Talk:Stephen Oppenheimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

When was book published[edit]

Is there anybody who can tell me that when this Genology report or the book was published ? Also, I want e-mail no. of Mr. Stephen Oppenheimer who is author of this report / book.

WIN 06:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to Oxford[edit]

Me too. I do not find this individual on the list of Green College fellows, nor anywhere else at Oxford. The article does not meet wiki biographical standards, and in fact appears to be an advertisment.

LinguisticDemographer 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say he is a fellow of Green College. Membership of the common room in Greens is not restricted to fellows. [1]. The book "Out of Eden" states he is a member of Greens College in the publishers short cover biography. By doing a google search I see he has had articles published by several journals including Nature. There seems no good reason to impugn the integrity of the man so I will remove the citation request since it appears to be based on a false assumption. GoldenMeadows 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any graduate or former fellow of an Oxbridge college continues to be a member of that college for life. In other words, membership of a college is not an academic affiliation and proves nothing about the academic respectability of one's current work. It's hard to see how this information is anything other than misleading in the context of the current article (or indeed in a publisher's bio) since people will assume it is an actual affiliation, which clearly it is not. Mhardcastle 09:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mhardcastle and have removed that and (yet again) the misleading statement that he carries out genetic research. As far as I am aware he does not. He makes use of already available data from genetic studies by others.--Genie (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An edit summary pointing here would have been useful. In any case, I've put it back. See [2] for instance. Or this Oxford Univesrity site [3]. That's current as of this year. Genie, this was a 2 year old discussion and you could have done the work I just did. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well, but I have moved the relationship further down the page to clearly separate it from his popular science writing, which until recently was not related to his academic research or teaching. Unfortunately his academic position has been used to suggest that his popular work is academically respectable and based on genetic research published in peer-reviewed journals, which was far from being the case for his book on Britain.--Genie (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the best way to do this would be to find some reliable sources commenting on this. (And to get some more attention, this should be restarted at the bottom of this page). I'm not disagreeing with you, just with the way of doing this. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Differing titles for same book[edit]

I was under the impression that "Out of Eden" and "The Real Eve" were the same book under different titles. T@nn 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing a google seems to indicate that "The Real Eve" is the U.S title of the book "Out of Eden".

So it's just a different edition of the same book. I see that the article now indicates that. T@nn 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge page with The Real Eve[edit]

The book "The Real Eve" or "Out of Eden" had a documentary based upon it, also called "The Real Eve". There a wikipedia entry for the documentary, but that does not indicate the connection between it and the book. The documentary entry is a stub anyway, so I'm suggesting merging the two articles. T@nn 08:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should do that. Stephen Oppenheimer has a fairly wide research agenda (e.g. the origins of the British stuff described on this page), and his writing on mtDNA Eve includes a synthesis of work by lots of other people (see Mitochondrial Eve. I do however agree that if the documentary is based on Oppenheimer's book then there should be references both ways. Cheers, Ngio 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Eden in the East[edit]

I don't understand why an editor reverted my description of Eden in the East with a description that is completely inaccurate:

In his book "Eden in the East", Oppenheimer hypothesizes that Eurasians have South Asian origins, with the founding population of Caucasoids (Western Eurasians) originating in northwest India, while the founding population of Mongoloids (Eastern Eurasians) originated in northeast India/Nepal. Caucasoids spread north and west into Central Asia, West Asia, North Africa and Europe, as well as south into southern India and Sri Lanka, while Mongoloids spread north and east into Siberia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, the Americas and Greenland.

The population movements described above happened at an earlier time:about 80,000-15,000 years before present. Eden of the East covers the period 14,000-7,000 years before present. At first I thought that the editor who inserted this had inadvertently characterized Oppenheimer's later book. But it's also not a completely accurate characterization of that book. TimidGuy 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see now what the problem was. It stemmed from an earlier confusion between two similarly named books: Out of Eden and Eden in the East. The description above was a vestige of this conflation. Someone came in and corrected the confusion regarding the titles of the various books, but the description of Out of Eden was inadvertently retained as the description of Eden in the East. I had put in a correct description of Eden in the East and, inexplicably, an editor reverted back to the earlier incorrect description. Now that I've reverted to my correct description, I do hope he'll leave it intact. TimidGuy 11:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Real Eve:-Modern Man's Journey Out Of Africa" speaks true![edit]

