for these studies. In fact the mitochondrial DNA data do not support the claim of Irish-Basque people being set appart from other Europeans either. The piece also says that there are highly significant differences in the frequency of hg 1 (haplogroup 1) between Irish gaelic and non gaelic Y-chromosomes, they mean Irish non-gaelic and Irish gaelic, based on their assumptions regarding surname and geography. That is that Irish men with Irish names appear to possess Y-chromosomes with hg 1 more frequently than Irish men without Irish names, but this is not supprising, as they point out that surnames are inherited patrilineally and so are Y-chromosomes. These sort of genetic data are highly specialised and specific and do not necessarily support the sort of conclusions non-experts might draw.Alun 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I was reading that and thought "It must be an old comment. Hg1 is obsolete nomenclature". Well, it's not the case. It only has a year, so I'll try to explain.

Basques, Gascons, Irish and other "Celtic" peoples of the British Islands (Welsh, Scots) share the highest proportion of certain genetic markers that are also found aboundantly among other Western European populations. Yet these other populations seem to have suffered a greated degree of admixture in comparison. Ychr haplogroup [R1b] (formerly sometimes called Hg1 and Hg22) and also the female lineages (which show a somehow different pattern nevertheless) seem to evidence that Paleolithic Europeans are the main group of ancestors of most Western Europeans (and possibly also of other europeans as well, though this is more complex). This "Paleolithic" ancestry is best preserved ("purest") among the aforementioned peoples.

This conclussion is not actually anything new. Simmilar blood type apportion (specially highest global levels of Rh- but also relative lack of group B, which is strongest in Asia) already pointed in that direction since long before modern genetics arose.

In general, it's fairly reasonable to conclude that Basque, Irish and the other mentioned nationalities, and, to a lesser extent also the rest of Western Europeans (specially Iberians, other Britons, French, Belgians and Spaniards) are mainly direct descendats of the people that painted Altamira (Magdalenian culture) or, later, raised Stonehenge (Megalithic macro-culture). It's also reasonable to guess that those peoples spoke languages of the family of Basque. While Gaelic and the other Indo-European languages now spoken in that area arrived only later, in the Copper (Denmark), Bronze and Iron Ages.

In fact, it's reasonable to think that Gaelic was adopted by Irish and the other Celtic peoples of the Islands not long before Latin and Germanic languages also started to exert their influence over Western Europe (west of the Alps-Rhin-North Sea line).

Hope this helps. --Sugaar 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Photos

Who, and why, were the photos of Ali, Jeff and Jimi removed? What was so objectionable about featuring them?Fergananim 17:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of the images on this page were listed as "fair use" or were outright copyright infringements. Fair use images need a rationale for inclusion in an article, and cannot merely decorate a list. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use for more details. Jkelly 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

African-American Irish

Why are "Jimi" Hendrix and Cassius Clay included as people of Irish descent? Their inclusion makes Wikipedia seem foolish, juvenile, and unreliable. It is as if some teenage sports and rock music fan is being allowed to express his own pubescent enthusiasm. Thus the insistence on displaying prominent photographs of them, when many important Irish people are not shown.

Did Hendrix and Clay claim Irish parentage? If so, such a claim may be on a level with the popular assertion of descent from Cherokee Indians. Can it be proved? If not, is it suitable for an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia aspires to be?

Why was "Jimi" Hendrix described as "hugely influential?" My POV is that he was hugely inconsequential. Am I more right or wrong than someone else?

Is it racist to exclude Hendrix and Clay? This is supposed to be a list of people whose genetic background derived from a North Atlantic island near England. If so, then political correctness has again been shown to be laughable, if not dangerous.205.188.116.12 13:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)RyanWalsh

I agree. Unless proved, this makes Wikipedia look like nothing more than someplace for kids to add their grafitti. Having grown up in the era of Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) and Jimi Hendrix, I never heard either they or their spokespeople claim they had any Irish background.

And quite frankly it makes no more sense than if I went over to a list of famous African Americans and added Daniel O'Day and John L. Sullivan.Finbar 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're right about needing a source-- took all of three minutes to find "Born in Seattle, Washington, Hendrix was a mix of African, Cherokee and Irish blood." [1] This isn't far-fetched at all-- there was a well-known Indian Agent in North Carolina of Irish-Cherokee blood at the time of the American Revolution, and the Cherokee accepted escaped slaves into their tribes.

And from a more scholarly source: "Hendrix had African American/Cherokee Indian/Irish roots." [2] (Macquarie University) I assume now that it is sourced, you'll leave it alone? TIA, --Mwanner | Talk 18:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And just to cover all bases, a source for Ali's Irish heritage is [3], though the name of his Irish grandfather has been right there on the list from the outset. I'm curious, though. No one has questions about Charles DeGaulle, Robert De Niro, Álvaro Obregón? -- Mwanner | Talk 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have plenty of questions about them. I'd like to see the sources for including them. I also question Queen Elizabeth, Prince Albert, Miquel Ferrer.

But a few hours ago, you'd have been OK with the lists as long as Ali and Hendrix weren't included. Hmm... -- Mwanner | Talk 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point - just what are these people disputing the whole article, African Americans, or people of Irish decent that dont live in Ireland!. Come on, like the Queen or not everyone knows that they are intermarried to every regal family in Europe - including High King of Ireland Brian Boru. Djegan 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No that's not true. I was trying to get to questioning them when a revert war started. See my discussion below. Finbar 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The revert war has been going on since October 7, but you're the first logged-in editor to remove Ali and Hendrix. But the anons who preceded you did set a nasty tone with some of their edit comments, and I think the reaction you're seeing stems from that.

Clearly, we should all take a deep breath. I, for one, am not wedded to having a list, though it seems a shame that the presence of a person of such undeniable talent as Hendrix should trigger an edit war. But short of defining a percentage-of-Irish-blood standard (god forbid!), it's hard to see how there's many alternatives other than No List or All Inclusive List. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It is your POV that Hendrix had "undeniable talent." It is my POV that he couldn't even spell "talent."152.163.100.7 23:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Kelly Cary

Its simply no use now crying about poltical correctness and such. The anon who made this edit[4] last night only have themselves to blame - when your place edit summaries such as "Delete Negroid Persons", "Delete Non-alcoholics" and "Delete people who are obviously not of Irish descent"[5] then its quite obvious you have an agenda - really I dont care who appears in the article (as it is subjective—an nonsense—by default and the worse sort of wikipedia excess) but if you are just removing people because of some obvious racial reason then dont expect people to take you serious. Djegan 17:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus, you have to wonder at someone questioning whether Jimi Hendrix was hugely influential. And apparently "Timothy Finneran - Hugely influential publican" isn't so hugely influential that anyone has bothered to write an article about him. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

I question the whole purpose of these lists. Is it simply to show that someone had an ancestor who was from Ireland? If so, how far back do you go? What if the listed person never identified with the Irish community?

And since DNA research shows that we are all descendant from Africans would it be permissable to list any American as an African American? My gut feeling is that if I added John L. Sullivan to the List of African Americans he'd be deleted pretty quickly. And rightly so. Finbar 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you go back a little farther, we are all descended from (delete politically incorrect word).152.163.100.7 23:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Kelly Carey

I just dont know why User:IrishHermit dosent stop dancing around the science question and come straight out with his racist idea that if their not white then their not irish or of irish decent. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't know me from Adam and you have no right to call me racist. Show me how I'm dancing around the science question? Show where I've written anything racist?

I suggest that you read this page:WP:NPA Finbar 20:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats a straw man arguement, its not a personal attack, read the policy again. You cannot use the disputted tag just because you are afraid of (and broke) the 3RR rule, are you 205.188.117.10?
Djegan 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me where I broke the 3RR rule? Looking at the history of the article I see two edits. This is from the policy:

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to: Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

So, calling me a racist isn't a personal attack? Still waiting to be shown where I've written any racist material.

BTW, the article is still disputed. Finbar 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Where were you called a racist, be specific and quote, rather it was "...his racist idea...". Asking a question is not a personal attack - their is no right as-per-say to maintain disputed status just because several editors have reverted edits that were not in good faith. Djegan 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is where I was called a racist:

...IrishHermit dosent stop dancing around the science question and come straight out with his racist idea ....

That sir, is calling one a racist. If I'm accused of having racist ideas then I'm accused of being a racist.

I am not 205.188.117.10. I sign my posts.

I'm still waiting to be show where I broke the 3RR rule on this article. Finbar 21:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect your ideas are just strawman arguments. 1. Being called "a racist" and "racist ideas" are very different yet you insist they are the same thing. 2. I asked you a question, you answered it. Simple. That case is closed. Djegan 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that I have racist ideas? Yes or No?Finbar 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You dont need me to interpret the comments on this page (nor my own). But I am not going to perpetuate a storm in a tea cup, so now, if you have something substantial to submitt then keep replying by all means (because I see no point in doing so), because wikipedia is not a blog or chatroom. Djegan 21:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been accused of two things: 1. having racist ideas and 2. violating the 3RR rule. Neither of my accusers have had the courtesy of showing me where and when I did this. Neither have you two answered my direct questions. After making your accusations you hide behind lines such as "wikipedia is not a blog or chatroom" rather than responding. So, far all I've gotten for an answer is an argumentum ad personam.

I made one edit that removed Hendrix and Ali and added Che Guevera with a link to the source for the information of his Irish ancestry. I don't understand why you removed him.

I then added the dispute tag in good faith. Because it is in dispute. I dispute Queen Elizabeth, Gen. DeGaulle, Prince Albert, Miguel Ferrar

I'm still waiting for answers but I'm not holding my breath.Finbar 23:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't hold your breath, you have a very low pain threshold - let me make it clear for the last time, without ambiguity, or fancy formatting or latin phrases—a question is not an accusation and you are not getting an apology, because you are not entitled to one. Djegan 18:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No i do you from adam, though not personaly, and while i don't always see eye to eye with him on issues, he at least he is willing to look at the evidence and not propose an absurd racial argument on a question of ethnic origin. And if that makes me calling t you a racist in you eyes, then fine, but i am not the one proposing that idea. So based on your argument i guess i should go tell my cousin, who is half black and look black that his is not of Irish ethnicity because his skin is black. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Those proofs of Cassius Clay's and "Jimi" Hendrix's Irish roots are certainly unimpeachable. They would stand up in any court. I see they even include the old Cherokee Indian blood. I'm surprised that those Cherokee Indians had any energy left to perform their daily tasks, since so many people claim to be their descendants. Clay and Hendrix certainly belong on the "Irish People" page. There's no doubt in my mind. I bet that they even liked to have a wee drop now and then to quench their thirst. 152.163.100.7 23:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)Kelly Carey

By their words shall ye know them. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that it depends on whether this page is for "Irish Irish" people or those born overseas and who have, or claim, Irish ancestry. One or two of the latter, eg Peter O'Toole, have got into the list, but if you extended it to all these types the list would be VERY long and have a few dubious entries. Cassius Clay had an Irish great grandfather (Mr Grady), but then so did General de Gaulle. The only famous black Irishman I know of is Paul McGrath, who was born in Dublin.Bill Tegner 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone above it all comments

Gee I leave this alone for two days (after weeks of work) and look at what the kids have got up to! Seriously though, what's the problem with having Ali and Jimi included? Jimi's grandmother, Nora Rose Moore, was very proud of her Irish/Cherokee heritage - her Mum was black, her father, Robert Moore, was the son of an Irishman and a Cherokee indian lady. I included them, and others, because they are of Irish descent, at one remove or another, and in the case of Ali and Jimi, they were most certainly aware of it. Ali's great-grandad was an O'Grady from Ennis, Co. Clare. We can't turn our backs on our kin just because they have a more funky skin colour than us palefaces! Sure I have cousions in the Caribann as black as coal, but I'd never deny who they were! Fergananim 12:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Note from the original reviser

Hi guys, Fergananim here again. As I was the person who first included both Ali (not Clay!) and Jimi, and thus inadvertantly caused the resulting dispute, I figured I better put in my two cents worth in more depth.

Ali and Jimi

The first person - who, I don't know as it was not signed though subsequent posts would indicate it was Finbar - asked "Why are "Jimi" Hendrix and Cassius Clay (sic) included as people of Irish descent?" ... well, because they are. Ali's great-grandfather was from Ennis, Co. Clare, and while Ali had some issues with these roots, it was because Abe Grady was White, not because he was Irish. He thought that his great-grandfather had a rich white man/poor black servant with his great-grandmother. This was not the case. Abe fell in love with, and married her, and to the best of my recollection Ali's attitude was one that angered other members of the family.

This puts his Irish descent on an exact par with both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Regan, who also had Irish great-grandfathers. Thus, I included Ali in the list.

Jimi's paternal grandmother, Nora Rose Moore (1879-1984) was the daughter of Robert Moore, an Irish-Cherokee from Georgia. His father, Jimi's great-great grandfather, was an Irishman named Moore who married a Cherokee woman.

As is the case with Albert II, Prince of Monaco, Jimi's Irish descent was via a great-great grandparent.

Both of these men have in fact closer blood ties to Ireland than Che Guvara, who's kinship was more distant, going back to his great-great-great-great grandfather, Patrick Lynch of Oranmore.

Any person with a good knowledge of modern music will acknowledge the profound effect and influences that Jimi has had from late 1966 right up to the present day. Anon's clearly has other musical tastes, or at least criteria, when it comes to this, but that seems to be from both ignorance of the person concerned and an unwillingness, for whatever reason, to acknowledge that. Jimi was one of the most accomplished musicians of any age, a fact acknowleged and expressed by people in just about every genre of music, be it blues, rock, jazz or classical. I must even state for the record that he was an early fan of The Chieftains, who's early work he was introduced to via Brian Jones of The Rolling Stones.

Anon cites their joint inclusion as '"foolish, juvenile and unrealiable." Not in the least; they qualify because of their noteworthiness and their proven descent.

The anon user seems not to have read the heading under which the people are listed. It reads (and I quote) Notable people of Irish descent. All those I listed were notable people, and of Irish descent. Nobody said where to draw the generational line, nor what qualifications they had to be other than the above. I do think my additions fit those terms. This is why "many important Irish people are not shown." They were not Irish, but they were of Irish descent, as indicated by the heading. Thus I did not include them under the heading Notable Irish people (selection); that is reserved for people born or raised here.

As to other cases of dispute: Queen Elizabeth II is descended from good Irish stock several times over. Her ancestors include Brian Boru, Fergus I of Dalriada, and Niall of the Nine Hostages, to name some of the most well-known. Should also have included both Prince William of Wales and his brother Prince Harry of Wales; via their late mother, they are descendants of a sister of Patrick Sarsfield.

A question from myself, for a change. Why did'nt anyone object to my addition of the likes of Jeff Buckley, Kenneth I of Scotland, Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham? What made anon angry enough to remove just Ali and Jimi, and not say the three above?

Thank you all for your time. It's being stimulating. Fergananim 19:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Number of Irish people

Number of Irish people in Ireland

Where are the numbers of Irish in the infobox from please? Why is the population of Irish in Ireland almost 50% more than the actual population? [6] The US figures appear over-estimated by a similar amount [7] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ireland = Republic of Ireland + Northern Ireland Djegan 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That still leaves a few hundred thousand people overcounted in the number here, and that's even if you include every single person in Ireland. Are there any references? zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The total population of the island of Ireland according to the two most recent censuses is: 5,602,470 (1,685,267[8] + 3,917,203[9]). I've amended the infobox to show this number but I think it is wrong to show the total population of the whole island (whatever their ethnic group). The Irish census will ask about ethnic group for the first time in 2006. zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the number of Irish-born from the two censuses anyway.

• Total born in Ireland: 5,081,726
  • Irish born living in the Republic of Ireland, Total: 3,508,407 (born: RoI 3,458,479 ; NI 49,928) Source: Ireland 2002 census, Persons, males and females, usually resident and present in the State on Census night, classified by place of birth 2002.
  • Irish born living in Northern Ireland, Total: 1,573,319 (born: RoI 39,051 ; NI 1,534,268) Source: UK 2001 census, Table KS05: Country of Birth (Numbers).

zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of Irish people in other countries

These are the numbers of Irish people reported in the censuses of other countries.

• Britain 2001 [10] = 691,232 (ethnic group)
  • England 624,115
  • Scotland 49,428
  • Wales 17,689
• The number of people living in Britain who were born in Ireland is 750,657 (RoI 494,154, NI 256,503) (Source UK 2001 Census: Scotland Table 8 Persons by age and country of birth, 2001 and 1991 ; England and Wales Table KS05 Country of birth). See also NI Table KS05: Country of Birth (Numbers).
• US ('race')
  • 2000 [11]: 30,528,492
  • 1990 [12]: 38,769,200
  • There is a 2002 community survey[13] which suggests that there are 34,262,120 of Irish ancestry in the US, but this is not as comprehensive as the US census.
• Canada(2001) [14] (ethnic origin):
  • Total: 3,822,660 (of which...)
    • Single response: 496,865
    • Multiple response: 3,325,800
• Australia(2001)[15]: 1.9 million (ancestry)
• New Zealand (ethnic group) (explained a bit on the Talk:English people page) (ref - Table 2a)
  • 1991 7,395
  • 1996 73,047
  • 2001 11,199

There is a question of whether to show the numbers for those who identify their ancestry as Irish, or those whose primary ethnic group is Irish. The latter figures are mostly unavailable. The figures currently in the article are unreferenced and over-inflated in either case. zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about certain people on the lists

I believe that Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve (The Great Gildersleeve) and Annie Rooney (Little Annie Rooney are fictional characters. Aloysius Duffy may also be fictional (Duffy's Tavern, a radio show). When I ran a Google search on these names I did not find any hits for real people. CuinnDubh 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Redlinked Notables

I have removed a dozen redlinked "notables", on the theory that, if they were notable, they'd already have an article. That, plus it kinda looks like there's an ongoing effort to flood the list (WP:Point, perhaps?) -- Mwanner | Talk 23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have removed the Disputed tag, as the arguments seem to have been settled. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictorial revisions

007, a Jedi Knight, a Roman emperor, and Roisin Dubh ... y'know, its pretty cool to be Irish!Fergananim 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish infobox

Does anybody else agree that the colours in the infobox are a bit much? Modular. (Talk.) 13:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the article garish. Jkelly 16:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The infobox colours are too much, and frankly I'd prefer better ones. I see that there have being many revsions, espeically with images, though I understand fair use is the explanation. Still, I hate to see Samanta go .... Fergananim 17:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just passing by and agree that that the infobox isn't working at present. Suggest either a flag as (say) part of the caption or (perhaps better) a low-brightness semi-transparent flag image as a background – if that's possible.

