Talk:Lough Neagh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] resolving the "British Isles" edit war

The edit war is really getting out of hand. Firstly, a bit of preaching to those involved in it: please stop using inflammatory edit summaries. Not everybody is, but one or two trouble-makers on both sides are; it's unacceptable.

More importantly, though: maybe it's time to have a formal discussion / poll on whether or not this phrase belongs in the article. If so, I recommend that invitations to participate be placed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography pages and other similar places so we can draw in outside editors, not just those emotionally invested in this page. Cheers, Doops | talk 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Doops, since you seem to be the most neutrally involved in this dispute would you mind organising that? I can't make a real claim on this as I've reverted some others and pointed them towards the British Isles article for disputes and I don't think anyone would consider me neutral in this matter currently. I'll willingly go along with a consensus though for the sake of stability. Ben W Bell talk 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, to say that it's the largest lake in Ireland is like saying that Mount Everest is the highest mountain in Nepal - perfectly true, but it hardly does it justice. The British Isles are a geographical entity, and using circumlocutions such as the United Kingdom (which is a state, not a geographical entity), is completely unencyclopedic. TharkunColl 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on "British Isles"

Hi. I'm setting up this poll to help us decide whether or not use of the phrase "British Isles" in this page is a good idea. Note that I am not an entirely neutral outsider; if you look further up this page you will see that I have expressed an opinion on this subject before. But Ben W Bell has paid me the compliment of suggesting that I would be percieved as being fair-minded; and that's certainly something I strive to be. So I've set a poll up below, along with my proposed wording for the questions. A very relevant page, which we should all read and bear in mind, is Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thanks, Doops | talk 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's little point in asking the squabblers in a sectarian edit war to take part in a poll, if the aim is to resolve the edit war. Each camp simply marshalls their own group of partisan POV-pushing editors, and the camp which bleats loudest appears to "win". Wikipedia attracts this sort of "editor" like a honeypot, and their antics seriously damage its reputation as a neutral objective encylopaedia.--feline1 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The hope is to draw in editors whose interest is geography, rather than those who have an emotional stake in this matter (one way or the other). Doops | talk 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
But we all already know what the objective, neutral geographic term is, both within inhabitants of the islands, and also around the world. And there's an entire wiki article about the controversy already. All the POV cliques on wikipedia have their own little homepages where they put out clarion calls for people to come and "lend a hand" and vote on things like this. The objective sensible people are not similary motivated, marshalled and organised. The result is a distorted biased POV sectarian poll.--feline1 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Feline1, you're the person who keeps asking to have the edit war settled; that's the hope of this discussion. You can't have your cake and eat it too: you can't care passionately about this issue AND simultaneously think your view is objective. You've chosen the former course; and that's perfectly fine -- but your views on what constitutes an 'objective, neutral geographic term' are therefore to be taken with a grain of salt (not ignored completely, just taken, as I say, cum grano salis). So of course are those of the partisans on the other side. You're right, polls like this do have an unfortunate tendency to attract zealots; but if we're lucky it will also attract some 'objective sensible people'. That's the hope.
Incidentally, note that while there is a wikipedia *article* about the term "British Isles", that doesn't really have any bearing on our problem here. What would solve our problem, if it existed, would be a *wikipedia guideline* in the WP:MOS governing use of "British Isles." Doops | talk 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Doops, you're talking relativism gone mad! This is an encyclodpedia, we deal in facts, not in appeasments to sectarian loons. There is one objective correct neutral-POV resolution. The zealots are wrong. I appreciate we live in a modern PC day and age where you can't even have an egg-and-spoon race unless everyone wins, but nonetheless, people such an An Munckin Manchbrothhair or whatever he's called, will only rest until the entirety of en.wikipedia.org is written in Gaeilge and the Lough Neagh article refers to a saltwater lake drenched red with the blood of Irish martyrs, which was forcibly compulsorily purchased from the Earl of Shaftesbury and returned to public ownership. You keep making the mistake of trying to deal with these people as if they are fair rational openminded folk who will listen to the majority point of view and accept it. Happy polling!--feline1 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily expect them to accept the majority point of view; but I do expect them, and you, and everybody on the wikipedia to be be 'fair, rational, and openminded'. Striving for those things is (putting on my moral high horse hat -- sorry for sounding so preachy) the duty of every editor. Cheers, Doops | talk 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to object to the draft poll wording below as artificially "leading" the respondent to either pick "British Isles" or to pick the (unreasonable to many) option to not say anything about the matter. Lumping all possible alternatives into "other" grossly skews the polls. All alternatives offered thus far should be specified. The most obvious one is "Britain and Ireland", neutral geographic terms (contrast "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland", or more historically "Great Britain and Ireland"). However, I have to also point out that this entire debate is very silly in the context of this particular article, since Ireland simply isn't relevant. All you need to say, to make the encyclopedically relevant point is that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Britain. Adding in Ireland is almost as superflous, and downright non-sequiturial, as saying that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Britain, Ireland and Luxembourg. Lough Neagh isn't in Ireland, so Ireland has no business being included, unless one is trying to make some poitical point about Ireland being part of the "British Isles". Let's just not go there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
100% agree up to the point where you say that Ireland is irrevelent. What island do you think Lough Neagh is on? "Britian" is a very ambigious term - is it, as it is often used, the United Kingdom or, as the OED defines, the island also commonly called Great Britain? Not to mention that many often mistakenly believe that Britain is synonymous with British Isles. --sony-youthpléigh 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the question is leading the participant to choose British Isles and leaving "something else" to be specified could end up in any number of suggestions that may not tally favourably. On the subject matter itself, i would prefer the term "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" be used than British Isles as it is an politically agreed upon neutral definition of the UK.--Weeman com (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll logistics

