Talk:Names of the British Isles

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Terminology of the BI / BI naming - tidy up proposal

There was consensus to rename this article to Names of the British Isles. However, there was no consensus between the options of converting Terminology of the British Isles to a list format or merging with this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


In addition to the British Isles article about the island group itself, and of course some "X of the British Isles" articles such as History of the British Isles, there are two articles that relate to name of the island group and associated terminology. These are British Isles naming and Terminology of the British Isles.

These two articles overlap each other considerably and need substantial clean-up. From their names alone they might seem to be on the same topic but this is not the case; "Terminology..." is a guide to associated terms (such as "Great Britain", "United Kingdom", "Ireland" (the island), "[Republic of] Ireland" (the sovereign state) etc. while "...naming" is about the various name(s) given to, or suggested for, the island group itself.

The purpose of this discussion is to agree a way to clarify and tidy up these two articles and their titles.

The initial proposal is as follows:

WaggersTALK 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. WaggersTALK 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm also happy to support the merge proposal below, and TWFIC's comments immediately below - either of those is an improvement on the status quo. WaggersTALK 12:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Name of the British Isles" and conversion into list format for the other page, as there is little point in having two explanatory pages covering (much of) the same ground and "British Isles naming" sounds wrong, but Oppose changing the name of "Terminology of the British Isles". "List of terms related to the British Isles" is too vague and could encompass any number of things more or less related to the British Isles or any of their subdivisions. "Terminology of" is better, more specific to the geo-political distinctions, and matches the similar case of Terminology of the Low Countries. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the content from Terminology of the British Isles into this article and move to Names of the British Isles (plural). There is too much overlap between the two articles and the discussion of the various interrelated geographical and political entities is key to understanding the whole. If the merged article becomes too long, I'd suggest splitting off the history section (Greek, Roman, Celtic and Middle English names) onto Historical names of the British Isles or similar. (Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rosbif's proposal above; this would seem to make the most sense for what essentially could be covered in one article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with @Rosbif73's merger proposal and with Rosbif's and @Bastun's rationale for it. The article "British Isles naming" is already plenty long enough for an article, and is narrowly focused on one name, or the names of one thing. "Terminology of the British Isles" is long and complex and concerned with the names of many different things. There should remain two distinct articles, with two distinct foci. @Waggers's proposal to change the name of "British Isles naming" to "Name of the British Isles" is good, but the other components of the proposal should have been left for another day. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a good point about British Isles naming being primarily about the naming of one geographic entity and Terminology of the British Isles being primarily about the names of its constituent parts. We also have the Britain (place name) article which overlaps significantly with the historical sections of both of these. How about removing these historical sections from the individual articles, merging them with the content of Britain (place name) (along with Prydain, which seems too short for a standalone article), and moving the resultant "historical names" article to a yet-to-be-determined name? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosbif73 Britain and British Isles are two different things, with two different meanings for 2000 years and more, even if the plural form of the one is identical with the other ("The Britains"). I would have no objection to merging Prydain with Britain (place name), as they are effectively different spellings of the same word, or the same word in different languages (see also Lloegyr and Logres) but I don't know if this is the place to decide or discuss that. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of the difference, I was just throwing Britain (place name) into the fray because it has some overlap with the two articles we were already discussing (especially the historical section of Terminology of the British Isles) and in the hope that a wider discussion of all these articles might result in a better split/merge/rename/whatever... proposal. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Voorts: Thanks for closing the discussion, but I would disagree with the conclusion that "There was consensus to rename this article to Names of the British Isles".

The original proposal by Waggers was "Name of the British Isles" (singular). Rosbif73 proposed "Names of the British Isles" (plural), but while Bastun concurred in general with Rosbif73, I objected to the plural form and Waggers's position was non-specific, lending support both to Rosbif73's proposals (but not specifically to the plural form) and to my objections to them. Thus, of the four participants in the discussion, only one (Rosbif73) explicitly supported "Names of the British Isles" (plural), with another one (Bastun) implicitly supporting this; of the other two (myself and Waggers), I was explicitly against "Names of the British Isles" (plural) and expressly in favour of "Name of the British Isles" (singular), while Waggers, who initially proposed "Name of the British Isles" (singular) supported my own objections to Rosbif73's counter-proposal.