David Kernow 09:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced the tricolour with a nice beige, in line with Template:Ethnic group. zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Y chromosome revisited

I have been asked to elaborate on the Y chromosome post I made earlier. I don't know how much more detail I can give, but I'll give it a go. The Y-chromosome, like mitochrondrial, DNA is a special case. Only men possess Y-chromosomes, they inherit them from their fathers, who inherit them from their fathers etc. We all possess 23 pairs of chromosomes, we get one of each pair from each parent. The chromosomes that do not determine gender are called autosomal chromosomes and there are 22 pairs of these. The sex-chromosomes determine gender and women possess a pair of X-chromosomes, while men posess one x chromosome (from their mother) and one Y-chromosome (from their father). As I say the Y-chromosome is passed from father to son in a direct line, but it is inherited intact as it were, I mean that my Y-chromosome is identical to that of my father, and to that of my paternal grandfather etc. This is not the case with the autosomes. Autosomal chromosomes (and X-chromosomes for women) share their genetic information with each other during gametogenesis (the formation of sperm in men and ova in women). So my sons have exact copies of my Y-chromosome, but the copies of my chromosome #1 they get from me are mixtures of DNA from both copies of my chromosome #1, that from my mother and that from my father. So the chromosomes they inherit from me are all different from my chromosomes (although the genetic information all comes from me) except for the Y-chromosome. If one thinks about ones ancestors (and let's face it few of us actually know anything about our forebears prior to our grandparents or great-grandparents generations) then certain assumptions can be made. For example lets assume that the average generational period is 25years, to give four generations in a century. There are therefore 40 generations in a thousand years. Given that each generation is descended from both a father and a mother we get a whopping 2 to the power of 40 people donating their DNA to us from this generation (that is 1,099,511,627,776 or over a million million). Given that this is larger than the population of the earth it is evident that we are multiply related to a large number of our ancestors. Given also that we men get our Y-chromosome from only one of the people that donated DNA to us from that generation, it should also be evident that what Y-chromosome analysis tells us is limited by the special nature of y-chromosome inheritance, and needs to be properly understood before people start using it to make unsubstantiated claims based on genetics they don't understand. There was a similar problem over at the Briton article several months ago. What the Nature article cited here actually says is that a certain type of Y-chromosome appears to be more frequent in Ireland and in the Basque country. It also tells us that this Y-chromosome could be from neolithic farmers populating Europe, that is from the stone age. This Y-chromosome occurs all over Europe, from Turkey, where it occurs at a frequency of 1.5% in the male population to central Europe where it is at about 15-20% to France and Germany (about 50%) to the Basque country and Ireland (90%). In Ireland men with goidelic Irish surnames possess this Y-chromosome at a higher frequency than men who possess surnames of non-Irish origin, though even in men from the latter group possess the chromosome at high frequencies (this is obvious as both surnames and Y-chromosomes are paternally inherited). What this means is that the Y-chromosomes (and therefore presumably the autosomal DNA) of these putative neolithic settlers occur all over Europe, but that it has been supplemented with DNA from other peoples entering Europe from the East in many other places in Europe. There is a nice map illustrating this in the article. If one thinks of Germany as having about 50% of men with this chromosome, then, given the large population in germany, there are more German men with this Irish Y-chromosome than Irish people in Ireland (about 70million Germans, 35million German men, half of which have this chromosome, so about 17.5million German men). So the Y-chromosome analysis indicates only that this chromosome occurs all over Europe, but in some parts of Europe other chromosomes also occur at higher frequencies than this one. I do not think that this supports some of the assertions in the text of the article. The incorrect use of genetic data to try to support dubious racial arguments (as in the implication that Irish people are different from other Europeans and therefore more pure) smack of the worst sort of xenophobia, and are the sort of arguments we Europeans should have learned not to propagate 60 years ago. I think that this sort of article should concentrate on Irish people, and not on dubious and discredited ideas of racial purity. By the way, do you have Phil Lynott?Alun 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

One further point. This statement

recent Y-chromosome (male descent) DNA studies have shown that most Irish people (in addition to the Welsh, some Scots and English) are close genetic relatives of the Basque people, setting them all apart from most European peoples

directly contradicts this statement

mtDNA, or female descent shows their maternal ancestors to be of broad north European origin

How can the people be both set apart from European peoples and be of broad north European origin?Alun 16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Y-chromosome part of the article as its conclusions were not supported by any of the available Y-chromosome analysis papers I have read, in fact the article said the exact opposite of the papers I have read. Please try to support edits with good sources, verifiability is so important. Alun 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See also

You might be interested to know that very similar arguments are being played out at Talk:List of Irish-Americans. I think it's evidence of the difficulty of making a list like this, as the criteria are impossible to define. "Notable people of Irish descent" sounds like a good statement of eligibility, but if you go far enough back "Irish descent" becomes so widespread as to be commonplace. --Ryano 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true that "Irish descent" does become very widespread the further you go back, however the list could be that of people with notable or "significant" amounts of Irish descent (say at least 1/8 or 12.5%). Those with Irish descent could also be those who have indigenous Irish descent only and not include those descended or partly-descended from Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots (Irish people with significant amounts of Lowland Scots/English ancestry). Epf 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable people of Irish descent:Rules for inclusion

As we seem to have some disagreement as to what degree of descent qualifys a person to be included under this heading, I would welcome any suggestions from those of you with an opinion. How far back should it go? What other qualifications besides descent should matter, or not? Looking forward to hear from you. Fergananim 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely anyone who can be shown to have Irish ancestry qualifies? I think you should start a separate page for the two lists, Welsh people has a link in the See also section to List of Welsh people (though presumably it should be List of prominent Welsh people). Welsh people also takes the format

1 History

2 Culture

2.1 Language

2.2 Religion

2.3 Symbols

3 Welsh emigration

4 See also

5 External links

6 References

and English people similarly

1 History

2 Culture

2.1 Contribution to humanity

2.2 Language

2.3 Religion

2.4 Sport

2.5 Symbols

3 Identity

4 References

5 See also

6 External links

I think articles like Irish people should reflect this sort of content. Alun 07:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The usual cut-off in Wikipedia for ethnicity (proposed by User:Vulturell and so far, AFAIK, generally accepted) is 1/4. i.e. we don't categorise anyone as Irish who is of less than 1/4 Irish ancestry. RMoloney (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Alun. Lists of people will just keep on growing so they may as well be put on a separate page now. The article is already longer than is preferable. I think a list of notable Irish people in the article may be appropriate as it would focus on people whose primary ethnicity is Irish. But as others have pointed out, the list of notable people with Irish ancestry is just too extensive to fit into the article. zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryano's POV

It is Ryano's POV that labelling "Roger Casement as a British traitor is POV."

Now, the British courts sentenced Casement to death for high treason. A person who commits high treason is formally and officially a traitor. It is not as though he is being called a subjective name such as "ninny" or a "wimp." The word traitor, in this case, is the correct objective word to use as a description because it is in accordance with the conclusion and finding of the British court system and is used under their authority.

Ryano's POV must be that Casement was unjustly found guilty of treason and is therefore not a British traitor. He should appeal the finding and reopen the case. If British justice is anything like American justice, there is sure to be a technicality that can be found which would result in the case being reversed.64.12.116.7 13:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)PerryMason

I don't actually have any problem with terming Casement a "British traitor", as he is formally considered as such by Britain on foot of his conviction for treason, as pointed out above. The only question is whether it is appropriate to use this to summarise his position as a notable Irish person. He was also a journalist, a diplomat, a knight, a gun runner, a homosexual, and plenty of other things. In the context of the article at hand, I think the most notable aspect is his participation in the Irish revolution of the early 20th century, for which reason I think "Irish revolutionary" is the most appropriate label. Other views on this are welcome.

You might note that I also removed "Irish patriot", as I consider that POV also. --Ryano 14:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Ruairí being called a "British traitor". As Barry Fitzgerald hilariously put it in The Quiet Man when the IRA arrived and threatened to burn a landlord out of it, 'that's a fine sentiment indeed'. De mortiis aut bene aut nihil. El Gringo 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved one List, Proposal to Shorten Other

Just echoing what was written above, but I find the article is cluttered by the lists. I copied both people lists over to List of Irish people. In addition, I completely excised the notable people of Irish descent list. I also feel the current list of notable Irish is long and could be trimmed but I am in no position to make a call on who should be left out on this page. Shawn M. O'Hare 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

edit

Just spruced up the photos - the one of Enya is fantastic - and removed two or three names from the list, such as Loreena McKennitt, as they were not Irish. Fergananim 16:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another edit

Mainly on personal names this time, as some of those cited as being Gaelic names most certainly were not. Also removed the annoying reference to the Celts at top of the page. Fergananim 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review article, anyone?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would anyone else support it being submitted for a peer review, once we tidy it up some more? Fergananim 14:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My first thought in skimming through the articles is that the sections for 'Surnames' and 'Notable Irish People' are waaaaaaaaay too long. Still reading, more comments later.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If Wikipedia needs a "list of notable Irish people" it probably shouldn't live in this article. Jkelly 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

References

I have modified the references so that they now point to the appropriate footnotes. This article is sadly lacking in properly referenced verifiable sources, this is very important, see here. Alun 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jack, John and Dylan?

The recent years have seen a major decline in most Irish names for babies being born in the Republic. While in the past names such as Patrick, John, Michael, Seamus and others were almost ubiquitous in any family, today they are among the rarer names for children and the same goes for most other Irish names, although there are a few notable exceptions. Jack and Sean, both Irish derivatives of the English name John.
I'd like to see some referenced source for the contention that Jack is an Irish derivative of John. I don't think this is true, but I'm no expert. Jack is used all over the British Isles and if it is claimed as Irish I think a supporting reference is required. Likewise with the name John. This paragraph appears to contradict itself. The first two sentences imply that John is an Irish name ..recent years have seen a major decline in most Irish names..in the past names such as Patrick, John..., later in the paragraph Jack is given as an Irish derivative of the English name John. John cannot be both Irish and English. Surely John and Michael are Biblical names anyway, John the Baptist for example and Michael. Alun 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting with the assumption that John is an English name, it may well be - but it doesn't necessarily follow that the derivative is. Jock is a Scottish derivative of John and Jack is a mostly Irish derivitive.. as far as I can tell. My grandfather was Christened John, but nobody called him anything other than Jack. Jack became a popular name throughout the British Isles. Despite what I have perhaps appeared to assert, I haven't researched the matter. But I would suggest to you that if a name becomes popular outside of its region of origin, that doesn't imply that it originated elsewhere. --Mal 09:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Male names from across the Atlantic Ocean have seen a surge in poularity from the mid '90s, names such as Dylan..
Checking that assertions on Wikipedia are correct is really important. We need to check that what we think are truths are supported by properly referenced sources. Please provide references. Dylan is a Welsh name, so how can it possibly be from across the Atlantic? It must have come across the Irish Sea. It took me a few seconds to come up with this:
DYLAN "of the sea" or "son of the waves" (Welsh). The name of the Welsh god of the sea. This is from The Etymology of First Names. Alun 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even bother looking at the talk page until today. I changed that nonsense about Jack yesterday, and that almost as silly line about Seán being derived from the English name John. The Norman contribution to Irish names was practically eliminated in this article, but then again when we have contributors talking about misnomers such as the "British Isles" all roads will invariably lead to England and all other influences upon Ireland will be written out. I really don't know why people so ignorant bother editing topics they clearly known nothing of. El Gringo 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User 70.30.71.252 and scotchnet info

revert - just b/c someone labelled themselves protestant and irish does not show that they are scotch...your rationale is pityful...the website is an opinion...did they interview each irish person?
I really think you need to read the wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. You claim that this information should not be included because it is a point of view (or opinion). Firstly this is a direct contradiction of wikipedia policy, wikipedia should try to present all points of view, these should, of course be presented in as neutral a way as possible
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. --Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder (from WP:NPOV).
Your previous reason for deleting this edit was that ..scotchnet.com is not a primary source.., but if you read the no original research policy you will find that it is perfectly acceptable to use secondary sources, in fact this edit was also properly verified (verification is sadly lacking on page), which IMHO, means that you had no right to delete it. You should have instead edited it to make it as neutral as possible, including your point about the census. Finally you should be aware that: As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (from Wikipedia:Verifiability policy). Normally I would have written this to your user page, but you do not have one. Please do not just revert other peoples edits just because you disagree with them, it is better to try to achieve consensus on the talk page by discussing an acceptable form of wording. Alun 07:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am the one who posted the Scotch-Irish edit and link to [16] and am currently confused as to how I can make the edit more neutral to satisfy all users than it already is. The site/link does have a pro-Ulster Scots tone to it, mainly to help awareness of Scotch-Irish people and culture in countries outside of Northern Ireland, most notably the United States. I am not putting in any numbers whatsoever, I am just saying there is a strong possibility the numbers in the Irish category under US ancestry also could include numbers of Scotch-Irish since the term Irish doesn't differentiate between the predominantly Catholic Irish or the predominantly Presbyterian Irish of Scots origin. The link I posted explains this in greater detail and how many Scotch-Irish broadly claim to be Irish but also would very much like to specify they are from Northern Ireland (which is not available on the US census). Many also do not agree with the term "Scotch-Irish" and would rather another term such as "Ulster-Scots", but are again limited to their choices in the census. Epf 11:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is quite unfair the edit is being constantly removed by a person who doesn't have his/her own talk page since I can't contact that person. Now I am being told to discuss it and not revert to the previous article which contained my edit, but how can I do so if I can't contact this person who has also vanadalised my own discussion page ? Epf 11:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

image

I was looking at the images on the list of famous Irish people and I noticed that although there are three musicians (Phil, Bono and Enya), a president (Mary Robinson), a painter (Francis Bacon) and a brewer (Guinness) there are no writers with the exception of the minute and unlabeled images of Wilde and Joyce nestled between two other photos at the top of the page. Given the astounding role that we have played in the last century of world literature I thought it might be helpful for non-irish readers if we were to highlight a well known Irish writer. I added a photograph of Seamus Heaney to the list because he is the most current of our four Nobel Prize laureates for literature and because his inclusion would give a northern voice to a medley of otherwise southern images (although Eithne of course is from Gweedore!). By the way, the images of Francis Bacon and Enya are fantastic! I think it was Fergananim that posted them. If so, great job! Fergus mac Róich 08:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish it was, ach no. All I did was place them where you saw them. You were right to draw attention to our writers, and nice one with Seamus. The only reason I concentrated on those particular photos is because they are photos of very well-known contempory Irish people, and positive ones at that. It gets a bit wearying seeing auld black and white ones of worthy but seen-'em-before politicions, patriots, etc. Plus, they are mostly non-partisan; more rancor is the last thing I want to see and hear. I just wanted to give people an impression of what a great, viberant country we live in now via my photographic choices. Thank you, Fergus! Fergananim 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Heaney picture down a bit as crowding of pictures seemed to be causing white space in the list of names. Zymurgy 16:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Saint Brigid

The Saint Brigid of Ireland link listed her as a "Goddess/Saint". I have corrected this - although the Saint Brigid article says she shared the name with that of the Irish godesses, this does not mean that members of the pagan Irish pantheon should be worthy of mention as "Irish people". Grimhelm 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA

I have removed the mitochondrial DNA material as it is not referenced. I did a quick google but came up with nothing to support the statement. I'll do a bit more digging and add a bit more info when/if I find anything. Alun 03:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism

Where did the figures for Protestants in Northern Ireland come from? The most recent census puts the figure at less that 50% for the first time, although still more than the figure for Catholics.

The figure, though I have not looked at it yet, probably comes from the 2001 Census. The census asked the question about religious background, and the results indicated that just under 53.2% of the population of Northern Ireland was from a Protestant background. By the way - please sign your comments. --Mal 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic affinities

I came across these two links and I think they may be of interest. One of them belongs to Coon, an anthropologist who worked on his theories before DNA testing was available. Now, the other link to DNA research seems to go in the same direction.

The Mediterranean Reemergence in Great Britain

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

Celtic nations have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with "Celts"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

Yes the evidence seems to point to the original inhabitants of Britain and Ireland as to being an "Atlantic people" who inherited language and customs from central Europe probably through trade and intermarriage. It is amusing that the MSNBC article says red hair and freckles is a celtic thing, really it is just a phenomena of fair skin and hair and can be found in much of northern europe. Arniep 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just a passing comment, but about the Iberian/Irish connection, hence the term Milesian in Irish legend.Grimhelm 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a probably a myth but a strange coincidence considering the new genetic evidence. Strangely there is another myth linking Ireland to Spain amongst some Irish descendents, a story that they are descended from the survivors of the Spanish Armada, the Black Irish which explained why they did not conform to the stereotype that some people had of red haired blue eyed people. The more likely truth is that the east Irelanders had much more anglo-saxon and Viking genes than west Irelanders and thus more red and blonde hair/blue eyed genes. Arniep 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It could easily be little more than myth, but legends derive from truth, even if little of it survives. While the "King Melisius" of Irish ancestral legends is likely just a personification of the migration, it is still important to note that the Celtiberian language (spoken by Celts referred to as the "Celtiberii" by the Romans) is more akin to Modern Irish than to ancient Gaulish. Grimhelm 18:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course there may be some truth in the texts. What I find interesting about the DNA test results is that they said that the Basque were said to be closely related without mentioning whether other nearby populations in France or Spain also showed similar genetic traits (specifically people in Gascony and Galicia). If the Galicians did turn out to have similar y-chromosome DNA then that would beg the question as to why they spoke a Celtic language and the Basque do not. Arniep 01:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know if Melesian was a term used by Romans during the time of the Roman Empire, but Melesius is certainly a Latin word, supposedly of a people the Romans called the "Celtiberii". Grimhelm 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually these genetic links may come from an ancient Mediterranean population that inhabited the Iberian Peninsula since Paleolithic and Neolithic times, also called, the old Europeans. The Celts arrived in these territories much later.

In fact I think that DNA in more reliable than looks. But we can also use looks of Irish people:

http://www.limerick-leader.ie/issues/20021130/index01.jpg

These people look quite Mediterranean to me. And, of course, it does not mean that all Irish look like that, but it seems that the Mediterranean influence is much stronger than it was previously thought. And the picture is not just cherry picking, you just need to type Irish People, or Welsh people in the Google search-images bar and you will get lost of results to look at.

Well I don't think we can describe them as Mediterranean as the Basque and Galicians live on the Atlantic coast, but yes they do look similar to some people in that region. Arniep 16:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The term Mediterranean refers to a race, or properly speaking to a subgroup of the Caucasian race. The race has probably originated in the Mediterranean, but it does not have to be exactly on the Mediterranean coast. The Portuguese are Mediterranean too, and their country gives on the Atlantic. And Argentinians, who mostly descend from Spanish and Italian people are also mainly Mediterranean, and they are very far away from the Mediterranean Sea.

I've never heard mediterranean referred to as a race. The ancestors of people who now live on the mediterranaean coast came from far away in many cases, for instance, the Visigoths, ancestors of the Spanish came from Germany, and so did Lombards, ancestors of northern Italians. Arniep 19:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Spain, Italy, France, Britain and all European countries have of course seen many different peoples settle in their territories, but some of them have dominated in some countries and some in others, that is why a country like Norway is predominantly Nordic and a country like Spain is predominantly Mediterranean. Nordic and Mediterranean are subgroups of the Caucasian race.

