Talk:Names of the British Isles

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)


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

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)


 * Update: I have been bold! 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * We do not like edit warring and removals without proper discussion. The Banner  talk 00:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I see a removal with a revert, followed by a removal with a revert. The Banner  talk 00:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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, so not uncontroversial, as it was discussed before, requiring discussion.  Dank Jae  00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No I haven't, content on that article was split to here.  Dank Jae  00:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * May I advice you that you first start having a read before continuing here? The Banner  talk 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My advice is that you engage with my points... 2601:85:C601:9D60:48D5:3FE7:E42D:E449 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. Wa<b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  16:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Edit: Before I get accused of wrongdoing, I am the IP address above. DuxEgregius (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to logged-in land! <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * There's no time limit on discussions, we're not in a hurry here. Leave it be for a bit and see what happens. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 (i.e., ), 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/ 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 even in 2007 but the material remained.  (later, then , and now ) 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)
 * Without the book, I have nothing to say about this. Bashing me does not change that. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * @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."
 * 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." 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.
 * 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)
 * I think there's more than sufficient consensus now to remove the Oceani Insulae section. I shall make it so. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  09:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Waggers.
 * @DuxEgregius: the text you quoted ("") 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 (""), 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 (" [Albion] "). Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles, published in 1577 and obviously independent of Dee's treatise of the same year, says the same: ("").
 * 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: "... ". 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)
 * 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." 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 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)
 * 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." " 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. 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)
 * @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 "" 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: "". We cannot extrapolate further from Schwyzer's statement; we certainly cannot expand his "" to your "". 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:
 * 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 ) in 1552, the text stated that "".
 * When Abraham Ortelius's Latin Theatrum Orbis Terrarum was translated into French (Theatre de l'univers ) in 1572, the text spoke of "". 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * @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.
 * 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".
 * 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.
 * 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 teir ynys Prydein, 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.
 * 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" (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)
 * 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)


 * 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (Arguably he is using "Britain and Ireland" to refer to the group though) <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @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 and not (as the article stated until this edit): . 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)

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 <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Section ordering
I think it would be more logical to put the history section before the "perspectives" / "alternative terms" sections - mainly because the history provides a lot of important context, so anyone reading through the article top-to-bottom would be best served by reading that first to understand the historical context before reading about the current perspectives and various alternative terms that have been proposed/utilised. Any thoughts on that? <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  09:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. Generally, the "Reception" section comes towards the end of a Wikipedia page. I made a similar point about the introduction needing a re-order too (here), though I would prefer a wholesale rewrite and may attempt one in future. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally the convention is the lead follows the structure of the article, so yep if we change one we should change both. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  07:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have rearranged the sections but have not altered the introduction (yet). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff, the article flows much better now. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  07:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's time to take out the original research
This page will probably always be politicized to some degree, and with that comes an unfortunate lack of care in dealing with the evidence. To avoid making the same mistakes I'll stick to what I know best.

The section on the Annals of Ulster and Clonmacnoise was not written with a thorough understanding of the source material. Just the phrase "The Latin Annals of Ulster" indicates a problem; the Annals of Ulster are bilingual, and in the late eighth century were at a point of transition that often led to a fascinating blend of Latin and Irish within the same entry. More seriously, it's not at all clear "islands of Britain" here is meant to include Ireland, and not just relatively small islands around Britain that the Irish clerics who originally wrote these annals had intimate religious, scholarly, and professional connections with (e.g., Lindisfarne, Iona, etc.). I'll clarify this point in the next paragraph, but here I'll just note that that the British Islands or British Isles (the specific form obviously depends on the translator) cannot be auto-assumed to include Ireland without secondary source material. Two of the sources given for this Annals of Ulster passage were published more than a century ago, and so cannot be used for this purpose, and I wasn't able to quickly find a copy of "The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131): Text and translation" to see if the authors of that work (which was published in 1983 and seems entirely legitimate) have any commentary with regard to the phrase in question.