The discussion was somewhat muddied by the more dramatic proposals to merge articles, but I don't think there clear consensus in favour of the plural form over the singular. Since obviously no-one was in favour of retaining the old title "British Isles naming", shouldn't this article be at "Name of the British Isles" (singular), as Waggers proposed? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The wisest fool in Christendom: I read your opposition to be to the merger proposal, not to the plural renaming, which is why I found consensus for that. I could reopen the discussion, but there was clearly consensus for either "Name of" or "Names of" and I think the best route at this point would be to open up a requested move discussion to get more editors involved. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support The present article name! The Banner talk 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is we have two plurals. The British Isles as a singular entity has multiple alternative names, and that's what the article is about. But also the British Isles consists of multiple islands, so "Names of the British Isles" can sound like it's talking about the names of the individual islands as opposed to the group as a whole. That's why I originally suggested the singular form, but because the subject is actually multiple names, the plural form is grammatically correct so I don't oppose it. If we can find a succinct title that can't be misinterpreted as "names of the islands" then I'm all for that. WaggersTALK 08:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, chances about the naming of the archipelago versus naming of the the individual being confused is neglect-able. Although I am aware of Murphy's Law. I had the idea that the renaming was mostly to avoid the political bickering over a geographical name. And the present name serves that purpose. The Banner talk 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Waggers's summary, with the caveat that this article is, and can really only ever be, about the name "British Isles". All other names are such rarely used artificial neologisms that they are barely notable except for their illustration of 20th-century political opposition to the historic place name. Other places, like France/Gaul, Germany/Deutschland/Alemannia, Japan/Nippon, or even Ireland/Hibernia, actually have multiple names, so most of them have "names of" rather than "name of" (not name of France). The British Isles is not like this; its name has been translated but has never been substantially changed. While articles named names of Japan and names of the Philippines exist currently, the analogy to the British Isles is not exact, and articles on "names of the Japanese Islands" and "names of the Philippine Islands" would be confusingly titled. "Names of the British Isles" suggests an article devoted to the individual names of the different British islands, rather than a discussion of the isles' one collective name. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see it that way. The Banner talk 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your approving statement "I had the idea that the renaming was mostly to avoid the political bickering over a geographical name" seems to run contrary to the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, which reads "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia". In other words, if the name of the British Isles is not acceptable to some readers, so be it. By extension, if the name "name of the British Isles" is not acceptable to some readers, so also be it. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I call it adhering to WP:POV. The Banner talk 20:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative names might not be as historical as those of the Philippines and other places, but they certainly exist are an important focal point in the article. Some people find "British Isles" offensive, others find the advent of relatively modern alternative names equally irksome. The censorship argument goes both ways; this article is very much about all the names given to the British Isles archipelago (subject to being recorded in reliable sources etc.). WaggersTALK 13:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I know, due to some original research in my local pub and supermarkets, is that nobody gives a flying flip about the name. The Banner talk 13:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add my two cents here, 'British Isles' would seen in Ireland as an outdated term to be avoided or assumed to be interchangeable with 'British Islands' that includes Jersey, IoM and excludes Ireland.
Appreciate that this won't be a consensus view so I'd just second what Waggers said, it obviously shouldn't be changed just because some Irish people find it objectionable but nor should it be kept just because others (possibly with a more dated UK education) have always called it that. Jazzrty (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah? My education was Christian Brothers Dublin and we still had "British Isles" in our geography books and atlases, so maybe we should just all anecdata at the door? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was Czechoslovakia also in your Atlas?
Its possible you had a very dated UK education in CBC Monkstown pre-1922! I'm guessing its at least 20 years though.
I think my comment, while being anecdotal, is a valid response to the assertions above that the 'British Isles' is correct simply because its historical and any alternative term is tipping towards censorship. Jazzrty (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are comparing, I guess you guess think Holland and The Netherlands are alternate names for the same country? They are not. And yes, I have recently thrown away an atlas that had states like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in it. The Banner talk 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand your point, or possibly you misunderstood mine.
Not sure what gave you the impression I didn't but I'm aware Holland is a province within the country of the Netherlands though not clear the relevance here?
The link I previously posted was a major Irish publisher 'correcting' their atlases by removing the term 'British Isles'. Some comments above assert that 'British Isles' is the best description for the geographical area as a historical name that best describes the islands in question.
I'm just aiming to provide a dissenting view that it sounds dated (rather than historical) to people educated in Ireland in the last 20 years and 'Britain & Ireland' is more commonly understand to describe the geographical area. Jazzrty (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So that applies only to atlases from one Irish publisher. Do you think that - for example - American, French, German and Dutch publishers will do the same? The Banner talk 22:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the only claim I've made is that the term is seen as outdated in Ireland and push back on the idea that there is a consensus for its current use.
I would imagine international publishers would continue to use their native language. The French translation 'îles britanniques' might be perfectly fine even if the English translation falls out of use.
I'd expect the use to persist a lot longer in anglo-centric countries. With America, it could be removed like in Ireland or it could be used in place of the 'British Islands' including Northern Ireland but excluding the Republic of Ireland.
Thats all a bit of a red herring to my original point, so I'll just leave it there. Jazzrty (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources that prove your claims? The Banner talk 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you replied to above shows textbooks in Ireland disusing the term 20 years ago, that would substantiate (rather than prove) my claim.
You're asking to prove a negative though. Do you have proof of its current widespread us in Ireland? Jazzrty (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer fact that we are having this discussion is already proof of the merits of the term in common use. According to the Wikipedia rules, it is up to prove that the term is outdated and not in actual use. 'One swallow does not make a spring'. The Banner talk 19:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone way off topic. The original question was around whether the article name should be "Name of the British Isles" or "Names of the British Isles" based on the discussion above and I'm not seeing any strong consensus to overturn the closure and the conclusion that was drawn. Let's leave it there. WaggersTALK 09:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling of "Tottle & Binneman"