The best interpretation of these genetic studies is that most europeans are derived form the paleolithic inhabitants of europe. That is why there are similarities between their genes. There was migration in the neolithic into europe, but some research indicates that it may not have advanced farther than eastern europe and the coastal areas of the mediteranean. If this is correct, then cultural diffusion may have led to the uptake of farming by western europeans (rather than neolithic occupation of the whole of europe). Please do not assume that these data mean that Irish people are somehow closer to Iberian people. All european people are probably descended from the paleolithic inhabitants of europe, it's just that some may also have neolithic ancestors as well as paleolithic ancestors. It's also worth pointing out that one theory is that there were only about ten family groups that settled the whole of europe during the paleolithic/mesolithic/neolithic, so we're all very similar in our lineage. I have some references somewhere, I'll try to dig them out and put them on this talk page at some point soon for you. Please also read my comments about Y chromosomes above. It should also be bourn in mind that celt more accuratelly refers to a language group than a race of people, there is no evidence that I know of that the celtic peoples of europe were a racial group. Alun

Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People Science 10 November 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5494, pp. 1080 - 1081.
Europe's 10 founding "fathers" BBC World Service News. Friday, 10 November, 2000.
Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(7):1361-1372. 2004. Alun

Well the newer studies showed that people with gaelic Irish names (and I think Welsh and Cornish) had more in common with people in the Basque than the newer immigrants to the British Isles, the anglo-saxons, vikings and others which suggests a slightly different conclusion than the one you suggest. See [17],[18], [19]. Arniep 11:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Most of the studies seem to suggest that all British, Irish and Basque (in fact all european) people are descended from the original paleolithic people inhabiting Europe. This is not really so remarkable. What the studies really show is that incoming people, like germanic peoples, did not get as far as the very west of europe (and so did not leave a genetic legacy in Ireland, Wales and the Basque country). So English people (or if you like people not in the far west) are the descendants of people closely related to Irish people, but are also descended form germanic Anglo-Saxons and Danish-Vikings, which Irish people are not. The closeness of the Basque-Irish connection is simply due to the lack of mingling with other pleoples, and not necessarily due to any close contact in prehistoric times. Of course this does not preclude a contact, but one should be careful when evaluating this sort of data as many false conclusions can and have been drawn. It is disingenious to assume that somehow the data imply that people in more easterly parts of europe are somehow not related to Irish/Welsh/Basque peope, it's just that they may have a more diverce ancestry. I have read A Y chromosome Census of the British Isles and it's conclusions are that these data are consistent with the presence of some indigenous component in all British regions, and even with the choice of Frisians as a source for the Anglo-Saxons, there is a clear indication of a continuing indigenous component in the English paternal genetic makeup.. You need to be aware that the word indigenous in the context of this paper refers to the control data, which were derived from the Basque country. Irish and Welsh men (it's Y chromosome so only men) do cluster closely together in their principal components plot, but none of the data derived from English Sources cluster with the German/Danish/Frisian samples (which do cluster together). The place with the highest germanic input in England is York, with about a 60% germanic 40% Indigenous split. Because these data are derived exclusively from men (as it's Y chromosome) it could be that even here the total germanic genetic input is as little as 30%, as the total input is dependent on the contributon of women (not measured here), so if there was a much lower level of migration to Britain by germanic women, then the total indigenous contribution in York would be even greater. Look at the PC plot in the paper and you will clearly see that the germanic genetic contribution to most of England is far less than the indigenous contribution (which is equivalent to Basque people). I have also read the Y chromosome variations and Irish origins paper. There is nothing here to support any hypothesis that somehow Basque people and Irish people have some special affinity. You need to understand that these papers are merely documenting the apparent migrations into eastern europe of peoples during prehistoric times, ther's nothing magic about why Irish people and Basques are similar, it's just that by dint of their westerly locations and geography then migrations did not reach them. What these data do show is that indigenous people remained all over europe and contributed to the modern european gene pool. It is an incorrect interpretation of the data to use them to make racial claims. We are all europeans and are all descended from the same indigenous inhabitants, it's just that some of us may have descent from other sources as well. It should be pointed out that europeans are extremelly closelly related genetically, as are all human beings, and these data are really showing the minutest differences in DNA. I also refer you to the discussions on Talk:Anglo-Saxons and the Genetic analysis section in Sub-Roman Britain. There is also some discussion of this subject above on this talk page, specifically about the Y chromosome variations and Irish origins paper paper you cite. Alun 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If this information can shed any light on the discussion, this Atlantic Y chromosome is not ony present in the Spanish Basque country. There it is 89%, in the rest of Northern Spain 79% and in Southern Spain 66%.

That seems to correlate with the data from A Y chromosome census of the British Isles where the said putative paleolithic or if you like Atlantic Y chromosome markers occur all over the British Isles at very high frequencies (see above). It seems to be the case that even in the English parts of the Island of Great Britain these markers represent between 60-90% (my rough estimate) of all Y chromosome markers, although the distribution is not even (see comments about York above). These data seem to indicate that far from being very distinct (biologiclly speaking) from each other, British and Irish people are extremely closelly related, which shouldn't really come as a great shock to anyone. The paper Y chromosome variations and Irish origins clearly indicates that these markers even occur in Turkey, although at the low rate of 1.5%, presumably due to the larger subsequent migrations to these parts of other peoples, but also clearly demonstrating the continued contribution to the modern Turkish gene pool of the assumed earliest human colonisers of Europe (so called indigenous peoples in the papers). It should be noted that these papers are all highly speculative. It seems to me that too many people are trying to use the data from these papers to propogate racial ideas that the papers really do not support. Alun 06:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavians in related ethnic groups

The people of Ireland do indeed share a siginificant gene pool with Scandinavians. The original input in the Viking settlements were certainly not minor and this is bolstered by the settlement of Norman families to whom many Irish people share a descent and the later influx of Scots and English who no doubt had Viking ancestry. Couple this with the fact that genetic tests on the population of Iceland shows that virtually all the female lines originate in Ireland as well as there being some male Irish lines from slaves it is accurate to describe Scandinavians as a related ethnic group. Arniep 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The impact of the Vikings was very small and limited to only but a few small areas compared with the larger and fairly widespread settlements in Scotland in England. The number of Normans (Anglo-Normans in Ireland) was quite small in all of the Biritsh Isles and they were easily absorbed into the population. As for the Scotch-Irish, I can see this is where a link could be drawn since most of their ancestry is from Scotland which had significant Norwegian viking settlements in most of the country. I also agree with the link to Iceland, but the link is not Scandinavian as you say, and Icelanders have signficant "Irish" (ancient) ancestry. The overall impact of Vikings on the native (mainly Catholic) Irish was very minimal and easily absorbed, but the Scandinavian links of the Scotch-Irish and the links with Icelanders, I think, does support the inclusion of Scandianvians as a related people (even if to a smaller degree than the relations between the English and Scots with Scandinavians). Epf 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Epf you cannot assert that the native Irish are "mainly Catholic" for three reasons: the first is merely nit-picking - that all Christians are Catholic.. so I'll assume you mean Roman Catholic. The second is that Catholicism doesn't necessarily imply race - the Reformation only happened around 500 years ago and the period you are talking about was well before that .. before Protestantism existed. Thirdly, the impetus of Gaelic revisionist history strongly implies that Roman Catholics are somehow the aboriginal Irish. I cannot see anything that would suggest this and, in fact, it has been proven that the Gaels themselves arrived and dominated the aboriginal Irish with their culture through combination of treaty and warfare.

Also, you say that the "Scotch-Irish" (more correctly "Scots-Irish") have most of their ancestry from Scotland. Yet many of the Scots who settled in Ireland undoubtedly had ancestors who had settled in Scotland in the first place - the word "Scotti" having meant "Irish", so the same could be said in reverse: that most of their ancestry is from Ireland.

I don't think there can be much doubt of the Scandanavian influence in Ireland and, subsequently, its gene pool - you don't get that many placenames (Strangford and Ulster to name but two) surviving unless there was considerable presence. --Mal 09:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The paper A Y chromosome census of the British Isles indicates the presence of genetic markers similar to those of Norwegians (Norwegian-Viking, as opposed to the Danish-Vikings/Anglo-Saxons of England, this study could distinguish between Norwegian and Danish markers, but not Danish, Northern German or Frisian) in samples taken from men from Dublin (as one wold expect), but not from other areas sampled. The frequency was very low as I remember, take a look at the principal components plot in the paper, there is a slight skew in the Dublin samples in favour of the Norwegian axis. This may represent about 5% (my rough estimate) of the samples taken. A small but apparently significant contribution. Alun 06:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly my point Alun and the insignificant Viking influence was not widespread, being only found in certain localities. As in respone to the user above, what I meant by "Catholic" indeed was obviously "Roman Catholic". I never said all native Irish were Roman Catholic but I said that the majority were and the fact remains that in Ireland, most of those who are Protestant, usually Presbyterian, have an ancestral and cultural link with the lowlands of Scotland. These people had only a limited "Gaelic" connection as the majority of the Ulster Scots came from the Scottish Lowlands, especially the south east, an area which has been Anglo-Saxon since the days of the Kingdom of Northumbria. As to your remark on the Gaelic settlement of Ireland, it hasnt been proven that they only influenced the Irish culturally and that is only one theory on the subject. I don't see what this has to do with Roman Catoholocism anyway as the arrival of the Gaels predated the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. What is known however is that prior to the arrival of planters from Scotland and England in the 17th century, the people of Ireland were predominantly Catholic and the protestant reformation did not have the widespread effect there (if any) as it did in England and Scotland. As with regards to place names such as Ulster, they may be derived from the Viking form in modern English, but their original names were in fact Irish Gaelic (Cúige Uladh was the original name for Ulster). Epf 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I think you misunderstand my point. You firstly agree with me that the native Irish people were not Roman Catholic, then you go on to discuss how, in your perception, "most of those who are of a particular religion.." etc etc, and talk about Anglo-Saxons. Anglo-Saxons, as has been shown by genetic research, made up only a tiny minority of the population of England and, logically speaking, even less impact therefore on Scotland (Lowlands or Highlands).

• • As for your reply about the Gaels, I never implied in my comment of the 16th of March, that the Gaels "only influenced the Irish culturally". I had said that the Gaels arrived and dominated the people of Ireland with their culture.

• • "I don't see what this has to do with Roman Catoholocism anyway as the arrival of the Gaels predated the arrival of Christianity in Ireland." I mentioned it only because you had made, what I saw at the time as an incorrect assertion.

• • Roman Catoholocism anyway as the arrival of the Gaels predated the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. Only just.

• • That the name of the people of the Uliad became Gaelicised on fact only shows how dominant Gaelic culture eventually became. The Uladh themselves were not Gaelic, and dominated many other tribes of the area who were also non-Gaelic. That the name Uladh was modified, in part, by Viking influence surely is indicative of the influence of same. --Mal

12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Uladh were indeed Gaels and to say otherwise is ludicrous in my opinion. How can you say they werent when the name itself is Gaelic in origin ? Just because a modern English form of a place name has Viking influence does not mean there was intense Viking settlement or significant cultural influence. Viking settlement and cultural influence in Ireland was quite small compared to that seen in both England and Scotland.

As for your comment about Anglo-Saxons, the Lowlands of Scotland are culturally and linguistically Anglo-Saxon and the south east has again been so since the days of the Kingdom of Northumbria and earlier. This area was also the main source of those who settled in Ulster during the 17th century and they were not culturally Gaelic or spoke a Gaelic language. As for the impact of Anglo-Saxons, it hasnt been concluded at all what the extent of Anglo-Saxon settlement was and results of limited studies have conflicted with each other. The studies also only involved the Y-chromosome, and even if one goes by these studies, both Scotland and England had a overall higher percentage of Germanic markers than Wales or Ireland. Epf 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said - the Uliad were not Gaels in origin. They became Gaelic, just like the rest of the island and much of Scotland. The name is Celtic in origin (specifically Belgic), but not Gaelic.

Re: Viking names - it wasn't just a placename. Viking placenames and Viking-influenced placenames are dotted throughout. Personal names in Ireland have also been influenced.

The evidence is that Anglo-Saxon influence was disproportionately high in comparison to their number.

"This area was also the main source of those who settled in Ulster during the 17th century and they were not culturally Gaelic or spoke a Gaelic language." The people who settled in Ireland in the 17th century, from Scotland were, for the most part, Presbyterian and spoke Gaelic. --Mal 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that there is some sort of misundestanding as to the WP:NPOV policy on wikipedia. Wikipedia is, in fact, an encyclopedia, not a reference book. All points of view are encouraged, and indeed even if opinions are expressed, this is ok as long as they are done so in a neutral manner and other opinions are also allowed. This argument is pointless as all you seem to be doing is arguing over your respective points of view, when in actual fact both points of view are equally valid. If there is a dispute, then both POVs should be included, and it should be stated that there is no consensus. It does not matter if viking influence was not widespread, this should not preclude it's inclusion. I have recently read the paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans, which compares assumed Neolithic (middle eastern) and Paleolithic (Basque) genetic markers in Europe, it is a very nice paper as it uses autosomal as well as mitochondrial and Y-chromosome markers. This paper comes to the conclusion that there is about a 70% Neolithic genetic input into the Balkans with about a 50% further west in mainland Europe, but only about 20% in England, much less than in the areas the Anglo-Saxons are assumed to have come from. But what is important abut this paper is that it produces a much higher rate of Neolithic input than the Y chromosome study EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS: Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People. It does beg the question: If Y chromosome studies produce about a 5% level of Norwegian genetic contribution to Dublin, could it also be an underestimate? It is also true that 5% in Dublin is a large input, Dublin is a large city in a country with a small population, so 5% in Dublin should be considered a large contribution. One must also consider the possibility that the cultural contribution of these people may be disproportinate to their actual physical numbers, especially as they would have had a higher social standing than the people they conquered. I have found Epf to be extremelly antagonistic to other POVs, wikipedia is not here for anyone to express their point of view exclusively, of course your point of view is welcome, if it is properly verified, but you must accept that the POVs of others are equally valid and have just as much right to be included (all things being equal). If you can provide evidence that another person's POV is not supported by any published material, or is incorrect in some way then that is another matter (but does still not necessarily preclude it's inclusion), but disputing it's right to be included just because it does not conform to your opinion is not really acceptable. Because WP is an encyclopedia the vast majority of published theories/POVs are acceptable, as long as they are from reputable sources, see WP:RS. Alun 07:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Alun. Should I remind people that 5%, while it seems a small number in comparison to the maximum 100%, actually translates to 1 in 20 people. That is a very significant minority I would have thought. --Mal 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Alun's issue with me is, but I have not been "extremely antagonistic" to other POV's just because I disagree with them. I'm allowed to discuss why I disagree with their POV based on information and facts and to call it antagonistic is ridiculous. In fact, I have taken worse insults and abuse from users I wont name here yet Alun doesnt seem to comment on that. I wish to see a neutral POV based on truth and factual information, and this is why I argue against some of these users POV. The 5% input in Dublin is still based on one location in the whole of the country and I just cant seen how a 5 % input in that major city automatically accounts for the whole people to be related to Scandinavians. Under his reasoning, you might as well as put every European people related to each other because they all share similar genetic inputs to such a similar insignficant degree. As for the results from that study showing higher "Neolithic" input than the Y chromosome study, how would this have anything to do with markers from the Viking Age (with ancestors coming from the Iron Age Germanic migration into Scandinavia) ? The Neolithic markers differ and could be from various different sources: Therefore, a high Paleolithic or Neolithic component in a gene pool does not mean that a region was colonized in Paleolithic or Neolithic times, respectively. Under the assumptions of our model, a 52% Neolithic component in Scandinavia means that roughly half of the Scandinavians' alleles are probably descended from ancestors who entered Europe (not Scandinavia) during the Neolithic dispersal and reached Scandinavia at an unspecified, later time.[20]

You are not addressing the point I was making, changing the discussion won't alter the fact that Y chromosome analysis underestimated Neolithic genetic input in Europe in the 2000 study, so it could have underestimated Norwegian genetic contributions in Ireland, it may be a fault with the methodology of Y chromosome studies. That is how it could be relevant. I just cant seen how a 5% input in that major city automatically accounts for the whole people to be related to Scandinavians. Who said it did? Only some Irish people have to be related to Norwegians for it to be true. I can't understand how you can accept that Norwegian settlers have contributed to Ireland's past, and then try to claim that they shouldn't be mentioned. And yes, all Europeans are related to each other ethnically, I would have thought that was obvious. I cannot see the relevance of the quote from the paper to this discussion. In fact, I have taken worse insults and abuse from users I wont name here yet Alun doesnt seem to comment on that. Why should I? I have neither abused nor insulted you, and how would I know if you had been abused or insulted? Anyway that is not the issue, I just do not think that it is constructive to take such aggressively entrenched positions. You don't have to try to prove everyone wrong, this is an encyclopedia, it's not necessarily about truth, if your POV is different from others then it's OK, but you must accept the validity f the POVs of others. Alun 04:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If my comments have offended you then I appologise unreservedly, it was not my intent. Alun 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Alun, I'm not trying to prove people wrong here, I'm merely trying to give a neutral, un-biased and verified POV in the article. Science and history are about the search for the truth and this is a scientific and historically related element of the article. I don't see how a 5% proportion of one city in Ireland, even if it is the largest and capital city, allows for the whole people to be related to Scandinavians ? Yes, obviously all European peoples are related to some degree, but my point is that the relations between people varies and "related ethnic groups" is supposed to be about people who are significantly related culturally/linguistically or genetically. In my opinion, by saying because of a very minor influence in one locality of Norwegian Vikings the Irish therefore are related to them, you should then basically list all Indo-European peoples there as Im sure they have probably the same level of relation from another genetic marker or Haplogroup/type. Scotland had significant, long-lasting settlement of Norwegian Viking peoples as is evidenced from extensive history, large numbers of place names, language, anthropology and whatever limited genetic studies carried out. This is why I can see them being considered related, but the impact is far less with the Irish. Although the Y-chromosome study did underestimate Neolithic contributions, that was not its aim and it mainly sought to find the commmon paternal ancestry, of widely varying degrees, that Europeans have to the Paleolithic peoples. Again, it was only limited to the fairly insignificant (in terms of proportion of our DNA inheritance) Y-chromosome, while the Neolthic autsomoal DNA study you cited abovie based its analysis on another section of our genetic inheritance. Also, it needs to be noted that "Neolithic" peoples were a large, widely-ranging group and Neolithic influence in the British isles is not only attributed to Germanic and Celtic groups, but also to other earlier arrivals of Neolithic groups such as the Beaker People and the Seafaring Neolithic Farmers whose influence is easiest found today in the populations of Wales and Cornwall.[21] Epf 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It still means that there is an undisputed Viking contribution to Irish ethnicity/history. It does not matter if some studies show that it was small and/or localised. The fact that it exists is not disputed. It is just your opinion that their influence was too small for them to be considered a related etnic group. Because this is just your opinion, then instead of arguing about the extent of the Irish contribution to the gene pool (it is still unknown), or their cultural infuence, which may indeed have been greater than their biological legacy (also unknown), why don't you concentrate on a form of wording everyone can agree on. For example they can be included as a related ethnic group, with the proviso that their contribution is not known, but may have been small and regional. Alun 11:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I dont consider a very minimal contribution and influence of Vikings on placenames and very few surnames to merit Irish being significantly related to Scandinavians. It is not just my opinion, it is from the studies you yourself cited and from historical fact that there is no Viking infulence on Irish language and culture and very minimal genetic influence that can be seen between any European ethnic group. I see your point though, this wont be resolved anytime soon so I will settle for something such as related to a "lesser extent" or something along those lines. Epf 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is just your opinion, others may share your opinion, but you agree that Vikings did play a part in Irish history and culture, and its extent is unknown, you are really just taking a point of view that it was minimal based on a certain interpretation of the available data. Others take a differing point of view. I am relativelly ambivalent about the extent of relatedness, but I do feel that the contribution is significant enough to merit a mention. Remember this is related ethnic groups not derivative ethnic groups, most Irish people do not have to be descended from Vikings, or even have been influenced by their culture for them to constitute a related ethnic group. Also remember that ethnicity does not necessarily require a biological component. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Here's what it says on the verifiability policy page (it is a policy remember not a guideline) "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. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are verifiable sources to indicate that there is a Viking component in Ireland's past then in my opinion (and I stress it is just my opinion) it should be included, this is based on my reading of the verifiability and neutral point of view policies. I think the best way to produce neutrality so your POV can also be expressed is to add the proviso I mentioned earlier, that the viking influence may be small and regional, but maybe it should be stressed that this is really an unknown quantity. There do not appear to be any definitive sources. I do not think that claiming that the contribution is minimal (and I'm not sure what this means, minimal is a relative term in this context) is sufficient reason to claim that it should not be included, again we are back to a point of view. Alun 06:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Mal's comments above Alun's, I don't know what history you have read into, but the large majority of Ulster-Scots settlers in the 17th century did NOT speak Gaelic. To say they were Gaels and spoke Gaelic ignores historical fact and they indeed largely came from southeast Scotland [22] [23]. They spoke Lallans, a Germanic language with some Gaelic and Scandinavian influences and it is distinguished from English (speakers still remain in Ulster today). The evidence is inconclusive as to what the extent of Anglo-Saxon settlement in England was. It is fair to say the cultural and linguistic impact was greater, but the numbers of people who settled is in much dispute. Now, the Uladh. They WERE (and are) Gaels in origin considering they dont have any traces of pre-Gaelic culture or language (that we know of). Also, yes they primarily descended from the original Upper Paleolithic peoples of Ireland from the end of the last Ice Age, but when the Gaels came, the Uladh became Gaelic culturally and lingustically as well as intermarrying with the numbers of migrating Gaels (actual extent is also in dispute).

