Talk:Insular art

Stub
Glad to see you have stubbed-up this. I wonder if the "Insular period" would not be better off as "Insular art". I've not seen it used in reference to a general historical period, as opposed to a period in art history. Obviously with Insular period as a redirect, but apart from anything it would save disam-ing more links. Crude google counts: "Insular art" = 10,600; "Insular period" = 267 - some talking about " The long insular period during the upper eocene and miocene times will, therefore, be the period of specific change in the moas, while the older pliocene ..." or the Ming dynasty, Tokugawa Japan, the Philippines etc, & the rest about manuscripts. I can see insular period is often used when just scripts are being discussed, but that can be covered in the lead para. We don't have "Baroque period" etc articles. Johnbod 14:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
I've just read this page for the first time in a while, and I think that the editors, especially Johnbod have done a great job. I'd like to see some expansion of the legacy section. I think it is clear that Insular manuscripts had a major impact on Carolingian illumination. Despite the "Renaissance" aspects of Carolingian art, the Carolingians continued with the non-classical tradition of enlarged, decorated lettering for incipit pages an idea derived from the Insular manuscripts, even if the motifs used to decorate the manuscripts were not Insular. The Franco-Saxon school of the Carolingian period even uses the many of the same motifs. In addition, the Insular style in Ireland continued long after the "Insular period". For example, the image at the right is from a 12th century manuscript. (Firmly dated to 1138 by colophon in the hand of the scribe, I am currently working on an article for this manuscript, which should be up this week.) Dsmdgold 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the legacy section only went on yesterday, & the article is still work in progress. You're very welcome to add if you fancy doing so. Johnbod 01:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Background
Among some other expansions, I'm going to be changing the 'Background' part of the section, which has some factual errors derived from a cultural misperception of early medieval english society. (Camarthist 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)).

Book of Kells Iona reference
The references I have included deal specifically with Iona and do not mention kells as a location. It would be misleading to the reader for the reference to include Kells and another reference should be used. Also there is no problem in having a link to Iona on the page as their is one to kells if you know of one. To edit the references to the end of the sentance implies that kells is included when it does not discuss this. Tabhara (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dodwell is a standard specialist work by a leading art historian of the period. He discusses at some length all the various theories with references to the principal scholarly books involved - in fact he rather supports Iona. That is all we need or want in this article. Neither of your books seem by academic art historians. We have a Featured article Book of Kells which is the proper place for more detail, but you want to use more academic references than these. See WP:RS. References should always be placed after punctuation. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

recent changes
I have had to revert these recent changes as they produce a far less clear lead, omitting for example mention of the Hiberno-Saxon redirect, and pushing the main overview account of the style into a misnamed "background" section. I'd also like to know what examples of the style there are from "about 500AD"! I have no objection to the stuff about the convenience of the term for circumventing disputes being readded, but I see no reason for it to be in the lead. Although not with many cites, the article has been written from the more authoritative and mainstream art historical works listed in references, which are preferable sources to the rather offbeat work now introduced, which refers only to a selection of the scholarship, much of it rather old, like Kendrick. The majority of art historians would not agree that the term "is mainly used in the field of illuminated manuscripts to circumvent the controversies which are sometimes fuelled by national loyalties about the place of origin of certain works"; that it is so difficult to determine the place of origin on stylistic grounds alone itself indicates the need for the term, and it is the shared style itself which is the main reason for using the term. In fact the end of the essay cited (p.31) seems clearly to disagree with the view cited to the essay - I can't see p. 25 on google books. You could easily have referenced the passage you cite tagged to pp.27-30 of the essay too. When adding new refs, please adhere to the style established for the article, per WP:CITE. There is absolutely no reason not to link to a relevant image in a footnote - see WP:FOOTNOTE (first sentence will do). Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Revert of these recent changes are not supported by the comments above. First, this definition does not support "Insular art, also known as the Hiberno-Saxon style". Second, removing "a term applied to art produced specifically in Ireland, western Scotland, northern England and perhaps eastern Scotland" and replacing it with an ill defined term will produce a far less clear lead. Whether the term "Background" is misnamed or not, clearly describing the "Lead" or using it as the "main overview" section is wrong. Suggesting that information such as "the convenience of the term for circumventing disputes" should not be in the "Lead" is a matter of opinion. Now, the article needs inline citation! It's that simple. I don't agree that page 31 of the source cited disagrees with the text added, it will need to be explained more or illustrated using the text. Describing the reference and the authors work as "rather offbeat" will also need to be cited to an author which is also a WP:RS and not simply the opinion of an editor.