Mandarax, on the cover of the book cited, the names are spelled "Richard Tottle" and "Henry Binneman". Should we not follow what's on the book, rather than the preferred spelling of the Wikipedia pages of both men? What's the convention? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that "Richard Tottle" was classified as a misspelling. As long as {{R from misspelling}} was there, someone would eventually come along to "fix" any links to it. I've changed it to {{R from alternative spelling}}, and I've also added that to "Henry Binneman". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax I see. Thanks for fixing that. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oceani insulae: Original Research and Clear Misinterpretation

The "Oceani insulae" section of this article should be removed for two chief reasons.

1. Original Research: This section contains only two references, both to primary sources, the more important of the two being Oxford Medieval Texts: Adomnán's Life of Columba. It contains no commentary from the editors (who, at least for the Oxford Medieval Texts translation, would almost certainly be RS) but instead just gives the original Latin and a translation. This is an issue because the reader is obviously meant to intuit Adomnán's phrase Oceani insulae as a medieval Irish precedent for the "British Isles" concept, but no quotes from the editors are given to this effect. This interpretation, which is obviously intended given the article's name and nature and the entry's place within it, is the personal opinion of whichever wiki editor added it in the first place. This applies equally to the Peter Heylin source.

Clarification: Including this in "Names of the islands through the ages" in an article titled "Names of the British Isles" necessarily interprets the phrase as a variant of the "British Isles" concept which, without secondary sources, is merely a humble wiki editor's opinion. It seems clear that someone was digging quite deep for an Irish precedent to the "British Isles" idea and this is the best they could come up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Oceani insulae" does not appear in the voluminous Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia,[1] edited by Trinity College Dublin professor Seán Duffy. 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Misinterpretation: Why is there any reason to believe that this paragraph is a reference to the "British Isles" concept? The Saint seems to just be referring to the Oceanic islands he knows best, and even feels the need to qualify the phrase with "namely Ireland and Britain," making it obvious that this is not some kind of stock phrase he expects his readers grasp immediately.

I haven't removed it myself because that is a significant step and would likely spark an edit war. 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have been bold! 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources do not make it original research.
As you removed it only three minutes after posting here, I reverted to have a serious chance on a discussion. I hope you have better sources for your claims. The Banner talk 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my points more carefully, sir. The original research is listing this source and title under "Names of the islands through the ages." 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that you aren't particularly fond of boldness... 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not like edit warring and removals without proper discussion. The Banner talk 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I can assure you that there is no war on. 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a removal with a revert, followed by a removal with a revert. The Banner talk 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I am trying to have a discussion, but you have yet to tangle with my initial contentions! 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is reverting reverts multiple times. Wait until there is agreement here for that section's removal before doing it again, as it was already reverted.
WP:BE BOLD means to try first and hope there is no dispute but expect them (especially as controversial), and here there is controversy so has to be discussed to reach a consensus, be bold does not mean "been bold and accept it". If editors accept your points, they would support a removal.
Not knowledgeable of the issue, but it was added in this edit, and discussed at Talk:British Isles [1][2][3], so not uncontroversial, as it was discussed before, requiring discussion. DankJae 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir you have linked to the wrong Talk page (4 times...). 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't, content on that article was split to here. DankJae 00:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I advice you that you first start having a read before continuing here? The Banner talk 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that you engage with my points... 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly what I have done when removing your edit. The sources you gave (an Amazon page) did not back up your claim at all. The Banner talk 09:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the atheist here, making a negative case against an assertion. And once again you fail to grapple with my original arguments. 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will restate for your benefit: To include "Oceani insulae" in a subsection titled "Names of the islands through the ages" in an article titled "Names of the British Isles" is to make a positive claim, that "Oceani insulae" is a variant of the British Isles term.
To do this with only primary sources is Original Research. 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbing that there are no discussants willing to engage with these arguments... 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One random quote from a rather long document is taken out of context, and now it may never be challenged... 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I am willing to challenge the contested statements, but only with the book in my hand. I don't know how quick the library is with delivery, but I will look at it. No worries. The Banner talk 09:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for looking into this. Regarding the second (Peter Heylin) bit, if he's including Zealand in his definition then it's clearly not the same entity as the British Isles. It seems Heylin's "Iles of the Ocean" are basically any islands around Europe; if anything his use of the term is a counter-argument for Oceani insulae being an alternative name for British Isles.