Viking names and placenames are widespread but still very few compared to both Scotland and England and although the placename may have Viking derivation in modern English, the Gaelic version usually does not, meaning there was possibly an original Gaelic settlement there prior to the arrival of Vikings. These names also dont necessarily imply Viking settlement there, let alone if it was in significant numbers or not. Again, according to the limited studies Alun speaks of, the Viking (Germanic) influence overall in Ireland and Wales was shown to be far less than in Scotland or England. Epf 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Scots who settled (back) in Ulster in the 17th century did speak Gaelic. I don't know to what extent. The "history I have read into" is that of my own family, some of whom became Presbyterian at some point after the Reformation. When they settled in Ireland, they spoke Gaelic as their first tongue. I don't see how a conclusive DNA study (regarding the Anglo-Saxon population of England) can be assumed to be "in dispute".

The Uliad cannot be Gaelic in origin considering they were present in Ireland before the Gaels arrived. I agree that, a long time after the Gaels did arrive in Ireland, they certainly became Gaelic in both culture and language. Indeed, it is said that Ulster became the most Gaelic province in Ireland at one point.

As for the Viking names and placenames being less prevalant in Ireland than in Scotland and/or Engliand - that has no bearing on the fact that it did actually have an impact. Recent studies have shown that certain surnames previously thought to be of Gaelic origin, were actually Gaelicised versions of 'Viking' names. You say that "These names also dont necessarily imply Viking settlement there", yet it is known that Vikings had bases (settlements) around Lough Neagh (having virtually controlled the Lough) and Strangford (there's a Viking name for ya!). --Mal 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains we still don't know conclusively the level of Viking settlement there was in those few areas of Ireland and the vast majority of place names are indeed Gaelic in origin, especially considering the Gaelic name doesn't have any Viking influence in it. Yes there are a few which may have been Viking in origin, but they are very few as again they were Gaelic settlements long before the Vikings arrived there. The modern English names differ greatly from the Gaelic name. (compare the original Gaelic name "Cúige Uladh" meaning "Province of the Ulaid" to the English form "Ulster" derived from "Uladh Stadr", "stadr" being Old Norse for "place or territory". Many names were in fact added with Norse forms, as is this case, to the original Gaelic form.)

If we don't know the level of settlements (of Vikings), then why do the placenames and personal names still exist in Ireland to this day? You state that "vast majority of place names are indeed Gaelic in origin". Yet of Ptolemy's Ireland, only 2 of the 15 river names can be traced to Gaelic records. Only one in four tribal and geographical names can be identified with names in Gaelic literature.

Your point about the modern version of the name Ulster having been influenced by the Norse merely serves to prove my point: that Scandanavian influence can be seen today - particularly in Ulster, which is closer to Scotland and to the North Sea. --Mal 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the amount of place names and surnames with Viking origins (more like influence) is again very minimal. As for Ptolemy's Ireland, I've never heard of "only 2 of 15 river names being traced to Gaelic records", especially since Ptolemy's time pre-dates most Gaelic written material from Ireland. But the modern ENGLISH version of "Ulster" is the one with Scandinavian roots, NOT the original GAELIC name (Cúige Uladh). Are you even reading what I typed here ? A few, and they are quite few, surnames and placenames to me does not denote any kinship with Scandinavians. There is no influence on the Irish Gaelic language (although there is quite a bit in Scots Gaelic) or on Irish Gaelic culture. The genetic impact has already been shown as very minimal and the same level of figures can be found with relations between any European ethnic group. Epf 22:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that not all of the families who migrated to Ulster were Lallans speakers from the lowlands and perhaps your family is descended from one of the familes of Scottish Gaels or Gallowglasses. However, it is historically proven and accepted that the majority of 17th century planters and settlers were Lowland Scots who spoke Lallans and did NOT speak Gaelic. I dont understand why you dont accept this obvious fact, but you're only making things difficult for yourself. Many of them (250,000) soon emigrated from Ulster to the United States. Their numbers were overall far larger in Ulster than those of Scottish Gaels who settled there. There remains thousands of speakers of Ullans in Ulster even today, mainly in the Ulster-Scots community, yet how many in that group speak Gaelic ? Practically none.

I didn't mean to suggest that my family had migrated to Ireland from Scotland - my apologies. In fact, only my grandfather's male line arrived from Scotland, and they were Quakers. I assume that some of my people, the rest of whom are all from Ireland, embraced the Reformation and decided to affiliate with the Church of Ireland and Presbyterianism. Overall, during the 18th century, some 4-500 thousand people from Ulster left for pastures green(er), due of course to the Penal Laws. They weren't all specifically Presbyterian, nor specifically Ulster-Scots. I don't see that I'm making things difficult for myself, as I'm only engaging in conversation by the way!

As for why Presbyterians stopped speaking Gaelic, I would suggest that it was again, due to the Penal Laws. They accepted the English more readily I assume. How many of them speak Gaelic today? I couldn't possibly say, though I'm sure someone has done research somewhere. I do know that classes in Gaelic were begun in the Shankill in Belfast some years ago, which is about 98% Protestant (how many of those are Presbyterian, I don't know). --Mal 10:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• I really do suggest you read up on the history of Scotland and the 17th century Plantation of Ulster. Trust me, you are making things difficult for yourself. The vast majority were LOWLAND Scots mainly from the Southeast of Scotland, did not speak Gaelic, spoke Lallans (which in turn became Ullans) and were in no way considered Gaels by others or themselves, as the people of the Scottish Highlands were. This is a proven, well known and widely accepted fact. At this time, the people of the Lowlands even discriminated agaist the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders by calling them "Erse", meaning "Irish". I provided information and links to Wikipedia articles and articles on the web which prove this[24] [25]. Im not arguing on this anymore because its pointless if you dont want to listen to historical fact. Epf 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want more information on the extent of Anglo-Saxon migration in the British Isles, view the discussion here: Talk:Anglo-Saxons. The one or two tests performed are admitted by the researchers not to be fully "conclusive" in any way because: it is only on a limited section of our DNA (Y-chromosome) without results of MtDNA, Autosomal DNA and X-Chromosomal DNA; results of Y-chromosome studies on similar sample populations have had conflicting or opposing results; a limited number of studies have been performed; the data itself needs to be found to be fully reliable and valid (i.e. need of more studies to be carried out) before any extensive study and conclusions on anthropological and historical facts can be made. Even if one goes by the two Y-chromosome studies you speak of, they show a significantly higher percentage of Germanic markers in Scotland and England compared to Ireland and Wales. Epf 07:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest tha *YOU* read up on your history mate. If *YOU* want to ignore certain facts that I have brought to your attention, then I agree that concersation about it is pointless. Have a nice day. --Mal 02:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Population

I think there is a mistake in total population of Irish people in the infobox. Please check it. [26]. Diyako Talk + 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The total population figure is a guesstimate by one or more Wikipedia editors. It has no source, is unverifiable, is probably inaccurate, and cannot be checked. zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is really nonsense, because I don't think there is any limit on how far back or minute one's irish ancestry has to be to put it on a census form (often it is just that the paternal line of one of your parents was a notably Irish name) and presumably many people would have Irish ancestry but not know about it. Also, there doesn't seem to be any figure for Irish descent in the U.K. which would obviously run into the millions. Maybe we should have different numbers for Irish descent and people born on the island of Ireland? Arniep 01:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Article update

Given the modern research suggesting that the whole celtic hypothesis was probably wrong, should we not change the opening paragraph to reflect that (i.e. there was no migration of celtic peoples from central europe between 600BC and 150BC)? Arniep 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The studies don't deny the fact that the Irish are celtic, they merely prove that we must redefine our use of the term itself. i.e. that 'Celtic' countries do not neccesarily share a common ancestry but rather a common cultural pattern. Even in reference to the ancient Celts most sources that I've read stress the fact that the term 'celtic' refers to a cultural rather than an ethnic group. Maybe we should instead change the phrase so that it instead reads: "the succesive waves of culturally Celtic tribes who migrated from continental europe between 600BC and 150BC" Fergus mac Róich 16:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Icelanders

Actually, aside from Irish monks, the Icelanders had connections with Ireland. It is not known exactly to what extent, but it is believed to be through the import of Irish slaves, intermarriage, etc. Names such as "Njal" (Neil) and Kormak (Cormac) are examples of relations with Ireland. Grimhelm 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A recent genetic study gave a good indication of the original makeup of the island, with 60% of mitochondrial DNA tracing back to Ireland and 20% of the y chromosome, suggesting that many more Irish women were taken as wives than men were taken as slaves. Arniep 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's good then - Iceland was peopled in a large way from Ireland and as such Icelanders should be linked as related. This doesn't though mean that mainland Scandinavia should be omitted. Iceland falls under Scandinavia - are they or are they not Scandinavian people? As previously debated, Ireland has had large Scandinavian migration. Enzedbrit 23:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It hasnt been shown anywhere that Ireland had "large Scandinavian migration", let alone the leve lof settlement seen in Scotland or England. If going by the two or three genetic studies on peoples of the British Isles, Germanic markers were shown to be much more prevalent in Scotland and England than in Ireland. Epf 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Be weary when you say 'it hasn't been shown anywhere'. All these tests to which are continuously referred do show large Viking settlement in Ireland, particularly around Dublin of course. I have no doubt that Germanic markers were more prevalent in Britain, this has never been at issue. Nor does it negate that the Vikings/Scandinavians settled and lived in Ireland for centuries. I want to see this reference that shows that the Icelanders are predominately of Irish heritage. It must be recent. It completely flies in the face of anything that I've ever read particularly from Iceland itself and contradicts modern Icelandic culture. If this view, so radically different from what is the norm, is to be accepted then there must be cited references. Enzedbrit 02:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree completely on the Icelanders subject as I dont see how they were able to distinguish between Upper Paleolithic markers from Ireland and those from Western Norway (where many ancestors of Icelanders also settled from). Someone should probably cite the source of that study. As for Viking settlement in Ireland, the studies I've read into only showed 5% of Dublin men having Norwegian Viking Y-chromosomes. Although Dublin is a fairly large city, I think 5% doesnt account for substantial settlement, especially when we're only referring to Y-chromosomes here. I dont know what the percentage was in the few other Viking influenced areas (Cork, Limerick, Aran Islands, etc.) but the overall genetic relationship from Y-chrom. studies seem to imply to me that male settlement was minimal. Epf 04:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Iceland page of the CIA World Fact book website you'll see them listed ethnically as "Homogenous blend of Norse and Irish Celts" so the information can't be so new that the Icelandic establishment hasn't already accepted it. Also, who deleted Basques from the related ethnic groups? Anyone claiming to be even vaguely familiar with the genetic surveys regarding the nordic presence in Ireland should have learned about the newly found basque link between the Irish, the Welsh and the basques themselves. Fergus mac Róich 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This would be true. Yet I have never seen 'Irish' Celts, but Norse and Celts. These could be from either Ireland or Britain and as Icelandic culture is entirely Norse this becomes quite an interesting subject. As for the Basques, I haven't removed that link, but I'm very inclined to agree with the following users about this link. We could broaden it and say that another step back and you'll find the Irish link back to Africa. It depends on the genetic marker. As people from Britain, Ireland and north west Europe are basically the same blood anyway, ethnicity boils down to culture and identity. Cultural identity is the sole basis between Hutus and Tutsis and look what happened there. Enzedbrit 20:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we dispence with the myth that ethnicity and descent are the same thing once and for all please? The genetic studies can show levels of migration (though Y chromosomes studies may be somewhat unreliable, as Epf has often pointed out when they do not concur with his view see here), but this is not the same as cultural influence (which may be impossible to determine), and at what level do we assume that two populations are not ethnically related? This is a question of opinion or point of view, and is always going to be an arbitrary level (I mean 1%, 5%, 10% etc) it's down to the biases/perceptions of the individual ultimately. Alun 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course the fact that the Basque have very similar y chromosome markers to those in western Ireland does not necessarily mean that a group of Basque people settled there. It just means that male line ancestors of the Basque and those in western Ireland were the original paleolithic inhibitants of western europe and survived later immigration. It could be that those who spoke celtic languages were also descended in the male line from these earlier inhabitants but due to geographical reasons intermixed more and therefore developed what we know as celtic languages. Arniep 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Paleolthic Y chromosome markers occur in about 80% of european men according to several studies, the only study I know of using autosomal markers (which is more accurate) shows a 50-50 split in europe between paleolithic and neolithic, interestingly the ratio is different in Britain to the rest of europe, with an 80% paleolithic contribution in Britain. This result was attained using DNA samples from the Near East as a source for neolithic genes and Basque DNA as a source for paleolithic genes, the data were modelled assuming two parental populations for europe and producing a modern hybrid population in europe. I do not know why the Y chromosome data produce a different result to the autosomal data, but i would think the autosomal data are more reliable, and it casts some doubt on the extent of the supposed Basque/Irish connection, and indeed on ant results obtained using Y chromosome data. Alun 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Alun makes an excellent point here. Genetics do not neccesarily effect the actual cultural links between two groups or vice versa.Fergus mac Róich 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps then we should remove or look to remove both Icelanders and Scandinavians from the related ethnic groups as the culture is vastly different or perhaps consider revising this and then do the same for all British peoples? Enzedbrit 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the peoples of Ireland, Britain and north west Europe are not of "the same blood anyway". There are genetic and physical differences between peoples in this area and they by no means are the same. These differences were shown in genetic studies and even by Anthropology studies of the 20th century (even if using a faulty "typological" format). Ethnicity is not solely down to descent/common origins, but that is the primary distinguishing factor. This usually results in some degree of genotypic or phenotypic distinctiveness that varies across groups. Ethnically the Irish are not related to Scandinavians or Basques whether someone is referring to descent or culture. Similar genetics doesnt necessarily mean they came from the same people. The Basques and Irish have had almost completely separate histories since the Paleolithic or Neolithic.

Physical differences? Please go into this further. I would like to see how you objectively view them according to regional stereotypes. The people of the British isles are predominately descended from the same stock - we've been over this. I also think we should stop with this 'ethnically so and so is not related to' because it just means nothing. Where does one draw the line between culture and its similarities or differences, and what elements of that culture? With blood - do we take the genes that are most common and use those, negating those that aren't as common? If we want to talk in such definates, someone from the west of England has more to do with south Wales in blood than with people of Kent, yet they are grouped on Wikipedia as being of the 'English ethnic group', and someone from Devon is classified as distinct from Cornwall, but the same as someone from Northumbria, who in turn is classified as distinct from neighbouring Scotland, a land to which their territory has belonged and between which (Northumbria and Scotland) there has been much migration back and forth for thousands of years. And then you have the migrations back and forth between Ireland and Britain that are documented in history and fable, migrations of people, trade, commerce, since long before the Romans, so yes, the British and Irish peoples are pretty much the same people.

What I see now is something I don't like and that's mixing and matching to make a person. Someone has 5 or 6 great great Irish grandparents, a Chinese, etc., and has lived in the US all their lives but whose parents came from Mexico and Australia and lord knows where, and then they marry someone of the same rich heritage, and what, you look back, say the child is predomiantely of Irish blood so is ethnic Irish and is more so than someone that has lived in Ireland all their lives of people that have been there for 800 years but whose family has remained steadfastly in-bred Norman French, even though they consider themselves 100% Irish? THIS AIN'T PRETTY and it's not going to get so! Enzedbrit 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Enzedbrit, first and foremost, I do not view them according to regional stereotypes and the British peoples do descend largely from similar stock, but they also have histories and origins that distinguish them. If you want to look into what physical anthropological work was carried out on European peoples, message me on my page and keep an open mind. As for drawing the "lines" between ethnic groups, this is part of the aims of anthropology and certain ethnic groups have more in common than with others whether it be based on shared origins, language or culture. I don't know where you are referring to in that people from Devon are distinct from people from Cornwall as the Cornish have been very much assimilated into English cultural identity. In a genetic sense, the people of western England and Devon probably do share much common origins/ancestry with the Welsh but this does not mean they also dont share any origins at all with English from other parts of England. In a cultural sense they are all the same English people but in terms of descent, certain regions may vary in how much they share with other areas of England. Northumbrians indeed share much with people of Lowland and especially south east Scotland, but still retain some common origins with the rest of the people of England, including Devon. As for the British and Irish, I really have never heard of any consistent mass migration of people between Britain and Ireland before the Romans. There were migrations of people across the Irish sea and the peoples share many origins. However, there are also distinct origins and migrations that separate them. An example is the invasion of Goidelic Celts that created Irish culture and identity but would not affect England and Wales in the same way. The people of the BRitish Isles are very closely related, but also have distinctions.