I both saw the Discovery Channel's documentary of The Real Eve and have and read the book with the above title. I'm a Caucasian, peach-colored skin, male who believes this book because IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! Homo Sapien humans originated in Africa, after evolving from apes there, spread to different continents, where over thousands of years, the melanin in their bodies made their skin change color according to the amount of sunlight hitting that area of the Earth. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the purpose of this page is not to chat about Oppenheimer's works, I must say that I agree -- I'm really impressed with the range of disciplines that he marshals in order to support his hypotheses. He's a real polymath. TimidGuy (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Origins of the British"[edit]

Oppenheimer is brilliant in assessing the pre-Roman constitution of the peoples of Britain, and concludes that Germanic as well as Celtic peoples inhabited the island and possibly non-Indo-European Picts. However it is a pity that he follows Colin Renfrew's idea that Indo-European was spread in the Neolithic. His genetic arguments to match that idea are weak as a consequence and he tries to fit a 6000BC date on everything. David Anthony's book The Horse, The Wheel and language compellingly states that Indo-European was spread by Kurgans starting around 3300BC. This is a real shame as I believe that with Oppenheimer's brilliant knowledge of DNA he could have made a better match to that date, when drawing up DNA spread maps. As a consequence, about half the book has to be read by ignoring his bias against Kurganisation. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


the phrasing of this paragraph is highly dubious: "Celtic origins derive from southern France and northern Spain. The Central European theory for Celtic origins has no basis." I would like to see a verbatim quote substantiating that this is exactly how Oppenheimer phrases his view, and to make sure that he indeed is talking about Celtic-speaking culture, as opposed to the genetic origin of the people that happen to participate in Insular Celtic speaking culture today. Otherwise, take great care to not confuse "Celtic" and "Insular Celtic". --dab (饞伋) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the book recently, and I just looked at the statement you flagged. I don't think this is verbatim what he says, and I am not sure why you added quotation marks to the statement.
But the two sentences seem to be a reasonable paraphrase of the main point that he makes in Chapter 1.1 ("'Celt': what it means today, and who were the classical historians referring to?"). I think the book is written like a novel ("show, don't tell") rather than in the style I recently read was typical for British humanities (make a claim, and the prove it). I am not sure where to look for directly quotable high-level statements of this type.
Generally speaking, Part 1 ("The Celtic myth: wrong myth, real people") doesn't talk about genetics at all. In a footnote (p. 25) he says: "[鈥, from here on I shall use lower-case 'c' for the celtic languages and a capital for everything else Celtic [鈥. The reason for this particular distinction is the sceptics' doubt that Celt and celtic languages have any solid or meaningful connection."
He discusses various classical sources who put the Celts (capital C) into southern France, northern Spain, or are not particularly helpful in this respect. I think this passage is quite illustrative w.r.t. the first sentence:
"Strabo himself is explicit on the antiquity of the Celts in the region of Narbonne, where Pytheas might have started his journey across Keltik茅: [鈥 In this passage Strabo defines the geographical and tribal origin of the term 'Celt' and how it then spread by some process of inclusive labelling. If there should be any doubt about this southern centre of gravity, there are other classical commentators who concur. Didorus Siculus [鈥 This apparently independent confirmation of Strabo's geographical identification of a Celtic heartland in the extreme south of France is very revealing. First, it seems to limit their range 'of former times' not to southern Germany, but to Narbonne: a small area around Marseilles, north of the Pyrenees, west of the Alps and south of the Massif Central, and probably east of Aquitane. Second, but equally important for untangling the Celtic mystery, both Greek authors feel the need to explain how the local term 'Celt' came to be conflated by Roman writers such as Julius Caesar with the much larger regional labels of 'Gaul' and 'Gauls'." (p. 42f)
The second sentence is harder to justify with a single passage. Here are some isolated sentences: "There is no such evidence for Celtic languages ever having been spoken in a 'Celtic homeland' in Central Europe, and therefore no reason to argue that Romance languages replaced them there." (p. 24) On "Celto-sceptics": "Debunking the myth of the Central European Celtic linguistic and cultural homeland is a long overdue task, but we should not lose the baby with the bathwater, and it is important to separate the fallacy of the 'Celtic homeland' from the possiblity that the 'Celtic' language story may still have something to tell us." (p. 25)
I am not sure if this satisfies you, because I didn't understand your concerns in the first place. Why do you consider these two sentences highly dubious? Do they fit into some nationalist world view? Then that's probably accidental. Or are there some fine points that I am not seeing? Then please explain. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to rephrase the first sentence to something like the following: "The origins of Celtic culture lie in southwestern Europe." This is because "origins derive" is either a slight abuse of language or incorrect as a description of what Oppenheimer says (he does not speculate about the origins of the original Celtic culture); and Oppenheimer himself typically uses the words "southwestern Europe", perhaps because he is not so sure about northern Spain. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Since nobody protested, I changed the first sentence. I also added an explanation (La T猫ne culture) to the "Central European theory" and removed the tag that asked for clarification. Oppenheimer makes it very clear that he does not believe in the identification of Celts with the La T猫ne culture. According to him, the only evidence for the connection is Herodot's claim that the Celts lived in SW France, at the source of the Danube. He explains this by saying that Herodot believed the source of the Danube was in the Pyrenees. He also says that the source of the CE theory was a 19th century author whose other theories have all been discredited by now. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving recent addition here for discussion[edit]