The Adomnán quote seems to have a bit more going for it - it at least defines Oceani insulae as comprising Ireland and Britain (and presumably the smaller islands around them). But if we discount the Heylin reference since it's talking about a much broader group of islands, that leaves Adomnán being a solitary mention from one individual of a possible alternative name that doesn't seem to have caught on at all with anybody else at any time. So perhaps including it is undue weight unless we can find additional references for Oceani insulae being a valid alternative for British Isles? I'm not really sure but I have a mild preference for keeping it in, as it is at least a verifiable mention and reliable sources from that era will be few and far between. WaggersTALK 16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards to the Heylin quote. In addition, to keep it we would need a secondary source explaining that "Oceani insulae" is some kind of technical term and not just referring to islands in [of] the Ocean. The implication of its inclusion in this way without reliable secondary sources is Original Research. DuxEgregius (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Before I get accused of wrongdoing, I am the IP address above. DuxEgregius (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to logged-in land! WaggersTALK 10:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to be here!
More seriously though, am I going crazy or has no one yet addressed my point that it's up to editors to actually prove that "Oceani Insulae" is both relevant and means what its inclusion here implies it means?
As in, why does this out-of-context quote belong here at all without secondary sources proving it is a "Name of the British Isles" and not just a reference to "Islands in the Ocean" (which Britain and Ireland most undisputedly are). DuxEgregius (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Ireland-Encyclopedia-Routledge-Encyclopedias/dp/0415940524

Oceani Insulae: No chance of discussion?