EPF physical anthropological work carried out on European peoples, as you have put it, is indeed interesting but as for keeping an open mind I think that you will continue to approach this differently from I and I am not yet ready to give this as much credence as a cultural, historical basis for ethnicity. Again I state that I believe this preoccupation with genetics is not healthy. I am aware of the similarities between ethnic groups, what I want to know is ‘what’ aspects of these groups are classed as markers for similarities and differences. Clothing, architecture, cuisine?

With Devon and Cornwall, Cornish are listed as a separate ethnic group. What is the basis for this? The Cornish language? If so, why all Cornish people? Or because there is a Cornish identity? There is a Northumbrian identity and many people regard themselves as Northumbrians and not English, based on dialect/language, culture, history. You have removed my link to them as an ethnic group on the list of ethnic group pages, yet replace Cornish – what is your justification for this? Cornish people are no less English than many parts of England – they share that collective identity. What is the tipping factor that makes them “just that little bit more” not English to warrant the separate status that nowhere else in England is worthy of? Cornish are more than very much assimilated into English identity, they are English as they are British. There is not one way to view either. In a genetic sense the people of south western England naturally do share the same roots with Wales and people from all of Britain’s regions. Remember Cheddar man? The 9000 year old skeleton whose DNA was found carried on in a local resident of the ‘Somerset’ village? That’s not Cornwall. I think though on reading what you have written after that that we’re actually in agreement. So, what is the basis? The borders of England, Scotland and Wales mean nothing genetically and if they do culturally it’s because of the identity that has grown since they were drawn to fit the boundaries that they were given; it’s an identity based on “I’m this and not that”.

I never mentioned a ‘mass migration’ between Britain and Ireland. And yes, there are distinctions, but neither was that ever in question Enzedbrit 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, I havent heard of Northumbrians not considering themselves English considering they are form an area with a much larger proportion of Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking origins. I dont know what exactly defines "Cornish ethnicity", though it was probably much more pronounced 200 years ago when the customs, language and traditions were more noticeable there. The Cornish people are more closer to the Welsh than any other region of England, culturally or genetically. As for these different regions of England, you cant really classify which is a little more "English", but what you can say is that pre-Celtic/Celtic and Anglo-Saxon/Danish origins are spread throughout (the former being more prevalent) with the southwest retaining very little Germanic influence compared to the rest of the country, especially the east. I really dont understand why the Cornish have an ethnic group article, but someone created one, but not for the Northumbrians. This is probably because the Cornish have (or had) a language and culture very distinct from that of the English. Northumbrians may have a dialect and local customs, but this is not as distinct from English culture as the the Brythonic Celtic Cornish culture was (or is). From both a cultural and origins sense, the Cornish, and to a lesser extent nearby Devon, may be considered by some the least "English" areas of the country since they have the least Anglo-Saxon/Danish Viking ancestry (Cornwall remained part of a distinct Brythonic Kingdom longest). The borders of the home nations may not be genetic boundaries but Scotland and Wales do have some differences and origins from that of the English. The Welsh have very insignificant Germanic influence compared to England and Scotland. Scotland has much more Norwegian Viking influence overall and has as a larger proportion of Paleolithic markers because of western Norwegian Vikings, Irish Gaels settling in the west and the original Picts (possibly also largely descended from the Paleolithic). Basically, its a highly debated subject and wont be solved here by either of us, so I think we should just give it a rest, please. You can have the last comment if that is what you want, I dont care, lol. Cheers, Epf 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• If there are any people in Ireland who have remained solely descended from Norman-French, then they must indeed have retained much of their Norman-French identity (and would not consider themselves "100% Irish") to have been that homogenous and inbred after so many centuries in Ireland . As you know, the Normans settled in very small numbers, intermarried with the Irish and were absorbed into the native population. They, along with most other small groups that settled there did not arrive in signficant enough numbers to alter the basic genetic impact of the people. Epf 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually using it as an example so wasn’t really counting on a literal translation, but saying that, I don’t believe your point to be true, because they: mightn’t have known until the geneticist came along and tested them that they weren’t of “Irish blood” like the other subject of my example; might be like many black and Asian people in Britain who happily declare themselves just as British as indigenous Britons regardless of how many generations (or years) they or their family have lived there; how would Norman French cultural identity remain pure after 800 years? Not even the royal family achieved that. My point was that by reading your arguments, you can make a person of an ethnic group by mixing and matching their parentage, like rebuilding the mammoth. And I would think that any genetic imprint on the people alters that make-up. Dozens of migrations into Britain over 3000 years starting with the Celts have, as all these surveys shown us, that at best (Shetlands/Orkneys/parts of Yorkshire & East Anglia) 75% of the genetic imprint is non-ancient Briton (pre-Celtic) and for most of England and Scotland the ancient figure is still 50% and above – a very common root and that’s a good thing, not something that should be shot down to prove differences. Enzedbrit 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And there's me being hung up on blood, albeit I'm doing it to prove the commonality of the British people rather than break them apart Enzedbrit 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the fact is that such a small number of Normans arrived if they really did justm arry within their group, not only would they have retained oticable different physical and genetic characteristics from the native Irish, they would obviously have maintained cultural ones. They wouldnt be culturally "pure", whatever that means, but obviously would have retained a distinct Norman-French based identity. For them to live so long in Ireland and only marry within their own tiny hmogenours group, cultural, laguage and behavioural traits would have remained. ALso, obviously if that wsa to happen they would of known who their ancestors were and been aware of their own separate identity. Its not as if it would happen randomly and they would forget they were Norman-French since if it were random then they would have intermarried with then ative Irish and have been absorbed into the population (which is what happened). As for your comment about genetic studies, again they are no fully conclusive and limited to certain sectoin of DNA and there have only been a very small number of studies. BUt going from that Y-chrosome study, paternally there is a significant Germanic input in Britain, mainly Danish and Anglo-Saxon based in England. In Scotland the native componenet is still there but higher paleolithic elements from Ireland and a largely Norwegian Viking markers rather than Danish. Also, if there are peoples who are non-European in the UK and have maintained solely non-British descent, I highly doubt they would consider themselves the exact same as indigenous Britons as they would maintain not only very distinct phenotypic/genotypic traits, but also behavioural and possibly cultural, linguistic traits. Epf 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Again you're dangerously hung-up on blood. Western Europeans are basically the same blood (I did say basically) sharing common racial characteristics/traits and intermingling over millennia. The rest of what you have said doesn't negate what I have said. Therefore I again post my question whether or not we consider revising the related ethnic group section. I for one think it's so controversial and confusing that we should just get rid of the category all together Enzedbrit 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, but the genetic studies quoted in this article prove that Western Europeans are not "basically the same blood", but they do have varying degrees of similarities with each other. There wasnt some mass migration between the peoples of Iberia, Britain, France and Scandinavia over the last 2000 years with everyone intermingling, lol. The people do have some different genotypic/phenotypic characteristics resulting from differing origins, migrations and history in general. This has also resulted in distinct cultures, languages, identities, etc. You are disagreeing with genetic studies, anthropology and common knowledge here. Epf 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have split your comment here to answer it piece by piece but you find that offensive. I don't class Iberia as western Europe but southern or south western. I should have been specific then and said 'north western Europe'. But yes, I stand by that, although not so much intermingling as wave after wave heading mostly from south east to north west, and in the case of Britain, definate intermingling or rather absorption by small groups into the larger whole. Actually that's very much the same for everywhere until more modern mass migratory movements. I am not disagreeing with anything - I am looking at the results different to you, and definately not with 'common knowledge', anthropology or culture, but with genetic studies, and as we all (should) know, these aren't exact and can be misleading. Enzedbrit 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, I dont find that offensive, I just dont like someone editing and taking apart someones original argument piece by piece. If you wanted to argue each point I suggest copy and paste it into your own discourse. I agree with your point on Britain although not all invading groups were absorbed tot he same extent and indeed some had a significant impact on British genetic make up. I do not know which modern mass migratory movements are you speaking of. From what I have studied, there hasnt been such modern mass migrations between NW European nations that would have altered the basic genetic make-up of the people. Even if looking at the genetic studies presented so far, they do show differences between north-west European groups. The only studies that have involved specific samples were only taken from British, Irish, Danish, Frisian and Norwegian populations from the North West of Europe and only analysing the Y-chromosome. There were differences between some of these groups, notably Norwegians, Danes, Irish and English. If based upon these studies, indeed they are not "basically of the same blood" although obviously there are many similarities. However, as I long explained to you, the few studies carried out are limited and not fully conclusive and its good to see you've realized how they can be misleading. Epf 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Have had to re-write this. When I said modern mass migration, I was referring to recent history. European people in New Zealand were able, in about 40 years of colonisation, to overtake the indigenous population, and this was a constant stream of migrants arriving in large ships. They were 'aided' in this 'accomplishment' due to the decimation of the native population by introduced diseases. European peoples in the dark arges would have shared these diseases so (one presumes) generally not have been affected as were new world peoples, and would have travelled far less organised on smaller ships but over shorter distances. They were also - and I know nobody would deny this - have been far more likely (and did) consumate relationships with the natives of neighbouring European countries than settlers were thousands of years later with natives in new world countries. This is why the ancient British element continues so pronounced (even at 25% for some in dear old York) over all of Britain today (and why it's unfair and simplistic for other posters to claim that the English are Germans, the Welsh and Basques are the same, etc.). There, I think that I have linked back finally to my original point. Enzedbrit 15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dont understand what your getting at here since I agree that a strong native British element remains in Britain but the fact is varying migrations did have lasting effects on the population. Considering were are speaking of the dark ages, intermingling between groups may have been less pronounced than it would have been even in New Zealand, who knows. What we do know is that Anglo-Saxon groups, notably different from modern Germans in Germany, and Danish Vikings did settle to some unknown extent. Since they gained control of the land, obviously some intermarriage did take place and created modern English. We simply dont know however what the extent of settlement was but most agree it was much larger and more signficant (in a genetic sense) than say that of the very minimal numbers of invading Normans. Epf 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Epf the genetic studies quoted in this article most certainly do demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that all europeans are of the same blood (I am guessing that this is meant to mean genetically related, though to me it seems to be devoid of any objective meaning, blood is what is pumped through the vasculature to provide oxygen and nutrients, it plays no part in hereditary). Please read again the paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans, see especially Fig. 4 Pie diagrams showing the distribution of Basque (white) and Near East (black) contributions to the 12 European groups of samples in Europe. This figure clearly shows a large component to all european populations of both neolithic and paleolithic markers, the ratios vary from east to west, as one would expect, but the resepective contributions are large in all cases (never less than about 20%), this paper provides strong evidence that that all modern european populations are a hybrid derived from the mixing of parental populations comprising near eastern neolithic and indigenous paleolithic peoples. You have disputed the validity of Y chromosome analysis in the past, here is an analysis based on autosomal markers, and so it certainly has more validity than Y chromosome analysis. The other important points to make is that the vast majority of europeas speak Indo-European languages (with the exception of a very few, the Finns being an exception to both genetically and linguistically), that are all very similar. How can you claim that people do have some different genotypic/phenotypic characteristics resulting from differing origins? What differing origins?, you are so determined to try to show some sort of racial divide that you seem to have completelly overlooked the fact that all people are ultimatelly derived from Africa, so in actual fact we are all derived from the same initial population (and very recently in evolutionary terms - 126,000 years ago) this is from the Homo sapiens article: Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah proposed that the variation in human DNA is minute compared to that of other species, and that during the Late Pleistocene, the human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs—no more than 10,000—resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this hypothetical bottleneck have been postulated, the most popular being the Toba catastrophe theory. The truth of the matter is that all humans are extremely closely related. To try to claim different origins for different european nationalities is not just wrong, but it goes against the vast majority of the scientific establishment (even multi regionalists accept that humans are ultimatelly derived from Africa). Ethnically and genetically europeans are more similar than dissimilar to each other, we speak related languages, our cultures are very similar, the predominant religion (up until the late 20th century when religion became unimportant) was christianity. The differences between europeans both culturally and ethnnically are very small, if one were to concentrate on the similarities rather than the difference then this becomes obvious. Alun 07:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Alun, obviously Europeans are very related as I never anywhere dispute that. You misunderstand the point I am trying to make. The fact is, however small (however you describe that) they are, European peoples do have differing aspects to their origins despite having most of them in common. The autosomal analysis showing the spread of Neolithic peoples is only one time frame of migrations into Europe. Besides the old Upper Paleolthic peoples, what about Mesolithic and more recent migrations during the the Bronze Age ? The Iron age ? Exactly. Yes, most Europeans have Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestry, but this is such a broad view that makes it sound as if these migratoins involved people who were genotypically and phenotypically the exact same. Neolithic [27] and Paleolithic ancestry involves various peoples. Yes when you go far enough back, all our origins trace back to Africa but much (when focusing on the small differences) variation has happened in human populations since that time. If you take into account the Paleoltihic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron age and common era (Slavic and Uralic, Turkic peoples) migrations into Europe, you easily can see how numerous different groups of people have settled into Europe. Despite the fact we all speak Indo-European lagnugaes, this doesnt mean we're all of the same exact origins. The peoples of India and Persia speak the langauges from the same family, do they look like us or have the same genetic markers as us ? of course not. All humans are indeed close and your right that the simlarities obviously outweigh the differences, but as most biologisits and physical anthropologists agree, there is physical and genetic variation between numerous human populations. I am not trying to over-emphasize the differences between European or any other peoples, either gentically/physically or culturally, but they do exist and are distinguishable. Basically, the migrations of peoples into Europe varied between different cultures and ethnic groups and has caused these peoples do have varying phenotypical and genotypic characteristics. Yes we are all very similar but yes we also all do have some differences. The whole point of these genetic studies is to shed some light on what these differences are between various ethnic groups and human populations, even if they are very small compared to our commonalities, so we dont have to rely on the apperance-based typological models of 20th century physical anthropologists. Epf 09:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The autosomal analysis showing the spread of Neolithic peoples is only one time frame of migrations into Europe, I do not understand what you mean by this. The samples were collected from people alive now, we do not know how many times or over how long a time frame neolithic peoples spread into europe, it could well have occured over millenia. From what I have read there seems to be little evidence of any large migration (relative to the population) into europe subsequent to the neolithic expansion. This makes sense as the population that can be sustained by a hunter gatherer lifestyle (that of the paleolithic) is far smaller than that which can be attained by an agrarian lifestyle (that of the neolithic). Whereas neolithic agricultural technology will have allowed the population to expand dramatically (hence the large neolithic component in out genetic makeup), it seems unlikely that such a relatively large component survives from any subsequent peoples arriving in europe, there certainly seems to ne no genetic evidence for it. It should also be stressed that some of the migrations you mention are basically europeans migrating within europe, and due to the greater genetic similarities it will be much harder to differentiate between them. I cannot help but think you are trying to categorise ethnicities/races too rigidly, as if we are all descended from discreet sets of ancestors that had no contact with each other, this seems like a very dated way of looking at it. I feel that this interpretation is not supported by either linguistic, cultural or genetic data. Genetics certainly point to gradations within the european gene pool, which means that there has been much mixing of peoples, languages likewise have a gradation, germanic languages are all similar and cluster geographically, as do Finno-Ugraic languages (Finnish, Estonian and Russian Karelian spring to mind as I live in Helsinki), the same is true of Romance languages, with French heavily influenced by Frankish and Latin, English is obviously a deviant form of a low German language. Although people can be roughly categorised by culture, language and ethnicity, these are not concrete and discreet, the bounaries are fluid and cultures merge and overlap, there is plenty of scope for genetic, linguistic and cultural exchanges. You should also take into account that ethnicity is not exclusive, an individual can have multiple ethnicities, especially in the modern world. I really don't understand your insistance on trying to define different european ethnicities as if they are somehow different racially, when the evidence I have seen seems to indicate the exact oposite. I disagree with you about language, language is central to culture, we are talking about ethnicity not race, I think it is completelly misleading to try to base arguments about ethnicity exclusivelly on genetic data, other parameters come into it, culture, language, history and religion. Finns, for example seem to be genetically more akin to people from North Eastern europe, particularly Karelians, and their languages are related, but Finns are overwhelmingly Lutheran protestants (as opposed to Orthodox Christians in Eastern Karelia) and were part of a greater Sweden for six hundred years or so, Finland is a progressive western european country, with much more in common with Sweden than with its nearest neighbours, due to their long cultural and ethnic associasion, but this is not reflected linguistically or genetically. Alun 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I really dont understand your point here Alun as I nowhere disagree with the importance of languages, culture, etc. in ethnicity but we are discussing the primary factor in ethnicity relating to common origins/descent. Im not trying to "rigidly define" European peoples by "races", but the fact remains that the peoples do have differing histories and origins besides the majority of which they share in common. The later (Bronze Age, Iron Age) invasions yes probably descended also largely from Neolithic stock, but the Neolithic invasions included various types of peoples that were not genotypically or phenotypically the exact same. By the time of the Bronze age and Iron age invasion, these peoples may have had even more variation between them. What I am trying to point out is that the different ethnic groups and peoples of Europe each had differing migrations and origins of peoples that would cause differences between them, even if they are minor. The different peoples of Europe are not different "races" but they do have some differeing genotypic and phenotypic traits, even if they are minor compared to the majority of traits they have in common. Look, I dont know what the problem is, Im not trying to push that the peoples are different "races" in the sense that Carleton Coon pushed it. Im just trying to say that the peoples do have some differeing traits and this is expected as different ethnic groups do encounter different histories and migrations of people. The majority of these groups married within the group for a large period of time (though not on the same scale as very homogenous groups in Asia like Koreans) and this itself results in certain genotypic/phenotypic characteristics. These arent unique to that group but they do separate it from many other groups. I really dont have time to argue about this, especially if your going to keep putting words in my mouth every time you respond to my discourse. I dont know what, if any, political bias you or other users have on the subject but I'll sum it up like this. You dont have to be an expert anthropologist to realize that a large proportion of people of native background in Wales look a certain way and when you go to Sweden, you notice that the majority there have certain physical traits in common and that they differ slightly from the Welsh. Whenever genetic studies get thorough enough to analyze all the major migrations of peoples into Europe (Paleolithic, Neolthic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and later migrations) as well as able to get complete and reliable information from each indigenous European ethnic group, then we will see how these differences are represented in a genetic sense. Studies such as the autosomal one you point out by Cavalli-Sforza only go to show what variations there are in the broadest sense, and saying that all European peoples are the exact same Paleolithic-Neoltihic mix is unfounded. Yes, its is true they originally descend from those two eras, but this does not go to say there hasnt been variation since that time. Here is the study [28] and the map [29] showing indeed the post- Neolithic spread of Indo-European languages into Europe. Epf 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

...and saying that all European peoples are the exact same Paleolithic-Neoltihic mix is unfounded.. who said this? I certainly did not. Please do not put words into my mouth or misrepresent what I am saying in order to win an argument. Stating that we are all descended from the same two source populations is in no way to claim that we are from the same mix. Did you actually check the diagram in the paper I mentionned? It clearly shows different mixes.