It pains me to remove this good faith addition to this article, but it clearly violates the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR.

=== Problems of misrepresentation ===

I was led to this book after real enjoyment of Brian Skye鈥檚 'Seven Daughters of Eve' and 'Blood of the Isles'. Exploration of who we are and how we got here is an exciting journey, and nothing is more thrilling than the cutting edge of genetic detective work. It's a fascinating and interesting read from cover to cover, and I have recommended it to friends and family. However, I have to admit; from the moment I picked it up I've had a problem with it. I know, Mr. Oppenheimer has inserted a foot note stating that he realises that many Irish people don鈥檛 consider themselves British, but for reasons of avoiding repetitive printing(?), he is going to use the 'traditional' term British Isles. That's the problem, it has been 'traditional', however over the last few years, that out of date incorrect and offensive term is being challenged by academics, authors, sporting bodies, and governments alike. Just because something is traditional does not mean it cannot be challenged and corrected if found to be problematic. This is problematic. Mr. Oppenheimer has published a scientific book that documents the origins of people from five separate nations, who populate a group of geographically placed islands. He cannot knowingly isolate and risk offending a percentage of his target, subject matter. Is this a study of a people defined by political borders? I don鈥檛 think so, its a study of a people defined by their geographic habitation, those that live on the island of Britain, Ireland, and the thousands of smaller politically dependent islands of the UK and ROI. That being the case, use of the term British or British Isles is politically, ethnically and geographically incorrect. The British govt realises this; 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland', they make a geographic distinction to politically unify peoples from two distinctly different geographic regions. The British Lions became the British and Irish Lions, a move made to correct the misrepresentation of players from the ROI. Closer to the authors field, two authors, geneticist Brian Sykes, and British historian Norman Davies both intentionally named their books, 'Blood of the Isles' and 'The Isles; a History', know that to use the outdated term British Isles, or Britishness, might alienate and offend a percentage of their subject matter. Would it have been so difficult to use the term 'The Isles' or 'Britain and Ireland' instead of 'British Isles' I read this book and enjoyed it, but the naming convention throughout mired that enjoyment repeatedly, and misrepresented me.

I would urge the author to correct this mistake on the books next print.