 * I propose to pending feedback


 * a)Re-add "Insular art, is a term applied to art produced specifically in Ireland, western Scotland, northern England and perhaps eastern Scotland..." as it states specifically the area covered.
 * b)Re-add "to circumvent the controversies which are sometimes fuelled by national loyalties about the place of origin of certain works" as this is very important in relation to both the term itself and its use.
 * c)Re-add "The art style is suggested to be one of the more remarkable developments in early medieval Europe, combining “barbarian” and “civilized” elements, from the late La Téne and German sources with the contemporaneous Mediterranean culture of late antiquity and possibly late provincial Roman world. This diversity has prompted much debate over the prominence of Insular art and the historical inferences of this interaction." There was no reason whatsoever offered for its removal.
 * d)Place tags on the article requesting that the article have inline citations. This does no require discussion since our policies require it.


 * While personal opinions are valid forms of dialogue, in discussion they must be supported with reference to citable sources otherwise they are simply opinion and do not require a response. An example of simple "opinion" in addition to the one above re: comments on the authors of a referenced work, would be "The majority of art historians would not agree that the term "is mainly used in the field of illuminated manuscripts to circumvent the controversies which are sometimes fuelled by national loyalties about the place of origin of certain works." Provide supporting references would be obvious, as generalisations need to be supported. --Celticarts (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it turns out your earlier edit was mostly WP:COPYVIO! As already explained, the current text reflects far more detailed works by specialists, not a couple of hundred words in a general encyclopedia. I am about to go away for a few days but will add citations on my return.  Changes along the lines you suggest are unlikely to improve the article, & will probably not survive. Meanwhile I suggest you do some further reading - Calkins for one is available online.  "This diversity has prompted much debate over the prominence of Insular art and the historical inferences of this interaction" is just blather - what does it actually mean? If insular art was "produced specifically in Ireland, western Scotland, northern England and perhaps eastern Scotland" why do works everyone accepts as insular come from as far afield as Italy, & others from southern England and probably Wales too?  c) above paraphrases in a rather POV way what is already in the article - the CUP book is about nationalist issues in art, so it is not surprising it plays these matters up, although I think it rather distorts the balance of scholarship in doing so. Perhaps that is your interest too?  "This definition" (linked above) does in fact support "Insular art, also known as the Hiberno-Saxon style" perfectly well. Feel free to tag the article in the meantime. Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Claims and accusations such as suggestions of WP:COPYVIO or WP:POV like unsupported opinions need no response. As I've already stated above, in-line citations are required, and this does no require any discussion. As it stands, the current text does not even reflect your view that "everyone accepts as insular come from as far afield as Italy, & others from southern England and probably Wales too?" Now again, if you wish to challenge the information which is cited to a verifiable and reliable published source please do so with more than simple opinion. Article do accommodate the divergent views of authors in articles and this is obvious in light of our need for balance. Now this definition does not support "Insular art, also known as the Hiberno-Saxon style", as it says quit clearly that "The term Hiberno-Saxon art is used in a similar way" to Insular art i.e. that it is used to circumvents the controversies. It definitely does not say that "Insular art, is also known as Hiberno-Saxon style". Please provide a source which challenges the information directly. --Celticarts (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? "Insular art.

A term applied to art produced in the British Isles (more specifically northern England, Ireland, and Scotland) from about AD 500 to 900. .... The term Hiberno-Saxon art is used in a similar way. " Do you deny that your new first sentence of the lead here was a copyvio? Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per verifiable, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.