I'm sorry but your insistence on different origins is not supported by any data I have seen, the small differences in appearence in Europeans you are refering to is due to varying contributions from parental populations. People in eastern and southern Europe have a larger share of neolithic Near Eastern genes, people in the west have the same neolithic genes, but at a somewhat lower frequency, so we might expect there to be some small differences, but these most certainly do not necessarily reflect differing origins, we are all descended from both populations, but the frequencies at which they contributed to the gene pools of the different regions of Europe are variable. These small differences in the appearance of europeans is regional, not ethnic, you cannot claim to be able to identify someone's ethnicity, or even their origin, from their appearance. I'm from Wales and live in Finland, I can not be distinguished from native people untill I speak. I imagine if I lived in Italy I would not be identified as a foreigner by appearence either, we are not that different, you are refering to average differences, not absolute differences.

There is no consensus, even in the archaeological community that the mass migrations actually occured (and it is a breach of the NPOV policy to ignore cultural diffusion as a theory), and genetic data seem to be doing a good job of proving both the cultural diffusion and mass migration models wrong, showing some migration of peoples and mixing of indigenous and incomming peoples, so there was migration without displacement, but migration does not appear to be uniform. I also think that you need to understand the neutral point of view policy, while your point of view is perfectly valid, it does not represent anything like a consensus, and you have to accept, like it or not, that other peoples POVs have as much right to inclusion as your POV, as long as they verifiable and from good sources. Wikipedia NPOV does not deal with either or, I do not understand why you continually try to exclude POVs that don't fit with your opinion, wikipedia is not here to reflect your opinion exclusivelly. Alun 06:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alun, I dont know why you keep claiming that I am not respecting Wikipedias NPOV policy butits not true. I am merely staing my point of view and the evidence that supports it. I am pressing the correct information and aspect of my own POV so that the article is unbiased, neutral and supported by the facts rather than by the the varying theories and POV that surround the facts. You have to realzie that although European people shave many similar origins, they DO have some varying and distinguishing origins as well and to say otherwise only makes sense if you are referring to such broad groups as "Neolithic" an "Paleolithic" peoples. Yes we indeed all do have both those sources for our ancestry but the variations of peoples from these and later eras which we originate from does costitute differences between groups. Yes the physical differneces are in a large part regional, but they ARE also in a large part ethnic. You don't have a point if you disagree with this because an ethnic groups descends from and shares common origins and when peoples share much of the same ancestry they will share a degree of genotypic and phenotypic traits. I dont know where you live in Finland but I and most people can definitely tell the difference from an ethnic Finn who has significant Asian Uralic ancestry from a largely Celtic Nordic (with possibly some Neolithic mediterranean influence) looking Welshman. This makes sense as Welsh people have some DIFFERING origins from Finns. Differing Neolithic and Paleothlic era peoples were ancestors to the Finns than those who were to the Welsh. If you would have read the links that I posted from the same Cavalli-Sforza study that you cited, you will see other sources for European variation besides the Neolithic and Paleolthic era invasions (i.e. the Uralic influx from the Northeast). Also, I am of Italian heritage on my mothers side and I can definitely tell you right now, from also knowing many friends and others who are Welsh, that a Welshman does not look like an Italian and there are differences. Amyways, without getting into the details of varying physical characteristics, that fact is European peoples do originate from differing cultures, migrations and ancient peoples. Yes, much of our origins are shared but there are also important and noticeable differences which distinguish us (more so between some groups than others) either in appearance, genetics, culture, language, etc. Obviously the differences are not absoloute as people have mixed together somewhat to varying degrees but the differences certainly can not be described as "average" and the traits are a majority within the ethnic group. As people within the group marry with each other and originate from common origins, the traits become apparent throughout the ethnic group. There is little data, including genetic studies by Cavalli-Sforza and others to support any claim otherwise. Again, tt is widely held by academics and the genereal population that there are obviously distinct as well as related origins between European peoples. This makes sense with Europe's long history of numerous migrations and invasions, even if in some cases the impact may have been more cultural than demographic. The Finns have some origins from Uralic migrations that is not shared with Western or Southern Europeans; European peoples on the Western European fringes share large amounts of ancestry from a people dating back to the end of the last Ice Age/Upper Paleolithic; Southern Europeans share much origin from varying types of people from the eastern Mediterranean in the Neolithic period; Scandinavians retain large amounts of ancestry from Iron Age Germanic invaders (source of what Carleton Coon labelled the "Nordic" type), more so than other peoples; I can go on and on about this but the most important fact here is that the Neolithic and Paleolothic groups consisted of physically varying peoples and when combined with later Bronze Age, Iron Age, Uralic, Turkic, Slavic and other modern migrations (whatever the extent), the varying differences of origins for European peoples can be seen (although if you go long enough back, they would all be related, and all humans related in the same sense to some degree depending if one supports the multi-regional hypothesis or that of the "out of Africa" model). Modern European peoples descended from various elements of these invading peoples and therefore share both similar and differing origins. Physical and genetic variaton resulted from certain traits being more prevalent among certain groups and as each ethnic group largely married within the group for generations, these various traits would remain as a majority, even to this day. Genetic differences have been found distinguishing various European peoples in early studies but the most obvious account of differences is the physical characteristics studied among various peoples in physical anthropology before the modern reliance on populatoin genetics (even if its still in early stages of development with contradictory and unreliable results). Epf 10:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything you have written. I do not think there is any supporting evidence for any of the above, except for possibly some long ago discredited phenotypic studies that were looking for racial differences. This is the sort of reasoning that should have be consigned, long ago, to the same dustbin as eugenics was. It is from the era when evolution and genetics were misunderstood and misrepresented for nationalistic purposes. Take it from someone who actually lives in Finland, you cannot tell ther difference between a Fin and a Brit by looking at them, and anyone who claims you can does not know what they are talkig about. The small differences in the appearence of europeans by region (say the South/East and the North/West, and you cannot be more specific than that) is not necessarily indicative of differing origins, this is just one way to interpret them. Other ways are also possible, selection, either by environment or mate selection, bottleneck effects, genetic drift, varying contributions by ancestral populations are all other ways that poloymorphisms could vary somewhat within the european population. There is no possibility of differing origins of european populations, as all humans have the same origins, as I have pointed out to you before. The best you can claim is that various groups may have been separated for long enough for some selection to have occured that would produce slightly different ratios of polymorphic genes in the respective populations before they re-encountered each other. The Victorian/early 20th century tendancy to try to shoehorn people into races based on supposed phenotypic differences is a nonsense of history, and is not supported by genetics. You are really only talking about polymorphisms and nothing else. Please read about Ring species, genetic polymorphism, Population bottleneck, Founder effect, Small population size, Effective population size, Assortative mating, Sexual selection, Frequency dependent selection, Gene pool and particularly compare definitions of species and race. Alun 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, this is me you are talking to here, I have read into all of those topics and subject areas you have listed. You misunderstand much of the points I made above and in fact you repeat some of them. One point you are incorrect though, and very much so, is: " The small differences in the appearence of europeans by region (say the South/East and the North/West, and you cannot be more specific than that) is not necessarily indicative of differing origins, this is just one way to interpret them." The differences are not merely regional although greater differences can be seen between larger geographic areas for practical purposes. Alun, I don't know which Finns and Brits you have been comparing to, but there are differences in physical appearance and you would have to ignore genetics, anthropology and history to say these peoples have the same exact "origins". Yes, I agree with you that if you go back long enough, all humans have the same origins, but we are talking about 50,000 -100,000 years ago and humans have gone through differing variations and migrations since that time. Finns have a degree of Mongoloid/Uralic ancestry that is not present in British peoples. Look at Cavalli-Sforza's autosomal analysis of the 5 main waves of European migrations into Europe. Uralic is one of them and the markers are strongest in North-Eastern Europe and decline significantly as one moves west and south. When I speak of differeing "origins", I am speaking as within the past 10,000 years. Not all Europeans encountered the same migrations and settlement of peoples in that time yet they also share many in common. I need to reiterate again how I am aware all humans can be traced back to the same origins if you go far enough back, but several factors have altered these groups, albeit minor (depending on what you classify as minor differences), since then. I am not speaking about 19th century or early 20th century typological theories of "race". I am speaking from physical anthropolgocial studies, some from the early 20th cent., which also carried out extensive surveys of phenotypical variations in different peoples appearances. Obviously since the advent of population genetics, the models and racial theories in those studies became obsolete, but, the measurements and observations of differeing physical characteristics can not and, for the most part, have not been discarded. In fact, there is indeed much correlation between findings in population genetics studies and the physical anthropology studies caried out on different European peoples. Alun, we can settle this whole debate easily if you presented me with some pictures of Finnish celebrities, who are of Finnish descent (i.e. not including Sami, or Finland Swedes) and some corresponding British ones and I will show you how there is variation in appearance. The regional differences in Europe are much more than just North West and South East as you claim but also, and perhaps more importantly, there is phenotypical and genotypic variation within these regions based on certain ethnic or cultural populations who have primarily married within the group for generations (hence, a common ancestry/genealogy). The links you provided above just go on to prove my point about genotypic variations between both different regions and populations that has resulted from differing "origins" or migrations of peoples into areas over several time periods. I think we should continue this on mine or yours discussion pages before I go into this any further. Epf 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of nations on chart

The part of the main box called Significant Populations In: should be in descending order from the largest to smallest should it not? Now I realise that this is difficult because some people dispute the "Irishness" of those born in the diaspora, and that different countries have different criteria in their censuses for decent or ethnicity. So I will not make the controversial proposal that the USA or Britain be ranked above Ireland, although I'm sure everyone would agree that taking the widest possible interpretation of Irishness, there are many times more Irish in these countries than on the Emerald Isle. However, I have a more modest complaint that Canada should be ranked about Australia, based on the numbers given in that list. Is there any good reason why I should not change it? Kevlar67 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It should list Ireland first because that's where the people are from.213.202.160.43 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe (they are originaly from cont. Europe, after all [way back in time]). But what about my other point? Kevlar67 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and change the second part, I don't think it makes a helluva difference (Stpaul 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

To whom it may concern

While you were all having a long digressing conversation impossible to follow and completely unrelated to the Icelanders, User 86.9.100.83 vandalised your article, about four days ago, just below the link to Bob Geldof. He also nominated himself for the "List of virtuosi performers" article. The idea of reverting vandalism is not to let these slip by. 213.202.176.15 16:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish Origins in the Paleolithic OR EUROPE

I have been doing some studying over the past week on the Irish, and recently I saw an article that said that the Irish are'nt Celts, which turned my world upside down! Weighing the genetic evidence I now believe this to be true. What I don't understand is how this can only be true for Ireland and not the whole of Europe, because the Celts were allegedly an indo-european people, therefore the places where they settled would be genetically different (France, Germany, Switzerland, etc.) from Ireland's, but according to some genetic studies, (Sykes) this doesn't seem to be the case. Also, If the Celts did "invade" Europe, then it must have been only I small elitist invasion of some kind, not amounting to much in the gene pool OR there was an invasion that took place, but doesn't leave a trace because they were not indo-europeans, but ethnically identical to the rest of Europe. Sykes concluded that 80% of the people in Europe have genes that date back to the Paleolithic. I don't understand how this can be the case, unless the Celts were a large amount of that 20% which I find unlikely since we all know the Huns, Turks, and other "invasions" that took place in Europe. Another thing is they relate the haplogroup r1b with the Irish and Welsh with that of the Basque country in France and Spain, saying that they are very close and genetically unique compared to the rest of Europe based on the high percentage of people with the r1b bloodtype and isolating them from the rest of Europe claiming that their must have been a migration of Basques to Ireland. I think this is contradictory to the evidence of Sykes and other geneticst that say 80% of Europeans are largely of the first Europeans stock dating back to the Paleolithic, making them not unique but actually part of the majority. According to some of the genetic stuff i've been reading, most of which are already referenced on this page..to my understanding 80% of Europe is of the haplotype r1b, but they later go on to say that r1b is non-existent in Eastern Europe (where r1a1 is dominant). Furthermore I have seen an article(titled "The Welsh are a Race Apart" I think) that "proves" the English and Welsh are genetically very different from one another, there data behind their conclusion being the pervalence of r1b among the Welsh and the apparently low frequency of r1b amoung the English. However, I did find a source that says r1b runs about 70% around South England, which the article I read said nothing about. Unless the blood type information has no correlation to the origins of the different "ethnic groups" and is more of an adaptation, I can't make sense of this..

Anyway, I just wanted get some clarification on some of this, what seems to me to be contradictory evidence. Im not a geneticist or anything, so I can't pick out anything that might be wrong and they are just shoveling to the public to try to make a name for themselves, and I'm assuming the samples are not misleading. Personally, I put my money on the Paleolithic Continuity Theory and Sykes conclusion. Genetics is still a relatively new field, and it seems to be re-writing the history books..hopefully the margin of error isn't that bad. Also, I'm brand new to this Wikipedia stuff, sorry if my conventions and stuff are all wrong, I will read the tutorials when I have enough time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird Whodi (talk • contribs) 21:31, Apr 4, 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the term "Celt" itself. The term is properly the description of many groups of peoples who shared similar culture and language — it is not a description of a 'race' of genetically-related peoples. --Mal 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it (and my reasoning may be flawed) there are three discreet lines of reasoning, language, material culture and biology, I think these have been confused in the past by people who were inclined to group all celts into one biological/cultural/linguistic (if you like ethnic) group. The truth is, as always more complex. here's my perspective in point form, for clarity.

• Linguistics: The terms celt/celtic seem to refer to people who spoke celtic indo-european languages. The celt article on wikipedia starts with the statement: The term Celts, pronounced /kɛlt/, [1] refers to any of a number of ancient peoples in Europe using the Celtic languages.... Maybe the term should be used exclusivelly in the context of language? Alun 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Material culture: The celts have become (rightly or wrongly) associated with the iron age, and particularly with the material cultures of the Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. I do not know what evidence there is to link these material cultures with language or with a common ancestry. In his book Iron Age Britain, Barry Cunliffe shows very diverse cultural practices in Britain in the Iron age, possibly indicating that, although the people (apparently) spoke related languages there may have been very different religious/cultural practices even within Britain. Alun 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Biology: There seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding the genetics of modern europeans. I would not put too much stock in reports like English and Welsh are races apart, this is at best written by a journalist who did not understand the science, and at worst a deliberate distortion of the original research paper Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. For example the BBC report states It suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out.., whereas the original paper makes no such claim, simpy stating that ...we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time).... The paper also goes on to state that We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number. What this paper, the later paper A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles and also the paper Y-chromosome variation and Irish origins (available in PDF format in the references section of the main article) seem to be indicating is that paleolithic markers (using Y chromosome markers from Basque people as assumed paleolithic markers) occur all over europe. So the implication is that all europeans are the direct descendents of the paleolithic inhabitants of europe. What makes Irish, Welsh and Basque people different is that there is little evidence of additional genetic input from other immigrating groups. So English people are derived from the same paleolithic people as Welsh and Irish people, but English people (and other europeans) are also descended from other peoples that mixed with the indigenous paleolithic peoples (like Germanic people and Neolithic people). To use the family as an analogy, Welsh. Irish and Basque people are like siblings (Brothers and sisters) with (possibly) a single parental population, their relationship to other europeans is like that of cousins, with some shared biology (paleolithic) but some that is not shared (immigrating peoples like Anglo-Saxons in England for example). It should be stressed that these genetic data are not definitive as they rely on Y chromosome data and these data may be distorted due to the nature of Y chromosome transmission. The paper Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans is much better as it also includes autosomal markers for its analysis, this paper gives a much higher level for neolithic input into the european gene pool, though paleolithic markers are still present at varying frequencies all over europe. Alun 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge is far from complete, but this is the state of play as far as I understand it, if my interpretations are wrong then please set me straight. Alun 05:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Alun, you clarified things for me! It seems sort of insignificant and ridiculous to divide and catagorize people into all these groups, especially when they vary so little. All that jargon can make it seem a lot more hyped up than it really is, but it seems they're splitting hairs; considering we all came from Africa and bleed the same blood I can't figure out why it really matters anyway. I looked at a couple articles that shed light on human migrations and population genetics. -> [30] , [31] , [32] that I thought might interest some people here, Enjoy. --WeirdWhodi 08:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I agree Weird Whodi, it's interesting to use genetics as an archaeological tool, but I fear many people just want to use it to try to draw racial distinctions that just aren't there. We are all from Africa and of course all humans are descended from the same source population. Alun 18:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help Whodi(!) In short, regarding Alun's language suggestion, while most people in the British Isles assuredly spoke Indo-European language, there is some evidence to suggest that they didn't prior to the arrival of Celtic-speaking peoples. Certainly, the people of the islands largely (if not wholly) became Celtic by culture, I believe that their conversion was not without some measure of merger. In any rate, we cannot say for certainty that those people who became Celtic were of Celtic origin.

As for biology, Alun says that "Welsh. Irish and Basque people are like siblings (Brothers and sisters) with (possibly) a single parental population", which I would strongly disagree with. Bearing in mind what I have said above, there is no certainty that these peoples are of a single parental population. Leaving aside for the minute, the fact that the Welsh speak a different version of Celtic language than the Irish, and that the Basques actually speak a non-Indo European language... the fact is that Celts invaded and settled in the British Isles after there had already been an indigenous population there. Added to that fact is the description of Celts at the time by observers, at least one of which describes the physical attributes of various Celtic tribes and notes that they were very different in appearance. --Mal 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mal, you state there is no certainty that these peoples are of a single parental population, well no one said there was any certainty, I also stated It should be stressed that these genetic data are not definitive, no one is dealing with facts here, merely best guess theories based on the available evidence. As for ..the fact is that Celts invaded and settled in the British Isles after there had already been an indigenous population there.., this is not a fact, it is a theory. The alternative theory is that of cultural diffusion. I refer you to the celt article, where it states that the celts were speakers of celtic indo-european languages, and not an ethnic group. I do not understand this Leaving aside for the minute, the fact that the Welsh speak a different version of Celtic language than the Irish, and that the Basques actually speak a non-Indo European language, what are you trying to imply? Are you suggesting that because Welsh, Irish and especially Basque are different from each other, that the people living in these areas cannot be descended from the same paleolithic population? The paleolithic ended some 10,000 years ago, long enough for many a language to have been learned, and then forgotten. Here's what Barry Cunliffe has to say in his book Iron Age Britain: The old theories, which linked archaeological 'evidence' of invasion to language groups, are examples of circularity of argument. As archaeologists abandoned invasionist theories, so linguists began to reassess their evidence. The general position now, widely held by many scholars in the field, is that the Indo-European language was introduced into Britain perhaps as early as the early Neolithic period and it was from this common base in Britain and much of western Europe that the celtic language developed. The difference between Q-celtic and P-celtic would then be seen as divergent developement of language between different indigenous groups, owing nothing to successive waves of invaders. In other words, dialects of celtic were to be heard over much of western Europe, along the Atlantic fringe in particular, long before the begining of the first millenium BC. So if this theory is true, then Indo-European could have been introduced at the same time as farming, far earlier than any theoretical celtic invasion in the Iron age. I think I should stress that I don't think any of these theories are actually facts (as you claim), and I for one like to keep an open mind. Alun 18:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun maybe I failed to make it clear in my comment above, what I was getting at. For the minute, I'll pick out one or two of your points/questions to me, and reply to them with my understanding of history.

