Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Medieval Gaels)

Discussion moved from User_talk:Angusmclellan

Angus McClellan, we seem to be some of the more prominent editors of early Scottish pages so we should decide something. What name should be used throughout pages where the Celtic version of the name varies with the English or more modern version. Cínaed obviously is the person I concern most recently, although others throughout (Donalds/Domnalls) also cause problems. I believe that the name should reflect the name of the article, in which case we should rename Kenneth I of Scotlands page to something more specific. Also, who was the authority that established Kenneth as the first king of all Alba? It may be smart to change his name to something like Cinead I of Dalriada or Cinead I of the Picts. On that note, should the questionable kings of Dalriada be called such, or should we beging using a different locational name (ie. of the Scots). These problems should probably be resolved through agreement or others will revert the names throughout also. Always good working and talking with you, Angus. Peace with you. –Whaleyland 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kevin, I honestly do not know. From a purely selfish POV (i.e. I have a bog standard QWERTY keyboard), it's not a great idea to have accents in titles. I would certainly like some other opinions, from User:Calgacus, User:An Siarach, User:Derek Ross and User:Mais oui! at least. I appreciate there are arguments about name space consistency, and I do think those have to be taken into account. Not that they are everywhere as we'll see. Given that the page name appears in big friendly letters, we clearly need to have a nod and wink in that direction. OTOH, we could easily link the namespace standard page to a non-namespace standard one, i.e. Kenneth I of Scotland redirects to Cínead mac Ailpín, Aedan of Dalriada redirects to Áedan mac Gabhraín (or whatever precise orthographic standard we should happen to adopt). Redirects, says the WP techy stuff, are cheap, don't stint on them. But standards are also cheap, which is why everyone has their own. Russian rulers simply don't follow any standard. Andrei Bogolyubsky, Vsevolod III, but it redirects to Vsevolod the Big Nest (duh !), Ivan I of Russia (of Russia ? Hmmm) with Ivan Kalita as a redirect. What a mess ! Obviously we don't want to end up like that. Can I move this discussion to WP:SCOWNB, or Talk:Kingdom of Scotland, or some other general forum ? Please let me know ! Angus McLellan 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Using English names for these guys is silly, and goes against scholarly trends. Giving English names implies they are English (this is actually a real effect), and you'll see if you go through Polish or Lithuanian rulers native names are given. Moreover, the only way to gain consistency is by using the contemporary names, because many medieval Gaelic names have no anglicization. Anglicized naming also fulfils Lowest common denominator; K did not exist in pre-Norman insular languages for instance. Why not, for instance, call Aed of Scotland Hugh of Scotland (looks stupid doesn't it)? Máel Coluim to Malcolm - fair enough, what do you do with Máel Snechtai or Máel Brigte, names which have no anglicization. So you'll have the word Máel written twice on the same page in different forms. Most silly. It also implies that Máel Coluim was not Gaelic, but Máel Snechtai/Máel Brigte was; false and misleading. I have a consistent naming policy which wikipedia ought to adopt, one followed by Scottish historians - generally outlined here: . As a rule, when I employ medieval Gaelic names, I omit lenition for people born before 1200, and retain it for people born after 1200; i.e. Domnall but, after 1200, Domhnall. Generally, As get inserted after Es in certain names, Ferchar but Fearchar, Fergus but Fearghus; áe becomes ao (i.e. Máel Coluim, but Maol Choluim/Maol Chaluim). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general point, but being a sad techie, the nomenclature and name space aspects do interest me a little. The article on Donnchad ua Máel Coluim does now, and forever will, say Duncan I of Scotland at the top. Should it ? Or should it be titled Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, and mention Duncan I on the page ? At which point should we switch to king names in English (after Domnall Bán mac Donnchada I suppose) ? We could keep those who want a consistent naming system - X Y of Z - happy with pages Duncan I of Scotland, Kenneth I of Scotland and the rest, but redirect all of those pages where we would like to have a different name to a another page, called, e.g. Donnchad ua Máel Coluim, Cínaed mac Ailpín. There are a few cases where we would need to disambiguate two people with identical name and patronym. Óengus mac Fergusa, Drest son of Talorgan and maybe Talorgan son of Drest come to mind, and I think only the first is absolutely necessary. We can avoid the question of whether to use mac or map for Pictish kings by making most of them "son of" and leaving map/mac for the reasonably clear cut cases. There must be few kings of the Picts, Scots, or Dál Riada, Mormaers, or other significant personalities, who would have an article about them and who do not have a patronym, matronym or some sort of eponym which would uniquely distinguish them. I am more than willing to do the donkey work if there is a consensus for change, and if there is a consensus on the standard form of the names to be adopted. I regularly have nothing to do for five or ten minutes in the office, which is enough to do this sort of stuff, but not enough to do anything more useful. Angus McLellan 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are guides for wikipedia naming of rulers that the "X of Country" should generally be the formula; and titles for kings, I do think, should follow that formula. If you attempted to move "Malcolm II of Scotland" to "Máel Coluim II of Scotland", you'd get opposition. In general, the kings of Scotland are usually best known by their English names. But this doesn't mean we should actively anglicize Gaelic names. Only the kings and one or two other folk are famous enough in the English-speaking world to be referred to more commonly by their Anglicized names, but otherwise there's no excuse for using anglicizations. Moreover, I don't see why the name in the title should dictate the name in the text (e.g. Henry_II_of_France). Lastly, as almost every active historian in the area uses now uses Gaelic forms for Gaelic names, using these forms could deter users who don't have a clue what they're talking about adding garbage to the articles; if wiki editors had done this in the first place, the articles for the early Scottish kings wouldn't be as garbage as they now are. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I am not suggesting (re)moving them. Those pages would still exist. They would be a redirect is all. That seems to comply with the standard. As I understand it. Not that I did anything as mundane as try to find it. Some anonymous Finnish person today changed loads of references in articles from like this Kenneth III to like this Kenneth III of Scotland (but not just for Scots articles), and changed every reference to the subject (let's say Malcolm II) from like this "Malcolm died in ..." to "Malcolm II died in ...". I suppose we can count ourselves lucky it wasn't changed to "Malcolm II of Scotland died in ...". It may be that the anonymous editor thought they were doing a good deed. Angus McLellan 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two considerations as i see it. Firstly this is the English language wikipedia and must cater for whichever form of the name has priority in that language. Secondly the entire purpose of wikipedia and encyclopedias generally is to provide information, to educate and this requires that we use the historically/linguistically/ethnically correct forms of names. I dont see what could possibly be objectionable about having the anglicized form of a name acting as a redirect ( Such as Donald ) to the correct and accurate native version of the name - Domnall. The points raised by Calgacus regarding the perception, and possible misconception, of Rulers/People is very valid imo. We should be wary of pandering to convenience and LCD. Disqualifying a fact due to general ignorance of it seems a very strange thing to do in what acts as a source of information and reference. This is especially pertinent with regard to Scotland which already suffers a phenomenal level of misunderstanding, misconception and outright ignorance regarding the history of the nation and maintaining this via the deliberate anglicization of the names of Scottish monarchs from their correct, native Scottish, forms seems to me to go entirely against the principle of the project and does nothing but propagate and encourage continued ignorance and misunderstanding.An Siarach


 * I concur. The point of this encyclopedia is to educate individuals.  Most Scottish/Pictish kings did not use the names they have on this website ever in their lifetime.  True many of the latter ones (after Kenneth) have been anglicised, but I think they should be reverted to their actual names until the kings began using English versions of the names themselves.  Malcolm...pah!  He deserves his real name as the page's title.  But we should make sure all monarchs on all wikipedia pages follow a standard form (ie _______ of _______) because surnames are just dumb to have in their title. –Whaleyland 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of common sense and intelligent thought being voiced here. It is a bit of a shame that this discussion is taking place at a User Talk page though: Angus' suggestion of WP:SCOWNB or Talk:Kingdom of Scotland was wise (yeah, I know that it would encourage lots of "uninformed" comment, but we need some consensus, among the experts but also among us all). I would like to make it very clear that I have no experise whatever in this field. Indeed, as a republican I tend to touch any monarchy/royalty topics with a clothespeg over my nose. I am also (nearly) pig ignorant in Gaelic, although like most Scots I have a very strong family and emotional attachment to the Gaidhealtachd (and know one corner of it like the back of my hand). Intro over, can I just highlight some points:
 * "Given that the page name appears in big friendly letters, we clearly need to have a nod and wink in that direction". Indeed we do: in the very first sentence in fact, and consistently throughout the rest of the article.
 * "Using English names for these guys is silly". Mmmm... yes and no: this is the English-language edition of Wikipedia. The title should be the one in most common use (and that means common use, not academic use). Kenneth MacAlpin is a no-brainer: it is by a million miles the most common way of referring to that person in English-language contexts.
 * "Giving English names implies they are English." Probably, but in that case the article should make crystal clear that they are not. It is a common problem with many anglicised names: it tends to bring the topic artificially closer to the anglophone reader.
 * "the only way to gain consistency is by using the contemporary names, because many medieval Gaelic names have no anglicization." Wikipedia is very clear on this point: no original research. If all the sources use one name: do not on any account alter it, in any way.
 * Well, the one thing in this field you can rely on is inconsistency of names among historians (well, forming patronymics at least). In general, popular works before the mid-90s use anglicized names, scholarly works use authentic names. The latter could never be subject to original research, because they were all produced by their own society, rather than artificial ear-based transliterations into other languages. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "the only way to gain consistency". Wikipedia does not really care much about consistency: what it cares about is that each article can stand up on its own two feet, via sound sources. I concur with that approach. "Consistency" requires centralisation and authority: veeerrry un-Wiki attributes.