It's never appropriate to insert one's opinion into the article. If information about this misrepresentation has been published in a reliable source, then it can be added to the article and cited. But one would use proper encyclopedia style, not first person. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A more proper place for a statement of opinion like this would be in an Amazon review.
As to the merits, I think this position is a bit recentist. If I remember correctly, the term "British Isles", with a distinction between "Great Britain" and "Small Britain" dates back to the Romans. And since the origins of the Irish and (most) Scots seem to be a lot closer to each other than those of the Scots and the English or the English and Welsh, it would seem more appropriate to criticise Oppenheimer for calling his book "The Origins of the British" when he spends most of the space discussing the English. (If I remember correctly. Of course doing so is justified by the myth he dispells about Anglo-Saxons replacing an earlier Gaelic speaking population in the post-Roman era.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I did also place it on Amazon, thanks for the suggestion. Some comments and corrections in your statements; The author has not dispelled any myths, he has presented evidence suggesting alternative historical events than those that are traditionally held. Also, Anglo-Saxons did not replace/conflict with Gaelic speaking tribes, the British tribes in the are that were 'celtic' would have spoken a brythonic tongue, similar to cornish and welsh. This indeed is the very essence of the argument. The 'celtic' tribes on the island of Ireland differed from those on Britain, in that they spoke very different branches of the celtic languages. Hence my point, that it is ethnically incorrect to address Ireland and Irish peoples as British. I must admit, I'm not familiar with the term 'Small Britain' The Roman's had seperate names for both islands, Hibernia for Ireland, and Britannica for Britain. A lot of the origins are now so shrowded in the mists of time, it makes investigation extremely difficult. But heres the thing; it does not matter where the term originated, or why, what matters is that it incorrectly misrepresents an entire nation, and it should be discouraged from use in favour of finding a more modern term. I am surprised by its use in a book investigating the very contested and sensitive world of identity, particularly when the author sets out that he knows a percentage of his subject matter may find it problematic. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out in the sake of clarity, that as far as I know, Little Britain, referred to Brittany, the peninsula jutting out of mainland France, just South of the Island of Great Britain, whether it was referred to that way during the Roman period of not, I can not say... Kurogawa (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a paediatrican? the lead needs to say more than that[edit]

Changing the lead to " a British paediatrician, now best known as a popular science writer" was I think misleading considering the amount of work he has done in other fields. He's been a co-author of a number of publications on genetices, 3 are here [4] and there are others. He's currently working within the Human Evolution and Ecology Group, Institute of Human Sciences, Department of Anthropology at Oxford. The lead needs improving, but Genie's edits didn't make it less misleading so far as I can tell. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I know i'm not the only one who thinks his origins of the British is total crap. I mean "were all the same", yeah we'd be the first country in the world where everyone is exactly the same ethnicity. Seems a little coincidental that this suddenly crops up when English (yes ANGLO-SAXON) natioinalism is on the rise and the lefty labour government is trying in vain to combat it (not PC to be English). I also resent how Wikipedia uses it as fact despite the fact its ONE theory in many others. English Bobby (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi English Bobby, can I respectfully point out WP:Soap. So far as I can see this article describes the facts of Oppenheimer's research, it does not take sides as to whether his conclusions are or are not correct. The alternative view of the Anglo-Saxon invasion is generally taken as given elsewhere in Wikipedia. If you can provide referenced criticisms of Oppenheimer's views I'm sure that would be a welcome addition. For what it's worth, Oppenheimer does not say "we're all the same" - he suggests that the populations of the eastern and western parts of the islands have different origins, but a long time back. If you are an English nationalist I'm puzzled why you would argue with the idea that we (English people) have been around since Neolithic times and mostly didn't just 'step off the boat' a thousand or so years ago. Pterre (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pterre. I'll try to remember WP:Soap in future. I was just annoyed at what i've so far seen on wikipedia about our people. Also for what its worth as an English Nationalist (though i don't speak for all of us) one of the points of pride i and the many i know have in being English is our Saxon roots, though i'm not saying we're 100% nordic just that it's our general heritage and that we should be proud of that. Also 1600 years is a long time, older than any nation in Europe. English Bobby (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"... older than any nation in Europe." Wow-someone tell the Greeks! And the Basques! HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Oppenheimer's theories are not universally accepted. For example, in its summary of their article 'Who were the Celts?' The National Museum of Wales note here "It is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject. However, early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology." Should this be added to the article? It does not refer explicitly to Oppenheimer. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't now whether that comment (by the Museum of Wales) is a snipe at Oppenheimer. It does not seem reasonable to describe Oppenheimer's conclusions as implausible, though whether they are correct is another matter. Pterre (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Same here. I actually do agree that some of the outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology (by Oppenheimer) actually spoiled much of the fun of the Origins for me, but that doesn't constitute a qualified assessment of his genetic research. I don't think his methods border the least on the unscientific, so they certainly shouldn't be called "fringe". But it's a relatively new field of studies, so the main work has not been done yet, I suppose. Trigaranus (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe the source would need to explicitly mention Oppenheimer; otherwise it may be a violation of WP:NOR. TimidGuy (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Any explicit scientific criticisms of method etc would of course be appropriate. (Oh, just noticed - I do know how to spell know!) Pterre (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors might like to be aware that there was subsequently an animated discussion of Oppenheimer's reliability at Talk:History of Wales#Population genetics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


