This is the talk page for discussing Old North (Britain) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics 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.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur
Old North (Britain) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
This article is related to the York Museums Trust and is relevant to the GLAM partnership between the trust and Wikimedia UK. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.York Museums TrustWikipedia:GLAM/YMTTemplate:WikiProject York Museums TrustYork Museums Trust-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Several historians, with little basis, have attempted to locate Aeron in Ayrshire, because of the slight, very slight, similarity of names. I argue that there is a much better probability, one adjoining the region where those so far identified were located. Strathearn, the area between Manaw and Earra a Ghaidheal (Argyll), derives from Strath Eireann, or valley of the Irish, Eireann having the same pronounciation as Aeron. Strath Eireann in Welsh or Brythonic would be Ystrad Aeron, and indeed there is just such a place in southwest Wales, in Ceredigion that was once part of the kingdom of the Irish Deisi before Cunedda conquered the area and gave it to one of his sons. Thus, I argue that Aeron of the ballads, elegies, poems, stories of the Old North is Strathearn. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, despite the fact that there is an Ystrad Aeron in Ceredigion, meaning Valley of the Irish, the exact same meaning and nearly exact same pronounciation as Strath Eireann, that means nothing? Just saying nothing would be better than the rather weak identification of Aeron with Ayrshire because of the very slight similarity of the name. I suggest that whoever came up with that crap idea clearly does not know the derivation of Strathearn and probably still thinks Fortriu can be placed there. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for God's sake, at least remove the Ayrshire reference. That idea has almost zero credibility, even if Koch mentioned the idea. You yourself, or someone else on this page, said that Koch was sometimes not reliable. If being published is all that counts, I can always start flooding the page with references to Morris. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the utter failure of any historian to recognize the identification of Aeron with Eireann is because of the formerly widely held belief, and debunked since 2005, idea that Strathearn and Fortriu were one and the same. Thus we get desparate attempts to make the identification of Aeron with Ayr. Much better to leave it simply unidentified. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koch isn't infallible (no one is), but he's hardly the only one suggesting a connection between Aeron and Ayrshire or the Ayr. A quick Google Books search returns a number of hits, which go into varying degrees of detail, including this (Ifor Williams), this (A. O. H. Jarman), this (another work by Koch), this (Rachel Bromwich), and this (The Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales). I can find no relevant hits connecting Aeron with Strathearn. Please not that no one is saying that Aeron was certainly located at Ayrshire, as it isn't known for sure.--Cúchullaint/c14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how many people propagate an idea with as little basis as the idea that Aeron of the Old North equals some as yet undiscovered entity in Ayrshire, solely because "A-y-r" is slightly similar to "A-e-r-o-n". The truth is that the origin of the name has never been traced. Several people, myself included, have propagated Morris's idea about Coel being the last Dux Britanniarum, but that does not make it true. Nor did the fact that most historians repeated the now-proven-wrong idea that Fortriu was the same as Strathearn; no doubt that erroneous idea blinded them all to the fact that Ystrad Aeron is Welsh for the Gaelic Strath Eireann, the root of "Strathearn". There are a few people who still cling to the idea that Fortriu=Strathearn and I have no wish to allow such a claim to stand than I do the idea that Aeron=Ayr. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koch's comment that Aeron is a "kingdom or subkingdom, probably in south-west Scotland" or that Aeron was "probably in Ayrshire in Scotland" does not offer a whole lot of ground to stand on, and I doubt the other source is much much. Morris' statement about Coel has equal validity since neither are backed by any attempt at evidentiary support. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was a brief Google Books search. But all the same, for my part I will try to find a source better explaining the rational for the suggestion that Aeron may be connected to the Ayr, and ask other users to do the same. In the meantime, the fact that so many authorities in the field have felt compelled to mention the suggestion in their works is enough for us to mention it as well. After all, Wikipedia is meant to be a summary of what the best available sources have to say. (The difference between this and John Morris is that Bromwich, Jarman, etc. are among the top experts in the field, while Morris' book was heavily criticized in the field, as I've shown.) For your part, do you have any sources that challenge the connection, or suggest another one?