You ask: I do not understand this Leaving aside for the minute, the fact that the Welsh speak a different version of Celtic language than the Irish, and that the Basques actually speak a non-Indo European language, what are you trying to imply? Are you suggesting that because Welsh, Irish and especially Basque are different from each other, that the people living in these areas cannot be descended from the same paleolithic population?

I was responding to your suggestion that people can be grouped together as Celts due to language they spoke. At least I think that was what you had said! .. and the fact is that there is a big difference in the languages. I'm not implying that they cannot possibly be descended from the same 'race' of people, or from similar groups of people - please don't misunderstand me on that point. :) --Mal 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that ..people can be grouped together as Celts due to language they spoke.., this is a misunderstanding. Maybe I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I was in fact saying the opposite, that celts were people who spoke celtic languages, and that the use of a common language is not necessarily indicative of common ancestry or indeed a common shared culture. I was suggesting that use of the word celt may be more appropriate when refering to linguistics rather than culture or common descent. I think there is much confusion in the use of the word, some people use it to describe common ancestry and/or a shared culture (together these represent ethnicity), whereas the Celt article simply uses the term for any peoples, whether related ethnically or not, who spoke celtic languages. I was suggesting that the word should be used in the same way as it is defined in the Celt article, simply as a linguistic term. Alun 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the different Celtic languages - it has also been strongly suggested that the modified P-Celtic language had appeared in the British Isles before the older Q-Celtic. In other words, just because the Q-Celtic language is older, that doesn't imply necessarily that the people who spoke it had been inhabitants of the islands before the P-Celtic speakers. --Mal 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well as I said before these are all theories, but none is a fact. Do you have a reference for your assertion? The verifiability policy calls for references from reliable sources, which is why I gave the quote from Barry Cunliffe's book. I see no merit in promoting one theory above another, this would be a breach of the neutral poin of view policy. It is instructive to take a look at the celtic languages article, which outlines two theories, that Q and P celtic are derived from Proto-Celtic independently, with Brythonic and Gaulish linked, and another that links Goidelic and Brythonic as an Insular Celtic sub family, with Continental Celtic as another sub-family. 05:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have references for you .. or rather, I do.. but I don't need references in this discussion page. I'm sure you've heard the theories (indeed, you seem to accept they exist), so unless it comes to an actual edit of the article itself, we can just keep this nice and informal! :) --Mal 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, if it's not going into the article. Just one point about the genetic evidence. All of the genetic studies I have seen show paleolithic markers in all european populations, indicating that all modern europeans are the direct descendants of people living in europe in the paleolithic. These results are contingent, like all science, on the validity of the assumptions made. One of the assumptions is that modern Basque people are the closest, genetically speaking, to the paleolithic inhabitants of europe. My analogy about siblings and cousins was just to try to illustrate that, whereas Basque, Irish and Welsh people seem to be relativelly homogeneous regarding the genetic markers tested, other europeans have a more heterogeneous mix of markers, including both the same paleolithic markers, but also other assumed non-paleolithic markers. It was just an analogy, maybe it wasn't a very good one. Alun 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I like and respect that you have an open mind about it all, and I like to think that my mind is not closed either. There has been a problem in the last 30 or 40 years in that recent archaeological evidence, and the theories they point to, are seen as "revisionism" of history.. to the extent that some die-hards believe so strongly in the 'established' view of history that they believe any differences to it is merely some kind of propaganda. While many of the theories (old and new) appear to contradict each other, they also often correlate. I believe there is room for accomodation of all the major theories, so long as its well-written, presented and researched. I'm sure you'd agree. --Mal 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The studies don't deny the fact that the Irish are celtic, they merely prove that we must redefine our use of the term itself. i.e. that 'Celtic' countries do not neccesarily share a common ancestry but rather a common cultural pattern. Even in reference to the ancient Celts most sources that I've read stress the fact that the term 'celtic' refers to a cultural rather than an ethnic group. Maybe we should instead change the phrase so that it instead reads: "the succesive waves of culturally Celtic tribes who migrated from continental europe between 600BC and 150BC" Fergus mac Róich 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be a good compromise Fergus. I should point out of course, that the people of these islands never referred to themselves as "Celts" or "Celtic" until somewhere around the 17th century though. --Mal 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

English as Germanic

The English are predominantly Germanic. Studies have shown this. That is not to say that in the current population called "the English" there isn't a significant proportion of genes from the indigenous Britons. It even states so in the English people article. Let's not let political opinions get in the way of facts.

By the way, the fact that the English are largely Germanic does not mean that the English have no right to be in the British Isles; which is the only reason why people oppose the English being identified as Germanic. As already stated, the English are indeed also descended of native Britons, even if in a smaller degree, and thus entitled to be in the British Isles. And this is not about "racially" classyfing Europeans, it's about presenting facts. The English are essentially a Germanic people, although with significant indigenous British admixture, and that is not a point of view. Al-Andalus 05:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No the studies show the opposite that genetic input of anglo saxons/Danish was a lot less than was thought and only concentrated in certain areas such as Norfolk and York. It is just inaccurate to say English people are mostly germanic. I note that you like to inaccurately separate people into exact ethnic groups as you did with Mizrahi. Arniep 12:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong here: the English are primarily made up of Saxon blood. The confusion over Danish and Angles is that they share so much in common with the Saxons,genetically speaking. On the other hand, areas with a stronger Norwegian influence can be shown. It should be said, however, that some studies show the English as having strong relations to the pre-Celtic peoples of the island, even more than with the Britannic Celts. (Stpaul 12:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

That was an old assumption which has been disproven by genetic evidence. While the Viking Danes did drive native Britons out from certain areas the anglo saxon invasion replaced the leadership but affected the native populations less. Arniep 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the English are not mostly Saxon at all. I'm more than surprised that there are some still using this Victorian assumption Enzedbrit 21:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at this article Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles. The English are not primarily either Saxon or Germanic, but are a varying combination of native Celts and invading Germanic tribes whose languages and cultures supplanted the natives in England, while the Celts fled to Wales and Scotland etc. Stpaul and Arniep are correct. Tombseye 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the Celts fled to Scotland, straight to the arms of the invading Scots! They held out as the majority culture in Yorkshire, Cumbria and the north west for centuries. Enzedbrit 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. 05:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the whole it doesn't really matter what the genetic contribution to England is, these articles are based on ethnicity. An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). I do not think anyone can claim that English people identify as germanic, much more likely to identify as British. If anyone can provide evidence (contingent on it being from a reliable source) that a majority, or significant minority of English people identify as Germanic, then they should present it in support of their claim that English people are ethnically German. If they cannot produce such evidence then they should stop making this claim. Alun 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting links about the origins of the Irish, English and the British in general.

Genetic research is evolving so fast that new discoveries are tantalizing, in many cases shattering in relation to views held until now. I have noticed that this article misses important information that is being published now as a result of the revolution in genetic research, here you have some interesting links:

1. haplogroup R1b

2. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

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

HCC

There is no revolution, haha. What are you talking about here ? Its an early science with only limited information being presented with infromation that is also being interpreted in many diffrent ways. Take these studies with a pinch of salt if you have any rationality. 69.157.100.164 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish In slang

I have removed a large section from the article about slang terms associated with the Irish, which was added by an anonymous user (please feel free to register if you are going to make major changes to articles). It was copied verbatim from The Racial Slur Database. Aside from it being the work of another, many definitions were factually dubious, it was way too long, and it was generally of very poor quality. I hardly need to remind regular contributors as to Wikipedia's copyright policy, but new editors might want to have a wee read....:) Martin 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

Is this whole article a piss-take? Shaquile O'Neal? Joan Collins? What about Daniel Kennedy (Portugese footballer) then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stpaul (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 May 2006.

No, it's not a piss-take; it's just that not everyone who visits this page is always constructive. I just reverted an edit removing Shaquile O'Neal, as I was under the impression that people of Irish extraction should be on the list. However, on closer inspection (amazing what happens when I actually read the article...lol), it seems that this might not be the case, although there are a few on there. Can someone please clarify: should the list on this page only feature people born in Ireland? If so, I'll go ahead and remove the extraneous names. Martin 02:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wellmy take on it would be, no Shaq would not belong on the list in the article, but would be better situated with the List of Irish people. My thought on the in page list is that it should be restricted to people who born in Ireland, or people who were born of at least one Irish parent. My reasoning is that at least for thouse have moved away form Ireland, the more removed generation wise from the country of your ancestors the more blury your ethnic extraction becomes. As for ones that dont meet the cretiera, i would have no problem with moving to the other list, as it would me mor apprprate. but i could see special cases being made, though i would say these cases would be extremely limited. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely only people born in or brought up in Ireland (or the very few who don't fit that requirement who are known as Irish i.e. Spike Milligan, Daniel Day-Lewis). Irish Americans, Australians, Canadians have their own lists. Arniep 08:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the list and divided it up in sections; it doesn't look quite so intimidating now, IMHO. Martin 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Can we get a photo without Henry Ford in it? I've nothing against him but he isn't actually Irish, he's an Irish American. GusF 01:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

good point, I didn't actually notice him! I don't think he is a very good example so I'll attempt a new image. Arniep 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another northerner would be nice; how about Seamus Heaney? Or even better perhaps, seeing as there are four photos and four provinces...;) Martin 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is any image we use on a collage has to be released under a free license such as GFDL or Creative Commons. We could try and find one on a site that might agree to this using Google Images. I don't think we need to limit it to 4- it could be double height so we can fit in 8 or maybe 10. Arniep 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

theres nothing wrong with irish-Americans there in my opinon, espcially if they are of whole Irish ethnic origins. I can see why you woudlnt want Ford though since much of his ancestry was originally English, did he even have any Irish heritage ? Epf 05:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Irish-Americans have their own article, and having Irish Americans in the top collage means we can include less people who were actually Irish. Arniep 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Epf 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That was my point exactly. Personally, I agree with Martin about Seamus Heaney or maybe W.B. Yeats. GusF 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely the copyright on many old photos has lapsed by now? Maybe Yeats would be a good idea for this reason? Martin 14:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It say it has, alright. GusF 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin, GusF,

What are you both on about? Seamus Heaney's Picture IS on the list! Fergus mac Róich 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about the collage at the top which has to be made up of public domain images or images under a free license. Arniep 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Irish, 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

• These studies do not imply or conclude any notion that British peoples are of "Iberian origins". See discourse on Talk:English people for more information. Epf 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see it and see Epf's scholarly style. HCC.

scholarly style ? lol, also take notice to HCC's radical POV and agenda on this subject. Epf 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Take your time and read well. HCC.

New collage

OK, I had a go at making one, Jonathan Swift, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Grattan, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, Arthur Guinness, Daniel O'Connell, Charles Stewart Parnell, George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, W B Yeats. It's not perfect but I'll maybe have another go at it some time, maybe with another row of more modern people if we can find images under a free license or in the public domain(maybe with some women!). Arniep 01:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort you have put into this (although, I see that Fergus mac Róich has reverted the page to the old image). One thing though; now there aren't any northerners on there! It's nice to feel wanted....lol Some women would be nice too; I remember meeting one once, so I know we've got them. Maybe Maud Gonne for starters? Martin 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it as consensus here seems to be that we wanted more people in the image. There is a Dublin bias as it just happened that the cultural centre was Dublin in the past so they are over represented in the image. I was going to include a new row of more modern people, perhaps including Éamon de Valera, Seamus Heaney, and Countess Markiewicz (note: any images we use need to be in the public domain in the U.S. or released under a free license). Arniep 15:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One question, where's Michael Collins ? Epf 16:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that there seems to be a dominance of Anglo-Irish people and Anglicans as a whole. Not that they shouldn't be included, but 9 of the 10 is almost coming across as a sort of POV or agenda in my own opinon. Theres also a lack of modern notable Irish persons and those from other professions besides literature and politics. Wheres the atheletes, musicians, actors/actresses, etc. ? I also think the engraving of Brian Boru should be included. Epf 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the two rows basically represent the 18th and 19th centuries. The dominance of protestants is because before emancipation the most well known and successful people were protestants, as to be protestant was the only way you could really get anywhere in society, something that was only really corrected in the 20th century. For the 20th century row we need some images that are under a free license or in the public domain, unfortunately they're aren't too many free images that I can find (although there is one of Michael Collins, I would prefer Countess Markiewicz as a representative of those times as we need more women). Arniep 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what your saying, but I still think there should be some notable people from other professions or fame besides politicians and authors/playwrighths. Other than cosidering obvious possible choices like Bono, Enya, Roy Keane, Eamon De Valera, Michael Collins, etc. I think the engraving of Brian Boru should be included (if its licenced). Ciao, Epf 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use the photo that was on the Roy Keane page as it is a copyrighted press association image. If we can get a free image or illustration we could use that. I'm not sure it would really be worth including Boru- although he is obviously a very important figure the image of him is just a fantasy. Arniep 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

True but six of the ten pictures in the collage are paintings. But that said, they were most likely painted when they were alive GusF 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice collage but would be more suited (minus O'Connell) for the article on the Anglo-Irish or for an article on Irish people in the 18th and 19th century. As it stands, it is totally unrepresentative in chronological and religious/demographic terms. Admittedly, many of those used by Irish tourism to market Ireland are there but there are others who could be included and who are no less important than the present line-up. Who am I thinking of: Theobald Wolfe Tone for example, or Thomas Wyse (one of the first Catholics to "make it" after Emancipation), or Michael Davitt. Someone has already mentioned Michael Collins. Women must also be represented - Maud Gonne, Countess Markiewicz, or Mary Robinson spring to mind. There's also Medb, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, and Turlough O'Carolan of Series B Banknotes (Ireland) fame. --Damac 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think people are any less Irish just because they were protestant. I chose people who I felt were some of the most well known and admired Irish people across the communities; whether they were protestant or catholic was not not on my mind at all. I am slightly wary of including people who advocated violence/are heroes of either the republican or unionist movements as I think we should probably avoid anything too divisive right as the page starts off. Arniep 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are no less Irish - I never said that. My point (shared by others) is that the present line-up is slightly unrepresentative from a number of perspectives. If the article purports to be representative of the Irish people, then the icons chosen should represent the broad spectrum that is the Irish people. As it currently stands, the line-up represents a minority. It's not sectarian to state that - it's a fact.--Damac 07:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know people have said it didn't have enough Catholics- I propose adding the two mentioned below. Arniep 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we could just about get away with adding another person on each row- I would be in favour of adding two Catholics, Thomas Wyse in the 18th century row, and Michael Davitt in the 19th. Arniep 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Daniel O'Connell should be moved to the top row as he was called to the bar in 1798, and Wyse should be the first in the second row. Arniep 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I just think there should be some more Irish included of other professions and who are some more modern examples. I'm positive Bono is more well known around the world then alot of the people in the current collage. Overall I just think its better to have a balance of old and new and of various professions. Epf 04:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to do another row for the 20th century- the problem is finding images that are public domain or under a free license (we do have some free ones of Bono). Arniep 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ethnic groups in the United States

This article does not belong to the category 'Ethnic groups in the United States' and I will remove it. This category has its purpose clearly stated. It is for United States persons who immigrated to the United States from other countries. This category includes the 'Irish Americans' article as it should since this category contains articles named 'xxxx Amwericans' Thanks Hmains 03:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I still contend that Irish American is not inclusive of the 150,000+ Irish-born people who are living in the US; they are not Irish-American, they are simply Irish; "Irish Americans are residents or citizens of the United States who claim Irish ancestry." Martin 02:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's true. They're not Irish-American, they're Irish. GusF 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Notable Irish People" section

Hey guys and gals, I've noticed that this list is getting awfully long; I was afraid that when I divided it up into sections, people would look at it and think "I know an Irish actor who's not in the "Actor" section!", and that seems to be what is happening (I do it myself, so I'm not blameless). The article proper is actually very short, so I would suggest our efforts might be better employed in expanding that, and diminishing the list. If it is meant to be "Notables" (whatever that means), then I think we'll have to be slightly discriminatory about who goes on it, which is where the problems start; is Áed Dub mac Suibni more notable than Liam Neeson? Does wide international acclaim outweigh importance in Irish history?

Also, I suggest that it might be a good idea to set some sort of limit on the number of names on there. There are over 180 on it at the minute; any suggestions as to how long a reasonably concise and informative list should be? Martin 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We could just remove it and add any names on it that are not on List of Irish people to that (and maybe remove people who are just of Irish descent)?. Arniep 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. In fairness, exceptions can be made if a good case can be put forward but - would it not be best to condense the list of names that we have and expand the articles on each person? Some of them are appallingly short. Fergananim 17:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, it's still growing! I may add myself soon, as everyone else from Ireland is on it! :-) I have made a proposal at the List of Irish people talk page to remove non Irish people from that list, and filter most of the list on this page over there. Comments are welcome. Martin 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm..."Evan Reisel - just a cool guy"...I can't even find this guy on google. I'd take it out myself, but I can't seem to find where it is in the edit box.

Descent paragraph

Hi folks, just tightened up the language of the "Descent" paragraph, which I found rather loose and misleading. Hope it meets with approval, but if not, say so. I know that I ought to provide some citations for some of these statements and I will - bad health's a bugger.Fergananim 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No probs. Hope you're feeling better soon. Martin 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John Duns Scotus is not Irish

So I had to remove the very nice picture of him that user:86.42.139.77 inserted. Fergananim 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he was confusing him with John the Scot. Grimhelm 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Major bias

In the infobox at the top of this page there are only pictures of men. Not a single Irish women is to be seen. Shame. Kevlar67 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Mary Robinson's picture to the body of the article as I figured it was a safe choice. I'd also like to include some other pictures of women in the body of the article, and I would hope there could be some in the infobox as well, however I don't know how to go about doing that. This website contains a list of potential famous Irish women, however it highly nationalist and republican, and I was wondering if you think any of the other women included would be suitable? Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. Kevlar67 04:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More "British Isles" propaganda

Well, well, well. I knew there was something fundamentally amiss when I read the following claim in this article: 'The government of the Republic of Ireland notes that prejudice against the Irish is still found in some parts of the United Kingdom:The post-1945 Irish population has therefore been caught between these two images. On the one hand their migrant experience and cultural difference has been denied because they are a ‘white’, ‘British Isles’...."

Hold it right there. A quick Google reveals that, as expected, the Irish government never used the term "British Isles". The above sentence is from this academic paper, The Irish in Britain: Injustices of Recognition? : http://www.paradigme.com/sources/SOURCES-PDF/Sources15-1-04.pdf El Gringo 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish half proto-germanic?

Are the irish half proto-germanic? In this article it says that the irish mitochondrial DNA is the same as that of north european people(which I take to mean germanic or proto-germanic).