A recent edit defines Stephen Oppenheimer as an 'archeo-geneticist'. Please provide a citation for this. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, I can't find a source for it and in any case the lead is supposed to summarise the article. Why not 'folk-lore-geneticist' for instance if someone is just combining words? Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That is how he is described here (4:19 to 4:23 - sorry but there are also 40 secs of adverts) Yes I had never heard of it which is precisely why I wanted to add it. 脼j贸冒贸lfr (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PS it is actually Archaeo-geneticist - my mistake
It's not accessible from outside the UK, but I doubt it's in the kind of context that would make it usable in the first sentence. It would get way too much weight that way if nobody else calls him that. Hans Adler 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Even apart from whether it's a WP:RS or not, if you don't know what it means (and there's no article here saying what it means), it's hardly going to be helpful to other readers to use the term. "Paediatrician, geneticist and writer" seems to me to sum him up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
ec Its available here too - not that accessibliy issue negates the source; archaeo- is a prefix and can be applied to any word that has an ancient specialism to it. As to tV programmes not being reliable sources were did DW form that delusion? 脼j贸冒贸lfr (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, you do know about WP:NPA don't you? It's not a reliable source to show that this is a normal way to describe him, or that it is an academic role, etc. He's an academic, we should describe him the way other academic sources describe him. TV programme writers aren't experts on this and they are interested in a good show, not in using the descriptors that colleagues would use. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's more or less what I intended to say, although apparently it got lost in the accessibility red herring. (I merely meant to guard against the possibility that in the programme an eminent scientist says something like "Stephen Oppenheimer can most accurately be described as an archaeo-geneticist".) The stress of what I wrote was meant to be in the first sentence. Clearly not everything that can be sourced with some effort is appropriate there. ("Stephen Oppenheimer is a former thalassaemia researcher and talking head for a BBC programme, who raised 拢 50,000 for genetics research over a 10-year period.") Hans Adler 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
@DW Channel 4's Public Service Remit includes a requirement to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value. @HA my beef is here is Randy in Boise, not that Archaeo- should be included in the opening sentence. 脼j贸冒贸lfr (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


I realize is it unintentional and the result of efforts to expand the article, but it looks like an advertisement now, especially with the link to his company. This has not delivered on its promises as a search of the genetic genealogy forums will show, and many purchasers are quite unhappy. DinDraithou (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted the advert- I've now removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, what is needed now is (1) more external refs for his career section, and (2) a more balanced appraisal of his work - both supportive and critical comments, including an assessment of whether his assumptions are out of date, if that is the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't say it better myself. Looking at his effort one way he may have thought he was bringing things together towards the end of what may have appeared to be the most intensive research period of a consistent tradition, the "Paleolithic argument", from perhaps 1999 to 2006-7. But it hadn't really gotten going yet and in 2008 started to return to the Migrationist tradition. All along there were concerns voiced about methodology but they went largely unheeded, and Oppenheimer was certainly not the only writer to ignore them. At the moment he is being criticized not for that fault but for continuing the argument today. If you will permit me to post this by the respected blogger Dienekes, who used to support Oppenheimer, he covers the problem well. Then we also have the concerns voiced about Oppenheimer's own "personally invented" dating, which is really just the old way many were using and so I don't personally fault him for that or think it absolutely necessary to mention. DinDraithou (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. It sounds like I'm asking to use that in the article. That's not what I mean. Below is the Karafet et al study which really changed a lot of minds, and which we will need to use in this article.
Re the Dienekes ref, WP:BLOGS says this: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer.... Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available." If the most authoritative published critique of Oppenheimer is in that blog, my opinion is that it could be used, especially if the only ref to the more recent Karafet research is the one you give, which only gives access to the abstract which, in itself, isn't very helpful on the details which are critical here. Is there a better summary of the Karafet work anywhere that could be ref'd - offline if necessary? But it will be necessary to summarise the critical view in a form that is accessible to the non-specialist. The suggestion that Oppenheimer is continuing the debate now is interesting - is there a ref for that? LOL at "If you will permit me...", for obvious reasons, but we're making progress I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that progress is being made here, but I would argue for caution re: the Dienekes blog. It's interesting, learned and well-written, but I don't think it meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB. After all, who is Dienekes Pontikos? Is he really an "established expert", or just a student somewhere? Has he ever had any work published in a reliable third-party publication? --Pondle (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that is not his real name - named from this Dienekes apparently. If you google his name, it is apparent that he has a very widespread presence across a whole range of blogs and message boards, some of them with highly dubious politics, and his views certainly seem to polarise political opinion. But I think in this field that is probably almost inevitable, and I certainly don't deny that his writings seem to be academically respectable. I haven't found anything which really gives an independent or balanced overview of his writings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said I don't mean he should be used in the article. I linked him because he gives a nice summary of the problem for non-geneticists, why he is respected by many. His blog is mainly for physical anthropology and related subjects, which are always controversial. What should be paid attention to is the following, which is the scholarly consensus that Dienekes simply summarized. Read the page carefully and make sure you don't confuse R1b for the parent R1
It's important to remember that people probably won't go after Oppenheimer on Europe because he is really not worth bothering with, although his presence in popular culture, including Wikipedia, gives a different impression. You'll notice he and Sykes are not referenced on the ISOGG page. DinDraithou (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Addendum. You should be able to access the full text of Karafet from the Genome Research page where it's hosted. Look for where it says Free at the right. Although even then the article won't be much help on its own because of its technicality. But in any case scroll down to where it says Age Estimates for Eleven Major Clades of the Y Chromosome Tree and open up the table in that section, which will take you here. R1, the parent of R1b, is at the bottom, reestimated at around 18,500 years. That estimate is the basis for the statements at the ISOGG page. DinDraithou (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I haven't mentioned yet is that there are a few papers challenging the archaism of the Basque population and its alleged closeness to other European populations. I will look for these papers. Their high concentration of R1b may be the result of peculiar factors and apparent closeness to the so-called Insular Celts based on comparable concentrations accidental. DinDraithou (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is one from 2005. Just ignore the persistence of the Paleolithic argument, which is not central to the paper. Oppenheimer should not have ignored this article but again he wasn't alone. They list it at ISOGG.