The two sources given for the Annals of Clonmacnoise are both books published over a hundred years ago. Even worse, they are used misleadingly in this Wikipedia article to imply that the original annalists described Ireland as British in some way, when they seem to just be using Islands of Britain or British Isles to describe the small islands immediately surrounding Britain (again, Lindisfarne, insular Scotland, etc.). We know that "Islands of Brittaine" probably doesn't include Ireland because one of the sources juxtaposes the 791 entry, "All the Islands of Brittaine were wasted and much troubled by the Danes: this was their first footing in England," with this text and commentary for 792: "'Rachryn was burnt by the Danes.' O'Donovan rightly states that 'this is the first attack on record made by the Danes upon any part of Ireland,' but adds that the true year was 794, which is in accord with the Annals of Ulster." I don't think that "The Norse influence on Celtic Scotland," published as it was in 1910, should be used as a source for this article, but the fact that it was manipulated like this leaves me with basically zero confidence in the presentation of any of the primary source material quoted in this article.

This topic is clearly too contentious to have editors adding primary source material from whatever antiquated editions they can find on archive.org. Let's stick to secondary sources and let the experts speak for themselves. 2601:85:C601:9D60:126:AE84:A3BB:8548 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * thank you for taking the time to keep wikipedia accurate. Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @2601:85:C601:9D60:126:AE84:A3BB:8548 Your arguments are, I think, groundless because they rely on two assumptions:
 * Neither of these assumptions appear to be derived from anywhere authoritative and neither seems at all relevant. There is no commentary about some hypothetical different sense of "British Isles" (etc) unique to Irish chroniclers in the 1983 edition, any more than there is in Henderson 1910, of whom your reading seems erroneous, since nowhere is it implied that Ireland must be excluded from what Henderson 1910 plainly translates as "" or what Mac Airt & Mac Niocaill 1983 call "". Certainly it would be an extraordinary thing if, alone in the world, the Irish annalists meant something other than "the British Isles" when they wrote "the British Isles" (etc) and took time to specify that "all" the islands were included, but if that is the case no evidence has been produced for it.
 * There is no reason to remove material solely because on the mistaken assumption that "" can't be Wikipedia sources. Unless and until newer research appears, that is what must be relied on. I was much interested to hear of "" being used. In every instance, material I have added has cited the most recent critical editions, so I would be interested to know which texts you imagine have been superseded.
 * Your accusations of "" and "" are as unevidenced as your other assertions. You must assume good faith and not cast apersions. You must also provide good reasons to remove material, yet you have deleted swathes of the article with no explanation beyond "", a claim refuted by the fact that everything you have removed has either a primary or secondary source and in most cases both. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @The wisest fool in Christendom Reading your response, I agree that I shouldn't have used the term "manipulated." The error of interpretation (which I'll get to below) could easily have been the result of uncareful reading, and I apologize for not assuming good faith. My comments on politicization weren't directed at any user in particular, however, and simply refer to the pretty obvious reality that the topic lends itself to politicization.
 * To restate the original point that I made about "The Norse influence on Celtic Scotland" and its treatment of the Annals of Clonmacnoise more explicitly, the entry for 791 discusses a Danish (Viking) assault on "All the Islands of Brittaine," but then immediately follows it up with text that makes it clear that the first Danish (Viking) raid on "any part of Ireland" was recorded in the 792 entry. All of the Islands of Britain attacked in 791, Ireland only attacked in 792 (or 793 and 794, respectively, if we prefer the Annals of Ulster chronology). It's literally the next paragraph. Maybe you can come up with some kind of resolution to this apparent contradiction, but I don't see why anyone else should take that seriously. I certainly don't expect Wikipedia to host thousands of words of my own personal, non-expert opinions about primary source documents, and you shouldn't either.
 * Your protestations about using both primary and secondary sources ring hollow. Selecting and presenting block quotes in the "History" section of an article like this, particularly in such enormous quantities, is an act of interpretation. Moreover, you frequently (although not always) use secondary sources merely to extract primary source quotations from them without expert interpretation, which brings about all of the same problems as if you had just gone to the original manuscripts. Why should anyone trust you to interpret these sources? If you had the expert knowledge to do so you would never have referred to the "Latin Annals of Ulster" in the first place. Are we to expect that your treatment of the Persianate material is much different?
 * If you want to collect, compile, and publish every reference to "British Isles," "Britannic Islands," and "Islands of Britain" you can find on the internet, just start a blog. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2601:85:C601:9D60:126:AE84:A3BB:8548 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, Original Research doesn't mean that something is literally made up out of thin air (that's often just Vandalism or Opinion). It means that a Wikipedia user is drawing directly from primary source material or synthesizing their own conclusions from secondary source material. 2601:85:C601:9D60:126:AE84:A3BB:8548 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just cutting out everything you don't like, is certainly not going to work. I have reverted your cut. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 04:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good revert. Can I ask please that we avoid sweeping generalisations and borderline personal attacks. Accusations of a "lack of care" and hinting that edits are politically motivated are not at all helpful. I think the IP raises a couple of valid points but they could be framed much, much less antagonistically.