--Cúchullaint/c14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until 2005, virtually all sources on Pictish history indentified Fortriu with Strathearn, with little evidence, just because some authority had once said, "It must be here". The same is the case with all those who say Aeron is Ayrshire; no one offers a reason for it. I'm not saying I have proof of a negative, I'm saying that none of them who make that claim have ever offered any evidence to back it up, none, zero, nada, zilch, squat. It's an embarassment to them, and it's an embarassment to have it in this article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I judge that the interpretations of the experts in a field tend to be more frequently accurate than those of passing folks on the internet who consistently refuse to back up their claims with sources. You say "none of them who make the claim have ever offered any evidence to back it up..." That's a big assertion, and I sincerely doubt it's the case. However, I'm continuing to search, and have asked a few knowledgeable editors if they have any additional input. Hopefully we can resolve this soon.--Cúchullaint/c18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "experts", Hound of Cullen, have never offered a single shred of proof for the assertion that Aeron = Ayr, merely suggested that may have been the case because of the slight similarity of the names. Before 2005, the "experts" universally identified Fortriu with Strathearn, reported that the unification of the north of Scotland took first place under Kenneth mac Alpin, that the unification was preceded by a massacre of the Pictish nobility, and the Fergus mac Erc was the ancestor of all Scottish kings through Kenneth mac Alpin. One of the chief reasons Ayr was first suggested as a location for Aeron is that the "experts" had a blind spot preventing them from considering another alternative because of the misidentification of Fortriu as Strathearn (Strath Eiareann); with Fortriu having been a major power at the time and Fortriu=Strathearn according to the opinion widely-held by the "experts", some other location in the local region had to be found. One of the chief reasons Fortriu was held to be in Strathearn was that too many "experts" bought into the afore-mentioned propaganda about Kenneth mac Alpin, whose base was clearly in the south and east of Scotland above the Firths. FYI, in case you don't follow Scottish history like you do that of the Old North, Alex Woolf of St. Andrews Univ. published a paper in 2005 that blew the widely-held-by-the-experts assumption about Fortriu's identity out of the water; in fact, he showed rather conclusively that Fortriu and the early medieval Moray were one and the same. In doing so, he destroyed the basis upon which the hypothesis about Aeron's identification with Ayr came about; with their mistaken assumptions about Fortriu, the sheep-like "experts" proved unable to see Strath Eireann, which is Ystrad Aeron in Welsh. If you check your map, you will find that Strathearn and Clackmannan, the modern name for the area where Manau Goddodin was located, are immediately adjacent to each other. Has there been anything published about this? Not as far as I know, but I do know that all these are facts, just as I know that no "expert" has offered any evidence for the identification of Aeron of the Old North with Ayr. If that is not enough to include identification of Aeron with Strathearn in the article, it is enough to warrant the exclusion of the identification as Ayr. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hound of Cullan, I have to study for an exam on the Georgia constitution tomorrow, and reading it first will probably help. In the meantime, this weekend I will be writing Professor Woolf about this matter and how it may connect to his 2005 paper. If other ediotrs have a comment, they are welcome to do so here, in this page, else their opinions count for nothing. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have expressed concern that you are making substantial changes without providing reliable references. Editors need not participate in every talk page entry. Content aside, Chuck, I really wish you would include citations with you edits. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's what I've found so far. Page 157 of Bromwich, Foster, and Jones' Astudiaethau ar yr Hengerdd contains the following about Aeron, in Welsh:
“
Fel y mae ysgolheigion wedi cytuno,[18] y tebyg yw mai Ayrshire yn yr Alban yw Aeron yng ngwaith Aneirin a Thaliesin; er na ddylem anghofio'r afon Aire yn nwyrain swydd Efrog: byddai'r Aeron hon y drws nesaf i hen deyrnas Elfed.
”
It would be nice to have a true Welsh speaker translate these lines. I took a shot at it with the aid of a Welsh-English dictionary and Google Translate: if I'm at all correct, it says roughly:
“
As the scholars have agreed, it is likely that Ayrshire in Scotland is Aeron in the work of Aneurin and Taliesin,[18] though we should not forget the River Aire in east York[shire]: this would put Aeron next door to the ancient kingdom of Elfed [ie, Elmet].