Unfortunately I can only find the abstract for you at the moment, but it says what it needs to. DinDraithou (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found the full text, now accessible from the same blue title. DinDraithou (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is another one, but about the Basques and mtDNA, arguing discontinuity from the Paleolithic. I talked to Ellen Levy-Coffman briefly in an online forum soon after it was published and discovered she subscribes to some strange theories on the origins of Indo-European, but that doesn't ruin her paper.
Like Oppenheimer, she is not an actual geneticist. Unlike him, she is cited on Europe. DinDraithou (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently she is a family attorney. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really silly. The template is obviously useless, since people have no idea what it is supposed to refer to. I have replaced it by a normal POV template. I will remove that as well unless those insisting on tagging the article can come up with something concrete that they don't like and that can't be flagged individually. Hans Adler 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger: The Real Eve[edit]

There is a small stubby article at The Real Eve. I propose it be merged into the relevant section in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Good find. The more we have in this article the more we can put his work on Europe in context, giving us more freedom. This falls under how he became a celebrity in the first place and why it came to be so easily that his 2006 title was so successful with the public. DinDraithou (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I also support this, although obviously not for the strategic reasons that appear to motivate DinDraithou. The stub has little potential, and it would be natural to merge it into the article for the more notable (I suppose) book. But the book doesn't even have its own article; it's covered here. Hans Adler 06:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. F Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Merged. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Unmerged, the book and the documentary are notable in their own right. It is one of the first books and documentaries to popularize the Out of Africa theory. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new page[edit]

Do not merge this with The Real Eve and make new page for The Origins of the British 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Mrt2349876 (talkcontribs) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag?[edit]

Why is there a neutrality tag on this article? It merely gives a description of Oppenheimer ideas, it does not say if they are right or wrong (Because that is something that no one could know, at least not yet). I will remove the tag in one week if nobody says me otherwise. I have seen that some people does not give credit to his theories, but that does not change the fact that those are his theories. Leirus (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I used it to replace an even more silly "advert" tag, as a compromise. But as there is no active POV dispute here, I think it can be removed now. Hans Adler 10:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed it. I guess an "opposing views" could be added, but as his theories are exposed just like theories, I think the lack of it does not harm the article. Leirus (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense[edit]

Can this be re-written?