 * The Lead Section was not reflective of the main body of the article at all and unsourced. The is no attribution to any of the commentary in the article text, and should be addressed or removed as simply personal opinion.


 * Like the Lead, the various sections contain a lot of comment and unsourced opinion, I've tagged the most obvious sections and paragraphs requiring attention.


 * I will over the coming days attempt to reference and source the information. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.--Celticarts (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Supporting text
Please provide a quote from the source provided which supports the text "Insular art, also known as the Hiberno-Saxon style..." as it is completely contradicted by this source here.

Again, referenced text was removed without explanation, and has now been reinstated. No attribution has been provided, were comment and opinion could be suggested or were the information is open to challenge. This is not http://arts.jrank.org/pages/15629/Insular.html a reliable source however, it can be brought to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

This text "It has the advantage of recognising the unity of styles across the British Isles while avoiding the use of that term, sensitive in modern Ireland, and also circumventing arguments about the origins of the style, and the place of creation of specific works, which were often fierce in the 20th century," is not supported by by this source here. Therefore I'll remove it from the reference, and request a quote from the additional sources, requesting also that it be attributed to remove the suggestion of WP:OR.

The use of Blogs like this one, needs to be addressed. It is also worth noting that Wiki itself is not and can not be used as a source. --Celticarts (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been through all of this before. Your reliance on a 200-odd word non-specialist entry is completely ridiculous, especially as you find it hard to understand what it is actually saying. How does it contradict the text? It doesn't, and other refs are used. That encyclopedia's entry for "Hiberno-Saxon art" reads "See Insular art".  This is the "lead" para from Grove Art Online, your source's grown-up brother:
 * "Insular [Hiberno-Saxon] art.
 * Term commonly applied to the art of Britain and Ireland from c. AD 500 to the 9th century; the style lingered in Ireland until c. 1000. Accounts of the period have been dominated by controversies, fuelled by national loyalties, about whether particular works were manufactured in Ireland, Northumbria or Scotland. As a neutral term, Insular avoids the danger of exaggerating geographical distinctions and underlines the fact that north Britain and Ireland belonged within the same cultural and ecclesiastical sphere."


 * I don't understand at all what difference you are claiming between the terms "Insular" and "Hiberno-Saxon"? However the various Oxford UP online encyclopedias exhibit a rather comic inability to agree on the locations & dates involved, and other sources have futher differences; I think Hinks sums it all up most effectively, which is why I have quoted her, although I still have no idea what works from "c. AD 500" there are. The internet item you don't like is by "Carola Hicks - Fellow at Newnham College and teacher of the History of Art at the University of Cambridge. She is editor of England in the Eleventh Century and an expert on medieval art and stained glass." - Author of plenty of other works too.  Good enough for me; I will adjust the ref to credit her. Please understand that when I am working from several hundred, if not thousands, of pages of scholarly literature by specialists your constant reversions to a 200 word online entry of unknown authorship are JUST NOT GOING TO REMAIN. Your edits are crossing the line into disruptive behaviour. Who are you in fact? Must I request a check-user? Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As outlined above, comment and opinion have no place in the Article. Please read WP:OWN. My edits are in-line with policy! Tags are not placed there for fun, they serve a purpose! I suggest you remain calm, and stop responding to legitimate concerns with claims, accusations and unfounded assumptions of bad faith --Celticarts (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For today's policy reading, I suggest you try WP:LEAD. You have attempted to reinsert a copyvio, again. You have also removed references on points you have gone on to tag for "citation needed"! And asked for a "attribution" for a clearly-cited OED reference. This editing is certainly becoming disruptive, and is certainly not in accordance with policy. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfounded claims of Copyvio's will not suffice! This is not a reference! You are showing a clear issue of ownership, and need to step back if you can not edit in a reasonable fashion. This "Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Philip L. Kohl, Clare P. Fawcett, Cambridge University Press, 1995, ISBN 0521558395, 9780521558396, Pg.25" is a perfectly acceptable reference. Again, provide an equally credible source to challenge this source, and stop inserting opinion. --Celticarts (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the OED is indeed a reference - not the WP article, but the work itself, which one links, just like Grove Art Online. I think you are rather out of your depth here! I have used and cited "Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology", to the authors of the actual article used, not the editors - Wailes and Zoll. The copyvio is:
 * Oxford:

"A term applied to art produced in the British Isles (more specifically northern England, Ireland, and Scotland) from about AD 500 to 900. It is used mainly in the field of illuminated manuscripts, where its neutrality circumvents the controversies (sometimes fuelled by national loyalties) about the place of origin of certain works..."
 * Your text:

"Insular art, is a term applied to art produced "specifically" in Ireland, western Scotland, northern England and perhaps eastern Scotland from about AD 500 to 900, and is mainly used in the field of illuminated manuscripts to circumvent the controversies which are sometimes fuelled by national loyalties about the place of origin of certain works." Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to take a look here. Per the preceding post, the text inserted is a blatant copyvio, and I have consequently reverted its re-addition. Please do not continue to add it; such behaviour may lead to being blocked. It also calls into question the statement by User:Celticarts of being an "alternate account". If the main account has also had problems with addding copyvio material, then the use of an alternate account would not be legitimate, as it would seek to avoid a previous problematic history.  Ty  00:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't believe the "main account", whatever it is, has edited here before - the article has had a very tranquil history until User:Celticarts showed up recently. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The text is sufficiently modified as not to violate any copy right issue at all! If it requires additional changes that's not a problem at all and no, I’ve had no issue with copy violations. Now from the get go, the issue of ownership on this article has been obvious. --Celticarts (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The section you have linked to is "Fair use" in Quotations, which relates to quotations, i.e. exact text reproduced in quotation marks. You have not inserted a quotation of text in quote marks into the article. You have inserted text as if it were your own composition. The page you want is Copyright violations. It is a violation of copyright to copy material. You have copied, within an almost same size paragraph, the structure of the original, and quite blatantly exact sections of words.

Here is a comparison, taken from above, with copied material in bold:

To make it even clearer, here are the extracted texts violating copyright:

Do you now understand you have violated copyright, because you have copied material directly?

Check out Close paraphrasing for more guidance to avoid copyvios.

Regarding your accusation of WP:OWN: I presume this is aimed at Johnbod. I can see no previous problems, prior to the recent issue. I see from the history that Johnbod, who is an extremely experienced and capable editor, has put a lot of work into this article. I see also that your have inserted copyvio material, which he has rightly removed and pointed out to you, but that you continue to contest this. I suggest a rapid rethink on your part.

I note that you have removed my post on your page without answering it. I repeat the post below and would be grateful if you respond to it, as your conduct is in question here:


 * You've stated "This is an alternate account of an established user." Could you explain what justification there is to use this account and not your main account? You have inserted copyvio material. Has this or anything else been problematic with your main account?