It's been over a week and the discussion on my original entry seems dead, without anyone addressing my arguments or discussing the source I brought. DuxEgregius (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no time limit on discussions, we're not in a hurry here. Leave it be for a bit and see what happens. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to say something about the matter but without the book that will be useless. I do not know how quick the library works. The Banner talk 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support removing this section heading, at the least. I rewrote the claims made in this change from 2007 identified by @DankJae as being the source of this idea of the Oceani Insulae being some kind of proper noun, but as I suspected then, the addition of Adomnán, and especially the linking of Adomnán with Pomponius Mela, Isidore of Seville, Jordanes, Bede and Peter Heylyn is totally unsupported by anything. I was in part motivated to find the modern critical edition of the Vita Columbae exactly because I suspected that, as with the claims about the other authors made by MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs) (i.e., Wikipéire (talk · contribs)), they would prove to be wholly invented and certainly in contravention of WP:NOR. (See my arguments here.) The Oxford Scholarly Editions Online version. It is true that the Vita Columbae does not mention the British Isles under that name, but it is not necessarily true that Adomnán's ociani insulae was somehow an alternative name to "British Isles" or its Latin equivalent. There is no comment on the matter in either modern edition and translation quoted, nor in the 19th-century effort I consulted. In the modern edition, the non-capitalization of both ociani and insulae alongside the capitalization of Latin proper names like Scotia and Brittannia, together with the capitalization of "Ocean" but not "islands" confirms that the Oxford editors did not regard "Islands of the Ocean" as a proper name but as an ordinary descriptive phrase: "the islands of the Ocean". I left the quotation in the article because it was not as offensively wrong as some of the rest of the material I removed; Adomnán is talking about the British Isles, explicitly including Ireland and Great Britain within a collective which he describes as – but does not name – the ociani insulae.
@The Banner: There are three substantive footnotes on the relevant page of the Oxford edition. None so much as mentions the British Isles or the hagiographer's use of ociani insulae. There is nothing to suggest that the it was ever an alternative name for the British Isles, in Adomnán's usage or anyone else's.
@DuxEgregius/2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk · contribs) is exactly correct in assessing this whole section as unsupported by the sources and a product of original research. We should thank DuxEgregius for pointing this out and rightly challenging it. It is disturbing to learn how much of the erroneous information I have lately removed was added in a single change by a single sockpuppet in 2007 and how long it remained visible in the article.
My thanks to DankJae for identifying this and for looking through the archives. It would seem that the there was a definite agenda for the addition of much of this material: pushing the claim that the concept of the British Isles "fell out of use" at some post-classical point in history, was supplanted by alternatives, and owes its now-universal distribution to Anglo-British propaganda of the early modern period. This theory appears to have been the creation of committed sock-puppeteer Wikipéire; I have never seen it advanced by any published text, let alone a reliable source. (It is, of course, demonstrably false.) @Waggers's suggestion that the section heading is WP:UNDUE is a well-founded understatement. An IP tried to raise concerns (86.31.232.231 (talk · contribs)) even in 2007 but the material remained. User:Sony-youth (talk · contribs) (later Grahamzilch (talk · contribs), then Rannpháirtí anaithnid (old) (talk · contribs), and now Tóraí (talk · contribs)) was most vigorous in defending its inclusion and promoting the "British Isles fell out of use" hypothesis. As far as I can see, all the arguments made in its favour are original research. The whole section can be reduced to the bare fact that Adomnán described the British Isles as being in the Ocean, but chanced not to use their name, which is so unremarkable as to be unworthy of inclusion in the article. If anywhere, its place would be in the discussion of the politicized neologisms like "Atlantic Archipelago", as a sort of historical illustration for locating the islands by their "Oceanic" position, but this is not backed by any secondary sourcing that I've seen.
In short: I support removing the material on Adomnán and the ociani insulae. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without the book, I have nothing to say about this. Bashing me does not change that. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner "Bashing"? I am simply telling you what's in the book; you needn't wait. The 1991 Oxford Medieval Texts edition is online here. The 1991 edition was largely a reprint of the 1961 edition by the same editors (online here). The only difference in the Latin is a change from "v" (1961) to "u" (1991). Both the 1991 and 1961 edition have: "the islands of the Ocean, namely Ireland and Britain". There is no editorial comment.
Richard Sharpe's 1995 Penguin Classics translation (online here) translates Adomnán without any capitalization as: "the islands of the ocean, Ireland and Britain". It may also be worth pointing out that at the end of the Life (III.23), Adomnán describes Columba's residence on Iona as hac parua et extrema ociani brittannici commoratus insula, that is: "he lived in this small and remote island of the Britannic ocean" (ed. 1961=1991). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The wisest fool in Christendom
Thanks for this lengthy and well-written response, although I'm not so sure that the idea of an Early Modern origin for the term "British Isles" is a concoction of those specific Wikipedia editors.
1. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "The earliest known use of the noun British Isles is in the late 1500s. OED's earliest evidence for British Isles is from 1577, in the writing of John Dee, mathematician, astrologer, and antiquary."[1]
2. This article claims Dee "used the term in a possessive sense," meaning it was political in nature, although notes that, "he probably didn’t create this term." [2] Of course, for how many word-pairings do we have a record of the literal first ever usage in a given language?
3. Dee's 1577 General & Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation explicitly proposed a British imperial project. [3]
So, the idea that the term "British Isles" in English was a political formulation of the Early Modern period doesn't seem unique to a few Wikipedians, although perhaps putting these sources right next to each other to draw that conclusion in the way that I just have constitutes original research.