”
The works cited in footnote 18 are W. J. Watson's Celtic Place-Names of Scotland, pp. 342–343; Sir John Morris-Jones Y Cymmrodor 28, p. 77; Ifor Williams' edition of Canu Taliesin, pp. xxiv-xxxi; and Kenneth Jackson's edition of OSPG (the Gododdin), p. 6. Morris-Jones' paper[1] identifies Aeron with Ayr on the grounds that it is closely associated with Alt Clud in the poetry, and must have been located nearby Urien Rheged, who was celebrated for defending it. Williams examines the evidence more fully, noting that it is necessarily ambiguous, as the same names occur across both the North and Wales. However, he ultimately concludes that "...the references in the Gododdin to Aeron, and the place of importance given to Cynddylig Aeron, would seem to favour the identification of Aeron with Ayr." (p. xlvii of the English version).
So it is clear that, despite what you seem to think, experts have indeed considered the evidence, and do not all speak with one voice on how to interpret it. However, an identification with Ayrshire seems to be far and away the most common suggestion, as Bromwich et al point out. We now have more than enough sources to justify including it. Your little theory that the scholars had ignored Strathearn as a possible location due to a misidentification may or may not be true; the minute it appears in a reliable, published source we can include it in Wikipedia. However, we can't ignore other scholarship without justification beyond the personal interpretations of one Wikipedia editor.--Cúchullaint/c20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, the only "evidence" any of them, who still labor under the blind spot produced by the above-misidentification of Fortriu, is that the very slight similarity of names AND its proxmity to Alt Clut suggests it. Meanwhile, another entity with the exact same name in Welsh--Strath Eireann/Ystrad Aeron--exists within the same region and is immediately adjacent to the entity in question, and they completely ignore it due to their knee-jerk reaction deriving largely from their mistaken assumptions about Fortriu. Nothing any of the "experts" have said constitutes anything resembling evidence, regardless of how many degrees they have. No one even knows when the name Ayr came to be used for that section of the country. For example, Alt Clut was based largely on the Damnonii who occupied the entire northwest region of the area between the Walls, so whence "Ayr"? the name Ayr derives from the river flowing through the area and qauired its first geographical use in 1205 with the founding of the royal burgh of Ayr. Ayrshire was named for the burgh. Now, Strathearn/Strath Eireann/Ystrad Aeron? It is one of the earliest Mormaerdoms of the kingdom of the Picts and its name goes back to the earliest years of the Middle Ages, probably about the same time Circinn became Oengus, Atholl became Atholl (from Ath Fodhla, or New Ireland), and fortriu first began to be called Muireabh. It's a cute suggestion, but with absolutely zero evidence, that is all it amounts to, no matter how many repeat it. For example, Morris may have been the first to suggest that Coel was the last Dux Britanniarum, but others certainly repeated it after him, some stating it as fact. Nonuncurious: given the lack of evidence, the attack is called for, regardless of who makes that claim. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly came here to repeat what Cúchullain has been saying - at wikipedia we can only include information from reliable sources. Chucks suggestions may or may not offer a better interpretation - but no matter if other editors agree or disagree him it can't be included without external sources - so this discussion isn't going anywhere. I propose tweaking the relevant sentence however: "but it has been suggested by several scholars that it was probably in the Ayrshire region of southwest Scotland". That is verifiable, regardless of whether what this scholars suggests is the Truth. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said my ideas about Aeron should be included, and they can't really since as far as I know that has never been published, just that given the lack of actual evidence upon which the suggestion of Ayr=Aeron is base that we not include that as a probable. The problem with your last sentence is that it is also verifiable that Coel was the last Dux Britanniarum and that Fortiu is identifical to Strathearn. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these is more likely, that a region with no trace of the name Ayr until the 13th century except for the river running through it is the location of the much-mentioned Aeron, or is it more likely that location is the region named Aeron (Eireann) since the Dark Ages? Why do we have to perpetuate such an obviously baseless suggestion? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only obvious to you, as it's based on your own personal interpretation of the evidence. The rest of us are content to follow Wikipedia's standard practice of summarizing what the best available sources are saying. If you have a problem with the sources, take it up with them. This conversation has long ceased being productive; it's time to move on.--Cúchullaint/c22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not merely my opinion that the evidence is weak, it's merely self-evident. The idea that Ayr=Aeron has been batted around for years with no basis for the claim other than that it sounds kinda neat. Verifiable doesn't mean reliable, else I have a good claim for using Morris as a "credible" source; that was your argument against Morris, Hound of Cullan, that Morris isn't credible...where was your "verifiable" then???. Not one claim of Aeron=Ayr has given any sort of grounds other than the flimsiest. One person suggested that could be the case, others picked it up and said yes, that's it. One source I found even mentions a tiny River Earn tributary to the River Ayr that doesn't not even show up on Google Maps; a much longer and bigger River Earn runs through Strathearn immediately to the north of Clackmannanan, "-manannan" as in Manu, as in Manaw. Though the proposition that Strathearn is Fortriu has been thoroughly debunked since 2005, under Wikipedia rules that is still a verifiable and therefore admissible claim, as are many other popular historical myths about Scotland. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding isn't intended as a continuation of the argument as I've conceded that the article is okay the way it is, just making a inal statement. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing more to say here. Once again, at the point that you (or anyone) present reliable sources challenging this view or proposing another one, we can talk about how to include it. However we can't ignore sources based only on your original research.--Cúchullaint/c14:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable", what's that? Wikipedia, as you said before, doesn't know anything about "reliable", just verifiable. An idea based on the fact that it sounds kind of neat with no other basis for it to rest upon is most definitely not "reliable", no matter how many "experts" mindlessly echo it to make it "verifiable". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A published source which gives no basis for a statement about a subject, such as those made by so many about Aeron, is not exactly "reliable". Group-think like that has been responsible for a lot of fictional history being taken as gospel, i.e., Strathearn as Fortriu. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then it should just be called 'the Old North', since an English-language rendition of the concept appears in scholarship, again always with the article. However, Marged Haycock's English-language paper on the history of the concept invariably refers to it as 'yr Hen Ogledd' when using the Welsh form for the same reasons I renamed the article (Three matters will be raised here: the perceived geography of what is now Scotland and northern England, often referred to as yr Hen Ogledd (the Old North) by Welsh scholars...), as do any number of fully Welsh-language sources. Tipcake (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THE on the definite article. They're normally omitted in the article title itself but appear (unbolded) in the opening sentence. As for using the English term, Old North is already a disambiguation page. It would have to be something like the Old North (Early medieval region) which isn't helpful. It's not a question of 'let's pick a term' that happens to be used in the scholarship. It's a question of trying to identify as objectively as we can what reliable sources most commonly use through evidence (google searches, ngrams etc). I think the vast majority of English language sources use "the Hen Ogledd": I think it's going to be hard to challenge the current title but would be interested to see what evidence you can produce. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you a list based on books I have at hand; I've never used ngrams or google for this sort of thing, but as you can see, 'the Old North' is far more common, given that it was invented for J. E. Caerwyn Williams' English edition of Canu Taliesin rather than being a translation of a concept originally penned in Welsh.