Not Germanic

No the Irish are not half proto germanic, unless you would call the basques half proto germanic as the Irish are closely related to the basques. The Irish are more closely related to peoples of western europe and Spain and Portugal. Are the germanic germans? What does germanic mean in terms of genetics? Do we need such racial lables anymore? Are they appropriate? No, and genetics is the only way to describe populations ethnicity accurately.' Haplotype R1b makes up 90% of the haplotypes of Irish Y chromosomes on average, in parts of western Ireland R1b is as high as 98.5%. In the Basque Country of Northern Spain and South Western France R1b averages at 90% in Y chromosomes. In Germany R1b is only at about 40% of Y chromosomes. In conclusion the Irish are genetically more closely related to the Basques than to Germans.

Evidence:

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

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

http://www.ethnoancestry.com/Prod09.html

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

I'm not sure where you get the info to back up your assertions up but I think you'll find that DNA studies show that the maternal Irish mitochondrial lines are Germanic. Arniep 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm no expert on the specific genetic studies done on Irish people, however one thing I do know is that there is no such thing as "Germanic DNA". Think about that term for a second, we know from Genetic studies done all over Europe that the vast majority of European's DNA comes from the people who lived there in the Stone Age (and in the cast of western Europe the first settlers some 50,000 to 30,000 years ago). Now you are attempting to say that there is such a thing as "Germanic DNA", this is of-course complete and utter drivel, as the Germanic Culture (along with the rest of the Indo-Europeans) didn't arrive in Europe until the Bronze and Iron ages, these newcomers have obviously had a vast influence on Culture and Language, but they have had very little influence on the Genetics. So no, Irish people (and even German people) don't have "Germanic Genetics", they both have Stone Age genetics (though different types). Put quite simply, you cannot tie together Cultures (like Germanic or Celtic) with Genetics. If you want to find out about this there is and interesting site here https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html (specifically check out Haplogroup R1B (M343)). --Hibernian 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news about the Origins of the Irish 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)

There's a free article here [33]. Arniep 23:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing particularly new about most of that. --Mal 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sykes' Y-chromosome research is not really new, as similar results have been known for years. The problem with the Y chromosome is that it's effectively a single locus and thus is not necessarily representative of the collective ancestry of the Britsh. New research using thousands of loci (e.g., see the graph in this article) shows that the Irish are not particularly related to Iberians, despite the Y-chromosome similarity that stretches across the Atlantic coast of Europe. --Opie 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss all the details with you because that would be exhausting. Iberia is as homogeneous as the British Isles. It does not mean that it is exactly the same everywhere. In England the Iberian or Basque component, however we want to call it, is above 60%, in Scotland above 70% and in Wales above 80%, the same situation you find in Iberia. In peaks in the Basque country, in the same way that it peaks in Wales in Britain, but it is the majority component everywhere, including Portugal. If you are interested you can read well the 2004 Oxford article. They say in the article that it is the largest study carried out up to now at a European level, taking thousands of samples only in Spain, in diverse areas like Madrid, Catalonia or Cadiz. Where they have seen it necessary, they have given different values for different regions, like Eastern Central Europe and Western Central Europe, or the North of Italy and the South of Italy. In the case of both the British Isles and Spain, they have not given separate values, because the differences were not considered significant enough. They have asigned the highest value of what they call the Basque population group to Spain, with about 74%, followed closely by the British Isles as a whole, with about 70%. Anyway, this is not about Spain, and we should not drift. The books that I have mentioned are the only ones that have been published recently about the Britons and the Irish. Anyone interested in this matter should read them first. Only Syke's book is more than 300 pages long. It would be impossible to try and comment every aspect of it here. I have just pointed out some interesting stuff from the book. Read them first if you have the chance, and then give your opinion. But as I said, our opinions are respectable, but they are not authoritative sources. 72.144.248.211 04:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

User:Opie changed a couple of phrases in the genetic section, altering totally the meaning of it. Basically he/she changed all references to Atlantic background for Northern Europe (see history), against all what's been discussed here, and without any comment. Therefore I have reverted.

Should this user be denounced for vandalism? --Sugaar 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was your fellow Iberian Globe01/HCC who, without explanation, replaced every mention of northern Europe with something else (as did 86.138.89.124 before him), thereby making a couple of phrases inconsistent with the references that followed. What I then did, in effect, was to revert (in two steps) to the previous version, explaining my edits in the process. Don't worry, your Basques are still mentioned, and the article is clear that they and the Western Irish share the highest proportion of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b. But please don't remove substantiated information -- for example, if reference #6 shows that the Irish genetically belong to a northern European cluster of populations when the full genome is sampled, then don't replace "northern" with "western" or "Iberian" or some such thing. --Opie 11:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

explain please

that dna map or whatever, what does it mean? why are Irish included in the same group with Germans, Swedish, Hungarians, Poles, and Ukrainians? Aren't Irish more closely related with Iberians, including the Portuguese and Spanish ? Why aren't they in that group? it is confusing and I think it's a stupid map because nobody will understand and it's probably inaccurate anyway

furthermore, why are Ashkenazim included in the same group as Southern Europeans when clearly they are more related to Germans and Slavic peoples?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.207.173 (talk • contribs) .

---

Suggestions

i think we should use some of the dna maps that are correct and more recent and more accurate and that agree with all the other evidence explaining irish genetics, im not going to change any maps to more accurate ones as it may be seen as vandalism but i urge people to discuss the validity of these maps im going to link compared to the other map which is now in the irish people section.

here are some dna maps that for possible use:

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

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

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

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:wS6DZf6b-RUJ:www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm+r1b+europe+map&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

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

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

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG6

Or this one:

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

See the legend: CEE = Central Europe East. CEW = Central Europe West. EE = Eastern Europe. IberiaS = Spain. IberiaP = Portugal. ItalyN = North of Italy. ItalyS = South of Italy. In the places where no South/North or East/West divide appears, it is because there were no significant differences among areas in the country or region.

See also this legend: Molecular (first row) = Different molecular DNA loci and frequency (second row) = Haplogroups. Av. = Average.

This study is from 2004 and has used up to 8 different genetic loci.

Of special interest are the similarities between the British Isles and Spain (IberiaS) and Portugal (IberiaP). Thousands of samples were taken from all over Spain and the British Isles, and also from the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, especially the areas in Anatolia (Turkey) and Irak.

See also this:

From Blood of the Isles, By Dr. Bryan Sykes, published september, 2006. Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.

Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.

Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructe of the Isles.

Page 283.

Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.

And this is just from the end section of the book, after brief browsing.

Maps are cool, specially the first one.

But I'm at unease with the excessive weight given to the Iberian hypothesis, because:

Iberian Celts don't seem to have been in contact with continental of British Celts after their loss of would-be Catalunia and the Ebro valley in the 6th century BCE. They do not display druidism nor any other Latenean cultural influence.

It's much more likely that any Iberian influences would have arrived in the Megalithic period (late Neolithic, Chalcolitic, early Bronze Age). These people had a network from Denmark to Africa but were not Celts.

Early population of Britain must have arrived from continental Europe: France, Low Countries, West Germany. There was indeed a Paleolithic and then Epi-Paleolithic (aka Mesolithic) cluster in the Rhin area with relatively high density. I'm quite sure of having read that British MtDNA is more linked to this region than to Iberia or Basque Country but sadly can't find the link (only open-acess stuff on British MtDNA I have found is this, not very concise). It's probably this paper but it's only available for subscribers, except for the abstract, that advocates for a NW Euro origin of Britons (though following its happy conclussions, it would seem that Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were Amazons: more female input than male one!).

In any case, I think that the most likely scenario is that a continental population that was then much closer to Basques in the Y-chromosome was the main element populating the islands, notwithstanding secondary Iberian apportations of the Megalithic (pre-Celtic) period. That continental population suffered IE invasions (Corded Ware culture and successors) that modified the Y-chr lineages proportions noticeably (about 50%) but practically not the MtDNA ones.

I wouldn't give so much weight to mythology. --Sugaar 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, reading Sugaar I am going to tell all those stupid people from Oxford like Dr. Brian Sykes to shut up. This Sugaar seems to know it all. He is the one who should be all over the newspapers, teaching at Oxford and publishing books. too bad he is just kind of unemployed. 70.156.157.162 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not disqualify people but discuss the arguments/logic. Sykes is obsolete, anyhow, and his usage of the term Celt is obviously misleading. The Iberian-British connection exists surely but it's not as clear as it may seem at first sight. One problem is that geneticists usually know little or nothing of archaeology/prehistory and tend to reach to symplistic conclussions, like that idea of "Iberian refuges" - that are more Occitan (sud-French) actually, as Iberia was scarcely populated except for the Cantabrian strip for most of the Paleolithic. They also ignore that the Rhin-Danube area was relatively densely populated too.

Btw, as you seem to want to discuss my person, may I know who you are. You need not to hide behind an IP number, you can create your Wikipedia account and a persola user page so the rest of us can have an idea who are we talking with. --Sugaar 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, I am not sure why you are so sceptical of a true definable link to Iberia. Do you really think that Sykes, a professor at Oxford and many other researchers are deliberately lying, misrepresenting the case or are all completely wrong? Is it a conspriracy? Or is it in fact the case that you are one of those who still clings to the Celtic myth that the Irish and all other "Celts" originally came from central europe? Arniep 12:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See below in my reply to LSLM for a clarification of my position. I don't say that they are lying, just that one-sided studies are not all.

I do think that Celts came from Central Europe in several waves since 1300 BCE, but that's not my point, as what we are discussing is the earlier substrate that has essentially remained unchanged, specially in some populations we now call Celtic. But the Celtic genetic apportation to them must have been minor, a thin layer over a thick substrate, much like Anglo-Saxon apportation later. When I say that Britons (and Irish) must have came at least partly from the Rhin area, I'm thinking in pre-Indo-European (that's pre-Celtic) people that surely were culturally akin to Basques but were not necessarily 100% identical to them.

Let's see: end of the Ice Age, Magdalenian and post-Magdalenian cultures in the Franco-Cantabrian region, Rhin-Danub region and the still marginal main Iberian region. Probably near 100% R1b and also maybe speaker of languages related to Basque. They take over the areas of improved climate in Britain and Denmark. These colonists can come from Gascony or Rhineland or both. My thinking is that the main group came (went, as I'm not in the isles) from Rhineland but can't be sure. Later it came the Neolithic waves, the Megalithic Atlantic cultural area, the Indo-European invasion of Central Europe and Scandinavia (Corded Ware culture, as main epysode), a large parenthesis of 1,000 years... and then, only then, c.1300 BCE the first Celts, the western avant-guard of IEs, start moving into parts of France and Spain (Urn Field culture). But their presence in Britain is minimal before c.400 BCE (La Tène culture, non-existent in Iberia). Hope you get the picture. It's more complex than how Sykes understand it, precisely because he apparently has not sufficient knowledge of European Prehistory (I don't think he's any archeologist or prehistorian, is he?) --Sugaar 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not hiding behind an address. I just forgot to sign in. Anyway, I am sorry if I came accross a bit agressive, but really, I am a bit tired of personal opinions and self-research-like approaches. We are supposed to present the opinions of authorities in the field, not our own theories, and preferably updated research. Veritas et Severitas 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LSLM. May I remind you that it was you who asked me to become interested in these issues on the genetic background of Britain and Ireland, because you felt that my apportations to other articles were good and hoped I would take your side of mixing Mythology with Genetics in a Sykes-like approach. I'm sorry to have dissapointed you but I really think (and have grounds to do so) that the Iberian link is not so clear. It's possible but not so transparent. My opinion is that the islands were colonized, maybe in several waves by post-Magdalenian peoples that were strongly R1b in the Ychr haplogroup but it's not clear if they came from the Franco-Cantabrian Region (proto-Basques) or the Rhin-Danub one (probably also related to Basques both genetically and culturally). There are arguments in favor of both, so probably the truth is something in between.

Regarding the "Iberian" aspect (understanding for it, south of the Franco-Cantabrian region), any apportation must have been secondary, in Neolithic or post-Neolithic times (associated to Megalithism). I am of the opinion that there was some apportation but more on the line of what later happened with Celtic, Latin and Germanic waves: a thin layer over a thicker older background, and this is surely best attested not by R1b but by the small "Mediterranean" or "Neolithic" (E3 and J, and partly I too) sectors of the British cake. These apportations surely arrived with much bigger R1b proportions but no study (that I know of) has deepened enough in sub-haplogroups of R1b as to reach any conclussions based in that.

I have given my opinion, yes, and I think it's not biased (because I have no vested interest for either proposals: I'm no Nordicist, Germanist, Celtist nor Iberianist. If anything I could maybe be accused of Basquism but I believe I'm leaving my own ethnocentric feelings apart in this). I'm sorry that no genetic study is sufficiently conclusive. But Sykes is not conclusive in favor of your thsis either and he's ignoring other facts.

For instance if you see the Cavalli-Sforza maps on European Principal Componentss (ignore please the arbitrary tags under the PC number), you see that Britons and Irish are intermediate between North and SW Europe for most PCs. They are rather "nordic" for PC1, "central european" for PC2 and PC5 and "western" for PC3 and PC4.

You're wanting to focus on a simple marker, R1b. Fine but accept that it's a limited ammount of information and that it needs contrast with other stuff. The paper I linked above, and the map in the other link above, clearly show that for female lineages, Britain is somehow closer to Central and Northern Europe, what puts Sykes over-simplistic theory under question.

If you would classify Native Americans only by their genetic patrilineages, they would be extremely close to most Europeans and many South Asians, because their Ychr haplogroup is basically one: Q, which is the closest relative to R (R1b and R1a in Europe, R1a and R2 in South Asia). But if you consider wider genetic material, significatively female lineages, you see a completely different picture. Something of the like is happening with this discussion on British and Irish ancestry and I'm trying to explain where's the problem (nothing else).

Please understand that I'm just trying to help to clear up the truth and I will not edit the article, just trying to clarify some concepts. --Sugaar 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sugaar, I am sure that you are acting in good faith, but that is not my position. It is the position of Geneticists like Sykes, and Oppenheimer, both with slight different approaches but agreeing on the basic things. I am sure that you have read the table that I have provided, from 2004 and deals with 8 genetic markers (the one that you provide is from 1997 and deals with one genetic marker, Mitocondrial DNA). It is not just about the Y-Chromosome and was not done by either of the mentioned geneticists. So, let us leave this clear: If you do not agree, it is not with me. In fact you do not agree with leading geneticists that have arrived to conclusions. I have no position whatsoever: I transmit the positions of authorities that have made clear statements about the issue, much clearer than ever before or anyone before. Why? It seems to them that the evidence is compelling. Not to me. I am really not that important. Can you cite a book that deals with the origins of the Britons and the Irish that has been written since the emergence of Population Genetics? I doubt it. These two are the only ones. And what is the situation? Some people here are ignoring them altogether. We are not discussing of devoting 50% of the article to it. The fact is that the article does not mention the theories of two leading geneticists that have expressed their views in the latest two books about the origins of Britons. In fact they are trying to delete those opinions. It does not matter if we, individually agree with it more or less or not at all. It is an ever-growing theory and it has been published. The fact of hiding its conclusions reminds me of the the censors of the inquisition. In any case, even if you do not agree, you should read Sykes' book. It explains a couple of things that fit very well with the fact that some people here and in the other British people's articles want to censor him. Veritas et Severitas 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have my objections to the apparently unjustified use of terms like Celts and Iberians but it's clear that Western Europeans seem of the same stock, stock best represented among Basques, Gascons and Celtic-speaking peoples. I haven'te read Sykes' book (though believe me I will as soon as I have the chance) but, as you present it, I'm under the impression he seems to be using confuse terms and maybe ignoring some areas such as France or Germany. Spain for instance is not genetically homogeneous (at least at the detail level attempted here), so when he says Iberians, what does he mean? Andalusians, Galicians or Basques?

And why does he reject so clearly the possibility of a more northern origin in the Rhin area?

I would like to know. Maybe I have to read the book for that.

In any case I support the theory being mentioned in the article, don't misunderstand me. Only that I'm not so sure it's the only and absolute truth. For instance, there are many "Jasmines" (J haplotype - MtDNA) in Britain but much less in Iberia (from the link above [34]).

Maybe it's just how it's presented as an unilateral not well explained Iberia-Britain connection. Connection that I'm sure it exists in two levels:

1- Same basic "Magdalenian" stock, in both areas relatively pure.

2- Several milennia of common Megalithic (and post-Megalithic) macro-culture with people and goods travelling from Denmark to Africa and vice versa, via "the Iberias" and "the Britanias".

But that either Sykes or you seem to be unable to explain clearly, what creates rejection and doubts. --Sugaar 23:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by the link above and your comments. Anyway, you should read the book yourself. If you are interested in the matter you will find it most interesting. Now I am afraid I will be busy for some time. As to your comments where this population is best represented, there are above plenty of maps and articles with percentages, I think people can read for themselves, so I will not comment on that. I have mainly posted interesting information for everyone to read, and there they can find themselves a lot of information that we are discussing here, not just our opinions. People can draw their own conclusions. Abur. 72.144.248.211 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Norwegians removed from related ethnic groups

I have removed from the related ethnic groups Norweigens simply because norwiegens are genetically quite different from the Irish, it is true that the vikings who landed in Ireland were norwiegen but they didnt leave a very large genetic footprint. Icelanders should be included though as they are much more genetically similar to the irish than norwiegens due to the scottish and irish female and male slaves that were taken by norwiegen vikings to iceland. I am not aware of any cultural impacts from Norwiegen vikings in Ireland either.

globe01

Norwegians

somones has readded norwiegens to related ethnic groups, i am not going to remove it again but this is ridiculous. On the Y-chromosome analysis Norwiegens are less closely related to the Irish than the French and the Spanish and they are not included in the related ethnic groups, so unless they are included norwiegens shouldnt be included either.

evidence

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

this map y chromosome analysis shows that the irish are far more closely related to the basques than to the norwiegens, it also shows that the irish are more closely related to germans and danes than to norwiegens.

germans and danes are not included in related ethnic groups and therefore norwiegens shouldnt be either.

Even if some vikings did come from norway, plenty of french hugenots came from france to ireland and the irish are genetically more similar to the french to the norwiegesn anyway( not due to the settling of french huegenots though) so i cant see any logical reason to have norwiegens in related ethnic groups unless we include just about every other european nation while were at it which would be ridiculous.

globe01

That one was User:Arniep and he reverted. The link that pretendedly doccuments that is a CIA World Factbook one on Iceland that claims that this island was settled by Irish and Norwegians. As far as I know it was settled by Norwegians only (maybe some Danes too), though there are claims that they encountered Irish monks there at their arrival. Whatever the case the CIA World Factbook is no good for ethnography (it has loads of errors), so I'm erasing it the reference to both Norwegians and Icelanders.

By the way, globe01, you can sign using the button hat looks like a signature on top of the writing box. That way not just your name but a direct link to your User Page and the date and time will appear. --Sugaar 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for telling me that.

Also it is interesting on what you say about a megalith culture existing in the rhine land and eastern france that was 100% r1b. If you have any more evidence for this please post it.--Globe01 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored Icelanders as most of the female settlers were Irish women with some Irish men taken as slaves- see Demographics of Iceland. Arniep 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

224 kilobytes long

"This page is 224 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size"

This Discussion Page is ridiculously long; perhaps it's time for archiving its older topics? --Grimhelm 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)