On their own merits though I think that these sources belong in the article, broken down into separate statements. Of course, we are definitely in agreement on the issue of "Oceani Insulae" being original research. DuxEgregius (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's more than sufficient consensus now to remove the Oceani Insulae section. I shall make it so. WaggersTALK 09:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Waggers.
@DuxEgregius: the text you quoted ("The earliest known use of the noun British Isles is in the late 1500s. OED's earliest evidence for British Isles is from 1577, in the writing of John Dee, mathematician, astrologer, and antiquary") is not from the OED entry as far as I can see. While it is true that a quotation from Dee's 1577 work is the earliest quoted in the current OED entry, it is a misconception to claim, as Nicky Ryan's 2013 piece in the The Journal did ("the first use of the term "British Isles", recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1577."), that the first quotation in the OED is the "first use" or "first known use". Although this is often true, to claim on the OED's authority that Dee's is the first attested use either of name or of concept misrepresents both the dictionary and the historical record.
John Stow, publishing two years before Dee in 1575, talked about the British Isles and claimed they were named as such by Brutus himself ("termeth both it [Albion] and the Iles adiacent Insulas Britanicas"). Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles, published in 1577 and obviously independent of Dee's treatise of the same year, says the same: ("so that Albion was sayde in tyme to be Britanniarum insula maxima, that is, the greatest of those Isles that bare the name of Britayne").
Stow says furthermore that the name British Isles was preferred by English writers a century before his time (in contrast to his preferred spelling with "Brut-"/"Bryt-" (Greek: "Βρυτ-"/"ΒΡΥΤ-") rather than "Brit-"/"Bryt-"). He says: "... & some English wryters above an hundred yeares since, usually do so name it, and not otherwise". Stow, Holinshed, and Dee all clearly wrote for an audience familiar with both the concept and the name of the British Isles.
Apart from anything else, reliance on the tersely-worded OED for such claims is misplaced. The article must be written from an international perspective, and when precisely the modern English from came into use is a distraction from the fact that both the name and concept of the British Isles were well-used and well-understood in many languages both before and during the Early Modern period. The modern English name can hardly predate the modern English language, but that is irrelevant, since we know already the name in Latin and other languages was used in both in Europe and in the islands themselves, just as it had been since Classical Antiquity. The OED statement that the name "British Isles" was "Formed within English" can only mean that peculiar preference for "isles" over "islands"; the fact that the English name is a translation is clearly evidenced by the Latin cited in the same place: Britannicae insulae. If Wikipedia is to be an international encyclopaedia in the English language rather than an encyclopaedia for the English[-speaking world], then the relevance of the English-language version "British Isles" must be secondary to the international name which combines, in many languages, the noun meaning "islands" with the adjective meaning "British". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the OED entry, check the "Where does the noun British Isles come from?" box in the bottom right corner for the sentences "The earliest known use of the noun British Isles is in the late 1500s. OED's earliest evidence for British Isles is from 1577, in the writing of John Dee, mathematician, astrologer, and antiquary."[4] It won't let me open the full etymology section without a subscription, so maybe another user could check it out and get back to us.
We probably can't use this as a source in the article, but the Wiktionary page for British Isles[5] includes the page in the categories "English terms derived from Ancient Greek" and "English terms derived from Latin," suggesting a direct Classical -> Early Modern English route when paired with what I've already quoted from the OED. It is interesting that the authors you cited from 1575 and 1577 felt the need to use Latin to describe the "British Isles" collective, suggesting it perhaps wasn't common in the vernacular. The OED is the main source for the Wiktionary entry, so it would be very interesting to see its full Etymology section for the term.
Question: Do you have any evidence of the term "British Isles" in the Irish language before the Reformation, or in Latin by an Irish author? DuxEgregius (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, copy-pasting from this wiki article: "According to Philip Schwyzer, "This is among the very first early modern references to the 'British Isles', a term used anciently by Pliny but rarely in the medieval period or earlier in the sixteenth century."[6]" So, perhaps a 100% pause in usage between 200 AD and 1500 AD is too extreme, but that looks to be the pattern of usage.
Schwyzer has his own wikipedia page.[7] I think it's safe to say that this pattern (Common ancient -> Very uncommon medieval -> common Early Modern) is not the invention of "a single sockpuppet in 2007."
Your use of primary sources in the above entry would probably constitute original research for the same reasons that the Oceani/ociani insulae section did. DuxEgregius (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DuxEgregius It would be prohibited original research to draw conclusions from primary sources in writing and referencing the article; it is not improper to do so in advancing reasoning on a discussion page.
I am aware of the quotation from Schwyzer; I recently rewrote and expanded that section. It is his view and should be attributed to him, as at present. Schwyzer is not a medieval historian or linguistics specialist, and not necessarily an absolute authority on the commonness or otherwise of the name in that period. It is not clear whether his "rarely in the medieval period or earlier in the sixteenth century" means the name is rare in English, rare in England, rare in the British Isles, or rare in general. Contradicting Schwyzer is Stephen G. Ellis: "with regard to terminology, 'the British Isles', as any perusal of contemporary maps will show, was a widely accepted description of the archipelago long before the Union of the Crowns and the completion of the Tudor conquest of Ireland". We cannot extrapolate further from Schwyzer's statement; we certainly cannot expand his "rare" to your "very uncommon". Note also that Schwyzer is talking about Holinshed, not about Dee.
I don't know anything about the name in pre-Reformation Gaelic, but already cited in the article is Dicuil, Irish author of De mensura Orbis terrae, an 8th-century geography which mentions the British Isles.
I have full access to the OED. The etymology section s.v. "British Isles" does not say much. I reproduce it below:

Summary
Formed within English, by compounding.
Etymons: British adj., isle n.
< British adj. + the plural of isle n. Compare classical Latin: Britannicae insulae, plural (rare); compare also (denoting Great Britain only) classical Latin: Britannia insula, Old English: Breotone ealond (10th cent.), Welsh: ynys Prydain (see Britain n.2).

As for the vernacular, Holinshed and Stow both clearly state that the name is in English usage, a fact without which the statement that the isles "bear the name of Britain" and that Brutus named them after himself would be unintelligible.
When Sebastian Münster's Latin Cosmographia was translated into vernacular Middle French (De la cosmographie universelle [4]) in 1552, the text stated that "Angleterre & Hirlande ont est jadiz appellées Isles de Bretaigne, car Ptolomée les appelle ainsi (lit. 'England and Ireland were long since called the Isles of Britain, for Ptolemy called them thus')".
When Abraham Ortelius's Latin Theatrum Orbis Terrarum was translated into French (Theatre de l'univers [5]) in 1572, the text spoke of "les Isles Britanniques (à scavoir, Angleterre, Ecosse, Yrlande, & les autres Isles circonvoisines) (lit. 'the British Isles (to wit: England, Scotland, Ireland and the other isles surrounding)'". Note that Ortelius and Münster both predate the supposed "earliest known use" – the "OEDs earliest evidence" of the name in Dee's work – while Holinshed's is contemporary with Dee's.
As Ellis writes, the name of the British Isles was well-known to readers of geography in Europe long before the late 16th century. As even Schwyzer admits, this is the name found in Pliny, whose work together with Orosius formed the major part of the European geography of the Western Middle Ages, reproduced in hundreds of surviving manuscripts, quoted in thousands of other medieval texts, and among the first works on geography to be printed. In the East, the major geographers of the Middle Ages – like Stephen of Byzantium and Eustathius of Thessalonica – all mentioned the British Isles under that name. Ptolemy's authority on the names of the Britains was invoked as far away as 10th-century Afghanistan (in the Hudud al-'Alam). The name was by no means uncommon. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Most of the quotes you give are early modern, from earlier (sometimes not by much) in the 16th century. These push the date back a few decades and are irrelevant my argument; you'll need some strong and plentiful evidence pre-1450ish to do that, as that's when the Early Modern period begins. Some of these even cite Classical authors, suggesting they're drawing right from Ancient texts and not their own habitual use.
2. All of the premodern sources you cite seem to be specialized geographical tracts which are themselves partly regurgitations of Classical geographical works, not really indicative of common usage. The Dicuil tract cites Pliny dozens of times, suggesting he probably got the "British Isles" concept directly from him; indeed, Pliny (Plinius Secundus for ctrl+f) is the only author he cites in paragraph 6 of Book 1,[8] when he uses "Brittanic Islands" in a way that seems to include Ireland. There are other references to islands around Britain, but these are pretty clearly references to islands directly off its coast (likely insular Scotland, very familiar to Irish clerics of his day).
Specialized geographical tracts heavily dependent on Classical authors (who everyone acknowledges as having used some variant of "Brittanic Islands") aren't indicative of common usage. If you want to find some Irish examples start poking around on https://celt.ucc.ie/
3. The OED entry literally lists " Britannicae insulae, plural" as "(rare)." The Old English and Welsh entries are tagged with "denoting Great Britain only". I think that says a lot.
4. Ellis is a bit ambiguous here; he says "British Isles" was in common use "long before the Union of the Crowns and the completion of the Tudor conquest of Ireland," but both of these occurred a little after 1600. It's not clear how much earlier he means, but "perusal of contemporary maps" suggests he's not talking about the Twelfth Century Renaissance. Ellis is a historian of Early Modern English/British statebuilding, especially as it pertains to Ireland.
Conclusion: Your sources indicate that some variant of "British Isles" was used in Ancient and medieval geographical tracts, generally those written by or heavily indebted to Classical Greek geographers like Pliny and Ptolemy. This is indicative of rare and specialized usage. Your more plentiful and generalizable sources are all Early Modern. DuxEgregius (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DuxEgregius I think we are straying from purposeful work on the article. (WP:NOTFORUM) Schwyzer, Ellis, and the OED are all already cited in the article. We can't add to what they say, and we can't add them together to make further claims. (That would be WP:SYNTH.) I will try to answer your four points.
  1. It should not surprise that medieval and early modern authors cite classical sources. Broadly, classical sources were believed to be more authoritative than anything else until the Age of Enlightenment. This does not, however, imply that the "they're drawing right from Ancient texts and not their own habitual use".
  2. Pliny was one of the most widely read authors of the western middle ages. Many writers derived their classical ideas in part from him, but it is absurd to imagine that Dicuil "probably got the "British Isles" concept directly from him". Dicuil lived in the British Isles and travelled both within and beyond them; he did not simply copy his geography from ancient texts and adamantly disagreed with some of their ideas (in particular, the idea that the sea around Thule was frozen). Dicuil called the islands the British Isles because that is what everyone had been calling them for centuries, both in classical texts and medieval ones. There are hundreds of mentions of the British Isles from the middle ages, and from every century. It is impossible to imagine that every one of those represents a independent discovery of a thitherto unknown name of a well-known European archipelago whose name was never pronounced and only written in arcane geographic texts.
