From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.

"Ireland and Britain"[edit]

User:Shadwell Munch has twice reverted "Ireland and Britain" to "the British Isles" in the sentence "The Old Irish personal name Amlaíb is a Gaelicised form of the Old Norse Óláfr, which was introduced into Ireland and Britain by the Norse during the Viking Age." The reference given for this sentence is Stafford's A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland c.500-1100. I can think of no reason, other than a possible political bias, for substituting the ahistoric usage "British Isles" (never in use in the Viking era) for the terms used in the reference source. Shadwell Munch's latest edit summary, however, runs like this: "This appears to be a personal agenda edit. Reference states nothing of the sort. Old Norse was introduced into British Isles as indicated". Wrong on all three counts; it is his/her reverts that appear to follow a particular agenda, reference uses "Britain and Ireland" rather than "British Isles", and when Old Norse arrived there was no such concept as the "British Isles". Other editors' views, please? Brocach (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland c.500-1100 mentions "British Isles" on numerous occasions, so the author would seem not to agree with you on the suggestion of it being ahistoric. Shadwell Munch (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Find just one reference from the Viking era to the British Isles and you win. Until then, I stand with the historical consensus that that term was not in use for Ireland and Britain, which were, and were recognised as, separate domains. Brocach (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So how come they use it in that book? Shadwell Munch (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Why change what is actually says in the referenced book? Couldn't be clearer. I've changed the text and introduced more detail. Simples. --HighKing (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well Mr Orlov, I see you're also keen on editing first and asking questions later. It's usually quite easy to find a reference to support your point of view, so congratulations on doing just that. I hope you don't mind, but I've added some more material. Hopefully all comers will be happy with it. Shadwell Munch (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)