terms of reference: the Lough Neagh article only. Obviously this talk page can't fix all the problems of the world.

participants: any registered user. If nobody posts here besides the same handful of us who have been involved in this subject, User:Doops, who set it up, will consider the poll to be a failure.

overseen by: nobody yet. User:Doops set it up but, if it actually takes off, he'll look for somebody to oversee who is an admin and truly neutral on this subject.

open: NOT YET -- we're still waiting to see whether proposed questions (below) are acceptable

Proposed questions:

Question 1 [yes/no voting]: Is the fact that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in a certain group of islands a relevant fact? That is to say-- in an ideal world with no humans in it, is it worth mentioning?
Question 2 [choose your favorite option voting]: If the answer to the previous question is "yes", what should we call the group of islands?
  1. "the British Isles"
  2. something else (please specify)
  3. nothing (because our inability to agree on an answer to question two should override a 'yes' answer to question one)


[edit] initial straw poll on wording of the questions

comment here on the wording of these proposed questions -- if there are no objections in a few days we can start the poll itself.

[edit] the poll itself

not yet open -- please do not jump the gun

[edit] tying up loose ends, a few months later

Yeah, as can be seen, I never actually got up the energy to follow through on this plan. Sorry. Doops | talk 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" entry is pushing POV!

Why is there a link to a list of Irish lochs and loughs but not one to a list of British/UK lochs and loughs? Lough Neagh is British and in the United Kingdom NOT Ireland so if there is going to be a link to lists of other lochs and loughs it should be to British ones! YourPTR! 14:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh is British and in the United Kingdom NOT Ireland

NOT Ireland??? Please wait until you are sober to post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.217.76 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to Lakes in the United Kingdom to balance things out a bit, but I would also like the Irish link to be removed seeing as it is not an Irish lake it is a British one. YourPTR! 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Irish link isn't POV pushing seeing as the article covers all lakes and loughs in Ireland, as in the Island, and covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Ben W Bell talk 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location Map is pushing POV!