  3. Previouly, you suggested the name was "Common ancient". Now you are suggesting it is "rare". All the OED says is that the form Britannicae insulae is rare in classical Latin. It does not say that it was rare in the middle ages, or that other forms (like the simple plural "the Britians") were not more common, or more rare. The OED is, in any case, not the best source for establishing the rarity of words in languages other than English. The Old English and Welsh names for Great Britain are not relevant here; you say "I think that says a lot" but it says only exactly what it says. The Welsh: teir ynys Prydein, lit. 'three islands of Britain', may only mean the three traditional divisions of Great Britain, but the formula "Three Islands of Britain and her Three Adjacent Islands" (Teir ynys Prydein a'e Their Rac Ynys) clearly extends beyond Great Britain sensu stricto, and while their number is limited to three by the classical triad form, their identification varies: Orkney, Man, Anglesey, Lundy, and Wight are all among those named.
  4. Ellis says that it was in use "long before". My view is that this contradicts any suggestion that the name originated in the 17th century, and especially not in its final quarter, as the OED is suggesting. In the 12th century alone (to pick one century), we have the complementary testimony of Eustathius of Thessalonica's geographical works (later itself quoted in early modern geographers' works) and the account of William of Malmesbury, who relates how in the previous century Lanfranc cited Bede's quotation of Augustine of Canterbury's use of the term "Britains" as proof that the see of Canterbury had episcopal primacy over the British Isles, a fact attested by the bishop of Dublin, Gilla Pátraic's oath of obedience to Lanfranc, which addresses the latter as "primate of the British Isles" (Latin: Britanniarum primas lit. 'primate of the Britains'). It would be strange to think that Eustathius and William were able to mention the British Isles only because they had each independently discovered an ancient name for the archipelago, to which they were previously unable to refer. As you say, "Ellis is a historian of Early Modern English/British statebuilding, especially as it pertains to Ireland". It would not be appropriate to draw from his or Schwyzer's work absolute or definitive statements on the medieval period and earlier.
Your judgement that this postulated (and possibly illusory) rarity "is indicative of rare and specialized usage" is, I think, unfounded. The examples I have given are some of those which comment on the origin or definition of the name, or which are in authoritative geographic works of their day. There are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of other bare mentions of the British Isles in many genres of writing, in many languages in many lands, prior to the early modern period, however broadly defined. Over-reliance on Schwyzer's "rare" prompts the question: "rare in contrast to what?" The rarity of a name can only relevant in comparison with its synonyms. Otherwise we are simply dealing with the fact that there were fewer literate people in the middle ages than in the early modern period. There were few readers, fewer writers, even fewer texts, fewer copies of those texts, and no printing. All this changed in the early modern period, so the evidence for any given words will increase in more recent centuries. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I do feel uneasy with this removal. Two sources are removed of which only one is explained. And that is that the George Lily source is not reliable sourced. Based on the language used? Please explain. The Banner talk 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would point you to the discussion above but it seems to have gone way off topic and, to be honest, I'm not even sure what it's about any more.
Fundamentally the consensus seems to be that in the Adomnán quote the term is used as a description not a title. In the same way as I might say, "Wikipedia and Britannica, those encyclopaedias on the internet", Adomnán simply says "Britain and Ireland, those islands in the ocean". He's not using the term as a name for the group of islands. @DuxEgregius / @The wisest fool in Christendom please correct me if I'm wrong on that. WaggersTALK 08:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Arguably he is using "Britain and Ireland" to refer to the group though) WaggersTALK 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers that is correct, yes. There is consensus about the Adomnán extract.
@The Banner I removed the mention of Lily's map because it doesn't use the name "Map of the British Isles" . It's titled "Map of the island of Britain …", (Britanniæ Insulæ … descriptio, lit. 'of the island of Britain … a description') and not (as the article stated until this edit): "Map of the British Isles" (Britannicæ insulæ … descriptio, lit. 'the Britannic islands: a description'). That in any case would not be correct grammatically; if Lily's map were titled "Map of the British Isles" or "of the Britannic Islands", then Britanni[c]a and insulae would need to be in both genitive case and plural grammatical number: Britanni[c]arum insularum ... descriptio, lit. 'of the islands of the Britains'. (Compare with Ortelius's map: ... Britannicarum Insularum Descriptio.) Of the two "references", one was to a defunct genealogy forum and the other to the British Library's description page for its copy of the map. That website is also inaccessible because of the British Library cyberattack. Obviously the map depicts the British Isles as a unit, but the title of the map uses a circumlocution (Britanniæ Insulæ … cum Hibernia adjacente … descriptio, lit. 'of the island of Britain … with Ireland adjacent … a description') rather than the name per se. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.oed.com/dictionary/british-isles_n#:~:text=The%20earliest%20known%20use%20of,formed%20within%20English%2C%20by%20compounding.
  2. ^ https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/
  3. ^ https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/john-dees-imperial-vision
  4. ^ https://www.oed.com/dictionary/british-isles_n?tl=true#:~:text=The%20earliest%20known%20use%20of,formed%20within%20English%2C%20by%20compounding
  5. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/British_Isles
  6. ^ Schwyzer, Philip (2012), "Archipelagic History", in Heal, Felicity; Archer, Ian W.; Kewes, Paulina (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Holinshed's Chronicles, Oxford University Press, pp. 593–608, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199565757.013.0035
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Schwyzer
  8. ^ https://research.ucc.ie/celt/document/T090000-001

Section British Isles

In my opinion, the section British Isles is becoming excessively long. Many maps and long quotes are recently added. Is this really necessary, as they seems to rehash info already mentioned? The Banner talk 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Names_of_the_British_Isles"