 Ty  00:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy
Apart from the copyvio aspect, this definition from a very short entry on a large subject has other problems. As already quoted, Grove Art Online says "the style lingered in Ireland until c. 1000" and more detailed works, cited in the article, cover uses of the style in various areas up to the 12th century, and generally in areas wider than the core area given in the copyvio - everybody agrees the style was used in works produced in both Southern England, probably Canterbury (the "Tiberius group" or "Canterbury group" ) and various Hiberno-Scottish monastic sites on the Continent. It is also rather old-fashioned to say it is used "mainly in the field of illuminated manuscripts", except insofar as the largest type of major surviving artworks are manuscripts - this was probably true forty years ago, but as Hicks points out, is no longer the case. The Grove entry devotes about equal space to manuscripts and metalwork, and a bit less to and sculpture. All in all, I don't think the anonymous copyvio-d text is actually a very good summary - for a short entry available online Hicks is a good deal more accurate, and better reflects the far longer specialist works that form the bulk of the article's references. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference in the main article
What are those names in reference whithout any book title? Like Youngs or Ryan? Did I miss something or is it pure trolling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.19.196 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I/insular
Should I/insular be capitalised throughout? I leave this to specialists. Wikiain (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, but some tedious editors don't ubderstand the term and keep decapitalizing it in places. 07:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was one of those tedious editors, but have made amends and commented on the issue below. —  AjaxSmack  12:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Insular art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711123122/http://gravelwalks.com/files/Bronze_Plaque_from_Athlone.jpg to http://gravelwalks.com/files/Bronze_Plaque_from_Athlone.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125092823/http://faculty.luther.edu/~martinka/art43/daily/2nd/ston.jpg to http://faculty.luther.edu/~martinka/art43/daily/2nd/ston.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727053200/http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=subjects&s=gallery&key=SYToyOntpOjA7aTozMTg7aToxO3M6MTY6IlN0IE5pbmlhbidzIElzbGUiO30%3D to http://photos.shetland-museum.org.uk/index.php?a=subjects&s=gallery&key=SYToyOntpOjA7aTozMTg7aToxO3M6MTY6IlN0IE5pbmlhbidzIElzbGUiO30=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726074901/http://www.gbwny.org/news/2007/11/st-cuthbert-gospel-of-st-john-formerly-known-as-the-stonyhurst-gospel/ to http://www.gbwny.org/news/2007/11/st-cuthbert-gospel-of-st-john-formerly-known-as-the-stonyhurst-gospel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ireland and Great Britain
The article used to state:

Insular art, also known as Hiberno-Saxon art, was produced in the post-Roman history of Ireland and Britain.

That is at least slightly misleading given the mention of Britain (which could be interpreted in many ways) and the fact that it's wikilinked to Great Britain, since some of the art was produced at monasteries on small British islands such as Iona and Lindisfarne (i.e., not actually on the islands of Ireland and Great Britain), so I changed it to:

Insular art, also known as Hiberno-Saxon art, was produced during the post-Roman era of the British Isles and Ireland.

- I re-ordered to British Isles and Ireland because that's alphabetical order and so hopefully neutral. Geographically, Ireland is strictly speaking one of the British Isles but I'm aware that this is a potentially politically contentious point, so I've left the separate mentions in.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsafe assertion
The text makes the statement that in the contemporary British Isles "... ,buildings were rudimentary, ...". I would assert that this is an unsafe assertion. All that can reasonably asserted, is that buildings were overwhelmingly of wooden construction and that the above-ground elaboration of their structures and the nature and artistic merit of any decoration is unknown. For example, the complexity and visual appeal of the Norwegian Stave churches would be difficult to ascertain, if their only remains were post-holes. There are the remains of a concentric tiered wooden 'theatre' at the site of Ad Gefrin, a Northumbrian royal centre, which is certainly not a rudimentary building. The typical Anglo-Saxon hall was based on Romano-British building traditions, and the largest of them must have been impressive buildings, albeit not built of brick or stone. Urselius (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see rudimentary and impressive as contradictory. We are not talking about the whole A-S period here. I think there may be stone survivals in Ireland from the period, for which rudimentary is a fair description.  Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The curved shelters of of piled rocks made by Homo habilis are rudimentary, something like the 7th century church at Escombe certainly is not. Escomb Church, County Durham.jpg]]
 * Quite when Escomb Church was built, with re-used Roman stone, in uncertain. Certainly it has had alterations (porch, Gothic windows etc), though far less significant than most churches proclaimed as "Anglo-Saxon". Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation
For anyone's reference, here is a Google Ngram of the various capitalisations of "Insular art". Most of the readily accessible sources for this article also capitalise "Insular", but not "art". As noted above, "Insular" refers to the British Isles and not to islands in general. —  AjaxSmack 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeedy! The cap is needed, as with "Impressionist", because any art that is felt to be "insular" in the more common sense, might be described as "insular art". The ngram is pursuasive, but may very well have caught somes uses like that. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also fathom there are many false reading as well. Google often has trouble differentiating similar letters like I and i. —  AjaxSmack  01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)