Why does the location map show Ireland? Lough Neagh is in the United Kingdom, yet most of the United Kingdom is not included, yet a foreign country, Ireland is. I highly doubt that a location map showing the position of an English lake would show a foreign country like France for example, so why is this? YourPTR! 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volume

Is Lough Neagh the largest lake in the UK by volume? I've looked here and on the Loch Ness article and can't find which is larger. I assume it's Loch Ness but am not sure. Maybe this could be clarified and added to the article. 212.140.167.99 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connecting rivers

The article states that the lake is fed by the Bann (all well and good) and this is the only river shown following into and out of the lake on the map. However, the map I have on my wall shows a second river entering(?) the lake at the south-west corner. Anyone know the name of this river? Thefuguestate 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're probably referring to the Blackwater. Another tributary (entering on the east) is the Main. Doops | talk 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of "largest lake" status

In the interest of staving off an edit war on this, I'd like to encourage people to discuss the description of the area for which this is the largest here. I'd firstly like to gently remind people that edit warring is counter-productive, and suggest that we leave it as it currently is until we can reach some sort of consensus. Please remember to sign your comments throughout this discussion, and remember that we can all work towards a great solution as a group with a common goal.

Reading through the talk page to date, I get the feeling that there are effectively two groups of editors in this dispute:

  • Those wishing to call the islands in question the "British Isles"; and
  • Those wishing to avoid that term.

I note that the British Isles article points out that the term is considered offensive by many in Ireland. The reference given goes as far as to say that it angers and enrages.

Arguing in the other direction, I note that some editors feel the current description is clumsy, as it mixes geographical features with political borders.

Does this seem like a fair summary so far?

I'd like to suggest that we keep discussion to the sections below. Unless there are any objections, I'll take a moderation role here, and try to refactor comments for improved readability. I will also be proposing the two major positions, and an alternative wording, but will leave you guys to discuss those suggestions on their merits. Beyond proposing solutions, refactoring comments, and pointing to relevant bits of wikipedia policy and related decisions, I will take a back seat here. Mark Chovain 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please place general comments and thoughts here. Don't forget to sign your comments

I personally feel that we should mention everything that's interesting. The largest lake in a country (nation, sovereign state, whatever you want to call it) is interesting; thus that it's the largest in the UK is relevant. The largest lake in a certain geographical region is interesting; thus we should of course mention that it's the largest in Ireland. But the British Isles, whether you like that term or not, is certainly also a valid geographic region (I don't think anybody disagrees with that), and (especially since Ireland is a smaller island than Great Britain) the fact that it's the largest lake in the British Isles is also an interesting fact. All three facts are interesting.

Now, it has been suggested that not all three facts are necessary, since (largest in Ireland) + (largest in UK) together imply (largest in British Isles). (This is actually not logically valid, considering the existence of the Isle of Man, which is part of the British Isles but not, technically, part of the UK; but I suppose that that's a minor cavil since the IOM is clearly too small to have a huge lake on it.) It can likewise be argued that (largest in the British Isles) automatically implies (largest in Ireland) and (largest in UK). But it's not the place of an encyclopedia to expect logical deductions from its readers, especially since some of them may not be familiar enough with these islands to immediately see these implications. Simply for the sake of clarity, it's important to mention all three facts, I feel.

That said, I suppose it's not essential to refer to the "British Isles" by that name. But I really don't think there's any valid alternative. I've looked at all the options mentioned in British Isles naming dispute and to my ears/eyes they all seem artificial. That's why the caveat footnote (saying something like "use of the term "British Isles" to refer to these islands is contentious; see BInd") would be the way to go.