John Koch's Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopaedia -- title of the article is 'Yr Hen Ogledd', the article itself however only refers to concept as 'the Old North' except once as 'yr Hen Ogledd' when giving the name in Welsh
John Koch's edition of the Gododdin -- only 'the Old North'
John Koch's Cunedda, Cynan, Cadwallon, Cynddylan -- only 'the Old North'
Marged Haycock's article -- as just cited, uses 'the Old North' in English, uses 'yr Hen Ogledd' once, never 'the Hen Ogledd'
Rachel Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein -- uses only 'the Old North'
Brynley F. Roberts' article on Culhwch ac Olwen in The Arthur of the Welsh -- uses only 'the Old North'
Rebecca Thomas' article on 'Remembering the Old North' (which introduces the concept as 'Hen Ogledd'): https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.24385
However, you can see very many important scholars use 'the Old North' exclusively when writing about the concept in English. Tipcake (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly wasn't saying that "Old North" wasn't used. The question is which of the options satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. It's a comparison that's needed. With "Old North" we have the added problem that the page already exists. So then we need to address WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and other points under WP:DAB. DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understood you, I just was investigating your claim: 'I think the vast majority of English language sources use "the Hen Ogledd"'. To be honest, I didn't think I had seen 'the Hen Ogledd' outside of Wikipedia so I decided to check just to be sure; I was wrong on this, but "the 'Old North'" is overwhelmingly the most commonly used name. As you can see, every major scholarly work on the subject matter and every post-1968 edition of the material concerning yr Hen Ogledd uses "the 'Old North'". So, if you want to use the most common name for it in English, that would be it. I agree with you that it's difficult to think of a good title for the article if we used the standard academic name, however, which is why I just added 'Yr' to the title of this article. All I can think of would be Old North (Welsh literature) or something like that. Tipcake (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The place, yes, the problem is that the term is mostly used by scholars of medieval Welsh literature, since much of the material about the assuredly real place and time which the term covers are certainly later medieval fantasies. It functioned as a sort of heroic imaginary landscape for them, even if they were familiar with what modern scholars might call historically valid material about the place. I guess to be as broad and clear as possible (since it is a good spring-board for articles on real places like Strathclyde) it could say Old North (early medieval Britain) or something like that. What do you think? Tipcake (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you review WP:Article titles and ponder that. I sense that you're not quite attuned to thinking of things in WP terms and policies. For example, the CONCISION requirement is pointing to the current title compared to that suggestion. There's considerable usage of "the Hen Ogledd" (or simply "Hen Ogledd" eg [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and this Google Scholar result or this one and I don't think we've seen a compelling reason to move away from that. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those sources are academic studies of the subject matter other than no. 6, which also uses "the 'Old North'" more frequently. In actual studies of "the 'Old North'", you overwhelmingly find that as the term used, not "the 'Hen Ogledd'". Honestly, the use of it in those non-specialised works you just cited more likely reflects people who are not specialists of Welsh searching it up and finding this Wikipedia page, which has stood under the name for almost two decades; those sources are still dwarfed by the number I cited. Not to mention the rigour of Simon Jenkins' book is very poorly regarded by actual scholars: [9].
Surely the use of the term in academic sources which would actually make up the relevant sourced material for this article and which literally coined the concept and term is more important than what 'Cuthulan's Blog', popular history books, articles about the band Hen Ogledd, and Japanese journals on language acquisition have to say, which are cited on Google Scholar. Just because you can find many sources online calling the Netherlands 'Holland' doesn't mean the page for the country should be 'Holland'. Doesn't faithfulness to the experts matter most? Hence why you have Aimery of Cyprus rather than Amalric II though the latter is numerically more common. What about just Old North, then? With the disambiguation page renamed to Old North (disambugation)? There isn't any place cited on the disambiguation page without the article which lacks a qualifying noun after it. If that doesn't work, Old North (region) might work too, since none of the places on the current disambiguation page are areas. Tipcake (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that wordology is important to you, perhaps past the point that is generally healthy. The forum is Wikipedia and they are extremely far from being the end all as an academic research source. For your peace of mind do you suppose the listeners sitting around a dying fire hearing one variation or another of an age old tale of their homeland really cared what interlopers would refer to it as? 64.35.203.197 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that I have referenced the essential works on the topic by the foremost scholars of the field, almost all of which use "the 'Old North'". The academic study of Welsh is an extremely small field. My point is that 'the listeners sitting around a dying fire hearing one variation or another of an age old tale of their homeland' would not have said yr Hen Ogledd either, the term was invented by J. E. Caerwyn Williams in 1968 for the English edition of Canu Taliesin; however, inexplicably using a half-Welsh form might give off that idea, as if it were a medieval concept like canu brud or something. Wikipedia is quite rightly the first port of call for most people on most subjects, therefore it's all the more critical that what it says reflects what the experts are writing. Tipcake (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tipcake, I have cited Google Scholar citations. I don't really know hat you're talking about in relation to bands and Japanese whatnot. But to be clear I'm going to set out what our WP:COMMONNAME policy says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Now that could well coincide with "what experts are saying" but you need to frame your arguments specifically around Wikipedia policies (which we have a lot of) rather than on what you believe to be the principles of academia. If you are. unwilling to do that Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. I'll repeat that if you think this article should simpy be named the "Old North" you need to read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and put forward the rationale on why that title would be sanctioned by that policy for this article. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should use the title of the article until that changes MOS:BOLDLEAD. Bit confused at the hyperfocus on early uses of the term in the first paragraph, considering most of this article is not on that, so WP:UNDUE as the lead is a summary of the article. Better in the body not the lead. Plus the main topic here appears to be the area itself not the term, based on the current state of the article, so should be "is the historical region" etc again not "is a modern historiographical term".