"He uses the evidence that the Germanic genetic contribution to eastern England originated before the Anglo-Saxon conquest of much of England incursion to suggest that the possibility that some inhabitants of the isle of Britain spoke English well before the so-called "Dark Ages"."

It does not seem to make sense. --K盲geTor盲 - (褰辫檸) (TALK) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten it. Ngio (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

some deleted material in case it is useful here[edit]

Hi, with science moving ever onwards it was inevitable that the extended quotes and discussions about Stephen Oppenheimer would eventually be reduced on the Genetic history of the British Isles article. Here however is a handy record of the three biggest deletions, in case any of that material is useful on this or any other article: [5], [6], [7]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor David Goldstein of University College London (UCL) told BBC News. He and his colleagues looked at Y-chromosomes, passed from father to son, of Celtic and Norwegian populations. They found them to be quite different...To try to work out where the Celtic population originally came from, the team from UCL, the University of Oxford and the University of California at Davis also looked at Basques..."On the Y-chromosome the Celtic populations turn out to be statistically indistinguishable from the Basques," Professor Goldstein said... 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Archaeologist Evidence[edit]

...Beaker culture is defined by the common use of a pottery style 鈥 a beaker with a distinctive inverted bell-shaped profile found across the western part of Europe during the late 3rd millennium BC.Many theories of the origins of the Bell Beakers have been put forward and subsequently challenged,however a recent overview of all available sources from southern Germany concluded that the Bell Beaker Culture was Original from Iberia which showed that the earliest dates for Bell Beaker were 2900 BC in Iberia... British and American archaeology since the 1960s has been sceptical about prehistoric migration in general, so the idea of "Bell Beaker Folk" lost ground. Neither Mallory nor Anthony proposed mass migrations.Many archaeologists believe that the Beaker 'people' did not exist as a group, and that the beakers and other new artefacts and practices found across Europe at the time that are attributed to the Beaker people are indicative of the development of particular manufacturing skills. This new knowledge may have come about by any combination of population movements and cultural contact.But investigations in the 'Mediterranean' and France recently questioned the nature of the phenomenon,of 86 people from Bell Beaker graves in Bavaria suggests that between 18-25% of all graves were occupied by people who came from a considerable distance outside the area. This was true of children as well as adults, indicative of some significant migration wave. Given the similarities with readings from people living on loess soils, the general direction of the local movement according to Price et al., is from the northeast to the southwest... Beakers arrived in Ireland around 2500BC and fell out of use around 1700BC (Needham 1996)and Beakers arrived in Britain around 2500BC, declined in use around 2200-2100BC... 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

English Language[edit]

English is a Germanic language, having the grammar and 33% vocabulary inherited from Proto-Germanic,It has been estimated that between 60 and 70% of our English words are derived from Latin. Some words, such as area, circus, and animal, are spelled the same in both languages. Others, like people, space, and peace (populus, spatium, pax), come indirectly from Latin. Indeed, because Latin has been the language of learned men and women, it became the basis for the vocabulary of the sciences, law, technology, music, and medicine. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the ancient Greeks and Egyptians might take up an argument about that - Latin became the "language of science" because it is a dead language, and suited the needs of scientists. It is certainly not the language of music - where did that come from? English has Celtic, Germanic, French and Latin words and influences. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Also Hindi (verandah, bungalow), Iranian (tiger, pistachio), Persian (chess, bazaar) and any number of others. English isn't a borrower from other languages, it follows them down dark alleyways, knocks them out and then goes through their pockets for loose grammar and vocabulary (to butcher a quote I can't fully recall right now). From memory, the old argument for Latinate words being more used for 'scientific' and 'technical' topics while the Germanic words are used more for 'normal' topics was that prior to the Norman invasion the main tongue was Old English (primarily Germanic). After the Norman invasion, the nobility brought their (Latinate) languages with them, and so if you were a member of the nobility or were dealing with the nobility, you were more likely to use Latinate terms than if you were a member of the lower classes (who still spoke Old English). That's also ignoring the hefty effect of the Church, of course. Unfortunately I don't have any referrable sources, as most of this is from memory from classes a few years back, I'm afraid! (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Origins of the British in Paperback[edit]

ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3 Should this be added to the article, since it is different from the one currently showing? EatYerGreens (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to add. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)