One more general point which I'm too lazy to go back and integrate into my three previous paragraphs: I really don't think geographical terms (Ireland, Great Britain, British Isles) and political ones (UK, Northern Ireland) should be conflated in one sentence. Our readers may not be as familiar with this terminology as we are; and it's very important not to give them any grounds for confusion. That's why most of my proposed versions for this passage (over the months) have involved several sentences. Doops | talk 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think most of the editors involved in this article should be ashamed of themselves. They have no interest in contributing any interesting information to the article (which could cover all sorts of geographical information - hydrology, wildlife, human uses of the lake, history, etc etc) - all they ever do is use wikipedia as a place to conduct their asinine political sectarianism - the only changes they ever make to the article involve "British Isles"/"UK"/"Ireland". Clearly they blow WP's "Assume Good Faith" policy out of the water. Personally I'd ban the lot of them, or at the very least give them a jolly good smacked bottom.--feline1 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But let's keep to the topic at hand. We'll not get anywhere unless all editors assume good faith of others. Remember, questioning another editor's motives and accusing them of failing to assume good faith can easily be interpreted by those editors as a failure to assume good faith in itself. Let's discuss the article, not the editors. Mark Chovain 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But they've demonstrably shown bad faith over a period of months! That's why I put a request in for admin assistance! /sighs/--feline1 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:WQA is not for admin assistance. It's just a request for a volunteer to come and help resolve an outstanding issue - something that won't happen if the participants are not willing to work constructively. I strongly suggest helping work towards a solution rather than blaming people. Mark Chovain 07:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand your attitude. Either there's a problem/issue or there isn't. You can't solve a problem until you accept its there. If you don't think there's a problem, why are you here? If you do think there's a problem, why is my recognition of the problem part of the problem? I was the one who invited some assistance with the problem! Is that part of the problem? Are you part of the assistance or are you part of the problem? Is this beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch? ARRRRGH lol --feline1 11:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand my attitude? Let me explain. While someone as unwilling to work with others as you is involved in the discussion, the problems will never be solved. You can sort this out yourself. I volunteered my time here to offer my assistance, and instead was faced with this. Good luck. Mark Chovain 15:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
are there a lot of ballet dancers in your family...?--feline1 17:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Feline1, you really are out of line. Of course a mediator must take an open-minded and non-confrontational approach, espcially when he/she first arrives. Chovain deserves our thanks. Doops | talk 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet in your reply below to Mark's 3rd suggested way forward, you refer repeatedly to the POV of editors, alleging that they will fight against edits explicitly because they are pushing a particular POV. This is in direct contradiction of WP:FAITH, and if you did as Chovain suggested, you would withdraw your comments and apologise for impugning those editors. Personally though, I agree with you 100% - I do think several of these editors have been doing nothing but editing for POV, they are editing in bad faith, and they are the problem. However Chovain told me off for this, and by implication told you off too. I submit that we are right, Chovain is wrong, and he is part of the problem. Or at least he was, until he left.  :) --feline1 09:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I think those of us who have been involved in this page can be forgiven for having opinions about the source of the problem. But as somebody who's come in from outside, Chovain is trying to keep him/herself away from these as much as possible. Don't try to force him/her to take sides; that's not productive and not fair. Doops | talk 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Feline1 - please indent and threads your edits consistently, both as regards the contributions of others and between different halves of your own edits. Failure to do so looks like an attempt to make the whole discussion difficult to follow, resulting in editors who are orderly and/or academic leaving in frustration. PalestineRemembered 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring

I really don't see why this is continually discussed so much. Wikipedia policy is very clear: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. That Ireland belongs to a group of islands called the British Isles is an indisputable fact, and it's about time we put an end to all the nonsense and disruption that a handful of hugely biassed editors cause by trying to convince everyone otherwise. If Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles then the article should say so, and make no apology for it. Waggers 12:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(above comment refactored from below by me) Ok - Waggers seems to have a good point here, and I would like to hear from people who disagree with this point. Wikipedia certainly isn't censored to avoid offending groups of people who find a point offensive. While it does not appear to be officially defined by anyone independent of the dispute, it is used by the nation in which the lake is located, and it is extremely common usage. Thoughts? Mark Chovain 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is as you said a common phrase used to describe geographically the islands in question. Yes there is some dispute over its usage in the Republic of Ireland, but it is still used in the RoI and people do seem to recognise what it is intended to mean. Some don't like it true, but it is still a term used worldwide to the dislike of some. Wikipedia is meant to convey global facts, not the personal ideologies of a few. Is Lough Neagh in the British Isles? Undisputably yes. Anything for which that term is applicable should be labelled as such, disputes over its usage can take place on the British Isles or the naming dispute page. Ben W Bell talk 11:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