Whether "Yr" should be added to the title, leaning against, looking at the WP:COMMONNAME, it shows "Hen Ogledd" is more used over "Yr Hen Ogledd" by Ngrams (Google Books). While WP:THE is specifically for English, the general principle is if "The" (in this case "Yr") is not overwhemingly used as part of the name and not routinely capitalised, then it is not needed in the title. Google Scholar does show some more use without "Yr" but it does contain some unrelated or non-English results. Nor is "Yr" being added for disambiguation, so seems find without. But while I amended the lead, open to start the article with "Yr Hen Ogledd" again as it is merely the full title of the common title per MOS:LEADSENTENCE.
Unsure on moving to "Old North", it needs more clear evidence for the COMMONNAME than a selected assortment of books one happens have on hand, we need a neutral comparision like an aggregate of all sources ideally just as a guide. Additionally it may need a disambiguator unless proven primary, may be just "(Great Britain)"? but do not support a move. But agree finding the common name for either the Welsh or English terms may not be as straight-forward due to the names being used in other contexts. DankJae23:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no contemporary territory! It is only a modern term! Here, from Koch's encyclopaedia: Yr Hen Ogledd, English ‘the Old North’, is a term used in the study of early Welsh literature and history signifying the Brythonic-speaking peoples of what are now parts of northern England and southern Scotland especially with references to Britain’s early post-Roman period.
I don't know why you prefer uncited stuff that agrees with prior Wikipedia content rather than cited material that reflects more mainstream academic belief! Tipcake (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first paragraph of Byzantine Empire does mention that it wasn't a contemporary term, so it surely should still be mentioned here... but yes, would the title of this article be changed, I shall leave the mention of the history of the term out of the first sentence and follow that article's example. Tipcake (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the actual contents of the papers you are referring to on Google Scholar? Some refer to the band 'Hen Ogledd' and are music publications. Three are in Japanese, written by an otherwise unheard-of professor of economics in Sapporo, and don't cite sources to do with this concept (i.e. they are probably probably just going off Wikipedia)
Frankly, the sources you have cited are mostly not what would be most 'reliable' by Wikipedia standards. They are tertiary, popular sources. Do I need to copy out Wikipedia policy for this to be understood or something? Wikipedia:Reliable sources They are, directly or indirectly, other than the papers by Will Parker or Rebecca Thomas which I cited, and a very early one by Marged Haycock, not secondary, mainstream academic literature on the topic.
What I have cited instead are mainstream, core secondary sources by the most respected scholars in the field: Rachel Bromwich, Thomas Charles-Edwards, J. E. Caerwyn Williams, Marged Haycock, and Patrick Sims-Williams, and so on, which use only. I could keep going on if you really thought it necessary. What I've just provided is a sample. Tipcake (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that we can agree that there's no problem with the 'Old North'. re WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I already suggested Old North (region), as that seems to be concise, accurate, and not already taken as the title of a page. None of the other pages on the disambiguation page are regions too. Let me know what you think about it. Tipcake (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