 * I don't know who wikipedia is (this looks like what Thomas Nagel would call a "view from nowhere"), but I care about consistency; abstracting a being called "wikipedia" and attributing opinions to it is no reason for bringing wiki articles downmarket. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Well, there are guides for wikipedia naming of rulers that the "X of Country" should generally be the formula" This is a crucial piont. Note that it is only a guideline and NOT official Wikipedia policy, but I consider it to be a very wise guideline indeed.
 * Me too. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "In general, the kings of Scotland are usually best known by their English names". Another absolutely critical point, which pretty much closes the casebook on any potential re-name of monarch articles.
 * Depends what you read. The island of Britain is best known as England - should we go rename that article then? Gdansk is best known as Danzig, but that is not the article title. In reality, Wiki does not (nor should it) have this policy; the reality is that's there's a bunch of guys who like to anglicize names, and another bunch of guys who like authentic names. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "But this doesn't mean we should actively anglicize Gaelic names" No, because that would be Original research.
 * No it wouldn't. There's nothing on the page about that. If you wanted to rename Aed of Scotland Hugh of Scotland, you could find a source somewhere that would enable it. - 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Firstly this is the English language wikipedia and must cater for whichever form of the name has priority in that language". Hit the nail on the head there.
 * "Secondly the entire purpose of wikipedia and encyclopedias generally is to provide information, to educate and this requires that we use the historically/linguistically/ethnically correct forms of names." Mmmm... not if it is Original research. Wikipedia is not about what is "correct", it is purely about correctly reporting what the respected sources say, EVEN if what the respected sources say is absolute rubbish (from your Point Of View). In other words: Wikipedia is all about lowest common denominator information: that is the quintessential nature of the beast.
 * Respected sources! Not the Collins guide to Scottish monarchs, or any such dribble! If the author has not published at least one article in a peer reviewed journal for the period he covers, he should not be put along side the experts in authority. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "The point of this encyclopedia is to educate individuals". Yes and no: the point is to accurately report what bona fide sources say on topics. Wikipedia itself should say absolutely nothing on any topic whatsoever (in articles). To do so would break NPOV.
 * Good. So we should be falling in line with the experts, guys like Alex Woolf, Dauvit Broun, James Fraser, Richard Oram, Thomas Clancy, etc, and renaming all the medieval kings who have Gaelic names to their uncorrupted forms. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, enough from me. Do you want to leave this discussion here, or can we move it somewhere more public, so that if we do reach consensus, it really is a consensus, and not just a cabal. (You guys really ought to start up a WikiProject: it would give you a legitimate public forum, and carries greater authority among the wider Wikipedia community. Dead easy to start up I understand.--Mais oui! 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * " Most Scottish/Pictish kings did not use the names they have on this website ever in their lifetime" Utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the commonest modern English-language context usage is.


 * Well, that's a lot of stuff, so I will only address one point. In general, you can assume that I agree with what Calgacus just said. This is an encyclopedia, you consult it as a first resort. If you want to find out more, it will be helpful to know how the object of your inquiry will be called in the references, not in books which will tell you even less than WP. Wormald's Scotland: A History is the most recent general history published (i.e. last year). Forsyth, who wrote the relevant chapter, writes "Domnall son of Custantin (Donald II)" and "Donnchad (Duncan II) son of Maél-Coluim". For "pre-Alban kings" we have "Cinaed son of Alpín (Kenneth mac Alpin)", "Domnall Brecc" and "Custantin (Constantine) son of Urguist". Magnusson, in a more obviously popular work, says "Kenneth mac Alpin (Cináed mac Aílpín)", "Constantin II (Constantín mac Áeda)", "Bridei mac Bili", "Bridei mac Maélchú". Archie Duncan's Kingship of the Scots has "Causantin I" and "Mael-Coluim III". I could go on, but between Google and Amazon it's easy enough to check the indexes of books. Consistency of form ? Maybe not. But there is apparent agreement that the presumed authentic form dictates modern practice. Angus McLellan 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As it's relevant, Calgacus has created WikiProject Medieval Scotland, which may be of interest. Angus McLellan 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On the front page today, there was a classic example of "Wikipedia naming standards at work", an excerpt from Kara%C4%91or%C4%91e. Rules don't apply to Russians and Poles, that we knew, and now it seems that they don't apply to Serbs either. Or the Irish, as you can see. Nor even to the Welsh and the English. Angus McLellan 21:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, Poles and Serbs want to keep their names in their languages, and Scots in theirs. Only trouble is that the language of Scots now is different than back then, and Scots are very often hostile to their Gaelic past, whereas Poles wish to make their past look as Polish as possible. What it comes down to is that, the guys who work on those articles want authentic names, the guys who work on Scottish kings want anglicizations; "wikipedia convention" is used only when it suits the inbuilt desire of the editor. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Extending the debate: Dalriada or Dál Riata ?
Anyone interested in this discussion may want to follow or contribute to the debate on the proposed (un)rename of Dál Riata to Dalriada at Talk:Dál Riata. The arguments, so far as I can see, are exactly the same as apply here. Angus McLellan 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)