General comments. The phrase "British Isles" isn't a term that has been in continuous use for thousands of years. OED says first use in 1621 or so, and the writer of the book it appeared in felt it necessary to explain the term to his readers. Similar terms had been used by the Greeks and Romans two thousand years ago, but their terms covered somewhat different areas. In between the Romans and 1600 the term does not seem to have been used.
While the term is still very widely used, the "difficulty" with the term has been commented on in Oxford and Cambridge University press textbooks, by the Irish Govt, recognised by the British Govt, etc. In addition, many major publishers don't use the term any more, preferring "Great Britain and Ireland" or similar. All this can be demonstrated with reference so let's avoid POV accusations.
In Northern Ireland, use of the term (or not) is practically a badge of alliegance to one side or the other...unfortunate but mostly true.
In Ireland the term is used, but less often than before and often remarked upon if used.
In Britain the term is often misused to mean Great Britain, the UK, etc. but is generally not regarded as a troublesome term, although publishers have started to avoid it and/or comment on it.
Lough Neagh is in Northern Ireland, adding "sensitivity" to the whole topic. The Shannon, which is in Ireland and longer than any river in the UK, has suffered much less passionate debate on its page.
Northern Ireland is in the UK.
That's it for now. I'll add to this in a minute, but it's dinner time. Hughsheehy 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more comments. "British Isles", or translations in other languages, is widely used around the world. Dictionary definitions reflect this usage. However, again, the (increasingly) troublesome nature of the term is also quite widely commented on in history/geography texts and/or just avoided in atlases. Saying things like "anyone who dislikes the term is a lunatic fringe", or "anyone who uses the term is a filthy British imperialist" is just unhelpful. Better to stop both approaches.
Meantime, NI is "British" because it's in the UK, so Lough Neagh is an awkward case. Even if you recognise that "British Isles" is something to consider avoiding for most of Ireland, avoiding the term "British" in regard to NI may indeed be offensive to NI Unionists at the same time as using it may be offensive to NI Nationalists. Tricky. More thoughts again later. Hughsheehy 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed solutions

Feel free to add sub-sections here. Just copy and change the first line from one of mine, sign it, and start discussing.

[edit] Island of Ireland and United Kingdom (current version)

'British Isles' as has been explained to the point of exhaustion by myself and other Irish Wikipedians to no avail, alas, simply does not stand up to any criteria, geographical, historical, linguistic or political and yet there is a nefarious campaign by a small number of troublemakers here to insert it back into the article when no one is watching. I appreciate the efforts of Doops in trying to bring about a settlement. If only all users could be as impartial. The article as it stands states that the lake is situated in Northern Ireland. Check. It then tells us that it is the largest lake in the United Kingdom. That covers the political territory in which it lies. CHECK. It then tells us that it is the largest body of fresh water in the island of Ireland, being the geographical entity in which it lies. CHECK. That's all the bases covered. There simply is no need on God's earth to rub salt in wounds by stating that it lies in a 'British Isle'. My argument has nothing to do with the lake's position in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an incontrovertible fact which needs to be mentioned. I'm not arguing about Northern Ireland's constitutional status here yet I am labelled a 'POV nationalist loon'. The Irish government, too, it would seem are 'Nationalist Loons' as they too object to the term. But of course nothing must stand in the way of the 'Anglo-Saxon worldview', must it? An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But I want to point out the difference between the phrase "British Isle" and the phrase "British Isles". The former is not in common use; I've never heard anybody say that Ireland is "a British Isle." But the latter is; people frequently say that Ireland is "part of the British Isles". Although some Irish nationalists don't like "British Isles"; and although some unionits may actively enjoy saying it —— for most people worldwide, it is a purely geographical term, with no particular political implications. It's like French Toast, which is something entirely different from toast which is French. There really isn't any "rubbing salt in wounds". Doops | talk 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
An Muimhneach Machnamhach, your incessant sense of victimhood is of little help in reaching an objective wording of the article. --feline1 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
An Muimhneach Machnamhach - I'm coming to think there is no reason to give your particular POV any space whatsoever. It's un-encyclopedic to include any mention of your concerns (though I'd be prepared to link to the British Isles naming dispute in a footnote) and we're simply opening another door to turn articles into battlegrounds. PalestineRemembered 08:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

