Jump to content

Talk:Names of the British Isles/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Icelandic name: Vestrlönd

Hello @The Banner, in your undoing of this change, you have restored some inaccurate material which misrepresents the source cited. The anonymous user (153.92.136.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) appears to have been correct. The source cited does not say anything like what is being claimed. The entry for "Vest-maðr" in Cleasby & Vigfusson's An Icelandic-English Dictionary [1] does not say "a person from the Gaelic areas of Britain and Ireland (Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man)" as the article presently claims. It simply says: "Vest-maðr, m. a man from the West, κατ. ἐξ. one from the British Isles, esp. the Irish", going on to explain that the Vestmannaeyjar (islands off Iceland), according to the Landnámabók, take their name from this word ("whence Vestmanna-eyjar, the Isles of the Westmen, i.e. of the Irish who were slain there"). Similarly "Vestr-lönd" in Cleasby & Vigfusson says only "Vestr-lönd, m. pl. the Western lands, of the British Isles and goes on to cite examples in which the British Isles are referred to, followed by a singular instance "of Western Africa", and then the explanation that in the singular, vestr-lönd can refer specifically to western Iceland. ("2. sing., Vestrland, Western Iceland"). There is no hint of "a person from the Gaelic areas" or of the name being restricted to "Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man".

In fact, other entries on the same page indicate that this is certainly not so. For example, vestr-vegir, m. pl. ‘the western ways,’ the West, of the British Isles which is the counterpart of a world divided into "Eastway", "Southway", "Norway", etc. ("opp. to Austr-vegr, Suðr-vegr, Norðr-vegr, qq. v."). Then, "vestr-viking, f. a freebooting expedition to the West, i.e. to the British Isles (Normandy, etc.)" and "vestr-för and vestr-ferð, f. a journey to the west and 2. esp. a journey to the British Isles with Vestrfarar-visur, f. pl. a name of a poem by Sighvat, verses on a journey to England and Normandy". Moreover, there is definition II.2 under "VESTR" which states "2. westwards, towards the British Isles, a standing phrase (cp. the use of Hesperia in Lat.) ; … to sail westwards over the sea, … west to the Orkneys (Shetland), … I journeyed westward over the sea, Höfuðl. i ; in which last passage it is even used of a voyage from Iceland to England". Under "vestan" is found "the phrase, vestan um haf, ‘from west over the sea,’ i.e. from the Western Islands, a special phrase for the British Isles across the North Sea, … or simply vestan, at hann var vestan kominn, viz. from Britain, … even used of a voyage from thence to Iceland,". From the last two comments, it is obvious that the authors are not talking about the west as a cardinal direction, but The West being a specific place (the British Isles) that it was possible to arrive at or from by travelling either westwards or eastwards. The fact that England might be referred to as part of these islands shows very clearly the the term was never limited to "Gaelic areas of Britain and Ireland (Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man)".

Elsewhere in the book, under "FARA", we read "fara vestr um haf, to fare westward over the sea, i.e. to the British Isles". Under the heading "austr-lönd" it mentions "Vestrlönd, the British Islands, Normandy, Bretagne"; similarly under "austr-vegr" it says "fara í Austrveg is a standing phrase for trading or piratical expeditions in the Baltic, opp. to viking or vestr-viking, which only refer to expeditions to the British Islands, Normandy, Brittany, etc.". Again, under "aust-rœnn" is the note "The name denotes the inhabitants of the Scandinavian continent as opp. to the British Islands and Iceland." All this should put it beyond doubt that the Old Norse construed the British Isles (and sometimes all the lands of the English Channel) as a whole, distinct from other parts of their world.

If this were not enough, A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic by Geir T. Zoëga [2] also defines "Vestrlönd" as "1) the British Isles; 2) the Occident." and also says "Possible runic inscription in Younger Futhark:ᚢᛁᛋᛏᚱᛚᚢᚾᛏ".

Furthermore, the 1972 University of Manitoba Icelandic Studies translation of the Landnámabók translates the verb vestr-viking as "go on a viking expedition to the British Isles", in addition to having anecdotes like "Olaf went on a viking expedition to the British Isles, conquered Dublin in Ireland and the region round about, and made himself king over it" (Old Norse: Óleifr enn hvíti herjaði í vestrvíking ok vann Dyflinni á Írlandi ok Dyflinnarskíði ok gerðisk þar konungr yfir) and "he [Ketil Gufa] had been on viking expeditions in the British Isles and brought Irish slaves from there" (Old Norse: hann hafði verit í vestrvíking ok haft (ór) vestrvíking þræla írska). (I have taken the Old Icelandic text from part I of Jakob Benediktsson's edition in the Íslenzk fornrit, dated 1986.)

Both Zoëga's Concise Dictionary and Cleasby & Vigfusson are quite old, and in both cases deal with Old Icelandic (i.e. Old Norse), not modern Icelandic language. So here too, the anonymous user is probably correct in saying the usage is archaic. For what it is worth, the Icelandic Wikipedia's article on the British Isles is called Icelandic: Bretlandseyjar, lit. 'Britland islands'. In light of this, I think a rectification is in order. The IP user should probably be thanked and encouraged to use their rare abilities in Icelandic for the good, and not dismissed out of hand. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten the relevant section to remove the unsubstantiated material. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:TLDR. The Banner talk 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The Banner OK I'll sumamarize: you were wrong to "revert" and wrong to call the change "unsourced" (if you had read the source, you would have known. I have rectified your error and the errors that the IP editor was trying to fix. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
@Mandarax I see. Thanks for fixing that. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

  • Support as proposer. WaggersTALK 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    @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)
    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)
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)

@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)
support The present article name! The Banner talk 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I do not see it that way. The Banner talk 21:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
I call it adhering to WP:POV. The Banner talk 20:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you have sources that prove your claims? The Banner talk 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Names_of_the_British_Isles/Archive_8&oldid=1227946649"