 * This article is precisely about the name(s) of this group of islands through the ages. Therefore efforts to collect and compile these historical references are, in fact, much appreciated. This is pretty much the core purpose of Wikipedia - and also, very much not what a blog is!
 * One only needs to look at a map to see that, no matter what it is called, this group of islands off the coast of Europe is one archipelago. Therefore I don't agree that we should assume that all references to the island group exclude Ireland unless proven otherwise. However in the specific case of "The Norse influence on Celtic Scotland" / the Annals of Clonmacnoise, "All the Islands of Brittaine" may well exclude Ireland based on those invasion dates. I suggest we focus this discussion on that specific point and drop the exaggerations, accusations and assumptions of bad faith. Please. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  08:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I've updated my priors on what info should be included in the article. Reading above, we should probably add back in the stuff about "Oceani Insulae," because it conforms to the standards you've set out here. 2601:85:C601:9D60:CED:9DD3:1462:9B35 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree - the consensus was "oceani insulae" was used as a description - "those islands in the ocean" - not a name. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you now trying to add original research? But no, a description is not a name. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my comment above - I said "efforts to collect and compile these historical references are, in fact, much appreciated", that does not mean that compilation of references should be added in its entirety to the article. So no, I'm not trying to add original research; equally we need to avoid discounting valid references on the basis of other original research. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To avoid misunderstandings: I was referring to the IP. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, that makes more sense :) <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  07:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now added some more material on the different interpretations of the "islands of Britain" or "Islands of Alba" in various mediaeval Irish texts. I will add here that it is impossible to rely on the remark on the raid on Rathlin/Lambay to prove a more restrictive usage, since the same entry (at least in 1983 edition) mentions that the Vikings hit Skye too. If the island near Ireland is to be excluded from the "Islands of Britain", the the Isle of Skye must also be. Neither is it necessary that if the raid on Rathlin/Lambay was described as the first attack "on record" in Ireland, then the previous raid on the "Islands of Britain" must therefore exclude Ireland. The uastatio omnium insolarum Britannię does not specify anywhere in particular that was attacked, so the Rathlin and Skye raid is the first historical record of any particular sites laid waste. (I am aware of the proposed emendation that makes the reference to Skye a reference to a looted reliquary rather than an attack on the Hebridean island, but I do not think it affects the relevance of this toponym "islands of Britain"/"British isles". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to keep arguing my original point about the Annals paragraph because it's been made moot by the addition of scholarly interpretation; the absence of this throughout much of the article is my main problem with it. The new sources have turned the original connotation of the paragraph on its head (and basically confirmed my original interpretation of what "Islands of Britain" meant, but no biggie), and there's every reason to believe that the same could be true elsewhere when primary sources are used without scholarly context.
 * Seriously: Does anyone editing this article really understand medieval Persianate geographical treatises well enough to know that they're not unintentionally presenting the bare text in a misleading way?
 * Also, on the Cáin Adomnáin: The edit to the opening sentence isn't totally wrong, but it's less accurate than just referring to the text itself. There's actually a scholarly debate on which part of the text is original, composed at the Synod of Birr, and which was added a couple centuries later. This is discussed in all the sources I linked, but we probably don't need it in this article because the difference won't make it any more or less Medieval. It's also not totally clear how the listed magnates and clerics assented to the Cáin, so we should probably drop the word "signed" as well. 2601:85:C601:9D60:C57E:8BC4:F633:A32C (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously: Does anyone editing this article really understand medieval Persianate geographical treatises well enough to know that they're not unintentionally presenting the bare text in a misleading way?
 * Also, on the Cáin Adomnáin: The edit to the opening sentence isn't totally wrong, but it's less accurate than just referring to the text itself. There's actually a scholarly debate on which part of the text is original, composed at the Synod of Birr, and which was added a couple centuries later. This is discussed in all the sources I linked, but we probably don't need it in this article because the difference won't make it any more or less Medieval. It's also not totally clear how the listed magnates and clerics assented to the Cáin, so we should probably drop the word "signed" as well. 2601:85:C601:9D60:C57E:8BC4:F633:A32C (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)