I just noticed that all the refs I can find (with this search) say something similar to "Lough Neagh [is] the largest lake in the British Isles". Since there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of discussion coming from those who oppose the use of the term "British Isles", perhaps the term British Isles may be used with a number of strong refs such as Encyclopaedia Britanica, Encarta, Craigavon Borough Council. If everyone else out there is refering to it as Great Britain, is there any reason to call it anything else? If those with an opposing view point want to have an effect on this discussion, I think now is the time. Mark Chovain 07:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - your research appears to prove that this is the "Majority View". If there is a "Minority View" (and I find it hard to believe it's significant), it can only have been something discovered recently, and cannot be applied to "a fact" which has probably been true for millions of years. These islands have been BI since the dawn of human history. PalestineRemembered 22:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. The phrase can't be more than a few thousand years old at the most, and probably much less. Doops | talk 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
But Doops, recorded (i.e. written) human history (as opposed to archaeology) *is* only a few thousand years old at the most! - not least in the British Isles, where the first inhabitants to leave any written history were the Romans - who basically used the term.--feline1 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The other side of the coin, which is rarely discussed, is that *not* using the term "British Isles" is probably offensive to the majority of the (65 million?) people living on the British Isles: not least because it implies that they are all imperialist loons whose use of the term is a deliberate act of political oppression. Most people find such an allegation in itself ridiculous and offensive.--feline1 13:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - the phrase is in very wide common use. There are a lot of comments I agree with here, but to sum up my own thoughts, all the alternatives are unnecessarily clumsy. Everyone instantly knows what British Isles means, and while the same is true of the alternatives, there is just no need for the verbosity!Traditional unionist 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - while I object to the way a lot of wikipedia articles misuse the term, the British Isles is a geographic term and it is perfectly valid to say that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles. Although there is a growing movement that the term is not longer acceptable (most recent is that the National Geographic magazine dropped the term in April 2008), it is not Wikipedia's place to change public opinion. While the article could be perfectly valid without using the term, until public consensus has changed, I see no reason to object to it's use as a geographical term, as it is not being used gratuiously (e.g. Hampshire states that Hampshire has a milder climate than most areas of the British Isles) --Bardcom (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The islands that make up ...

I personally think this adequately describes the geographical region that we want to describe without muddling political boundaries. Mark Chovain 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't really work. It tries to define a geographical construct (the BI) in terms of two political ones; but it doesn't motivate these gymnastics. I think it could confuse readers. And it's too patently a periphrasis -- it would make the intelligent but uninformed reader feel uncomfortable. He/she would feel that words are being twisted. Doops | talk 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover all relevant bases

  • it is by far the largest lake in its immediate geographical context, the island of Ireland, and indeed in the whole British Isles1. It is likewise the largest lake in its political context, the United Kingdom.

And then down with the footnotes:

1: The term British Isles is deprecated by some; see British Isles naming dispute

I proposed versions of this compromise last month and last week. But nobody ever likes it; unionist-POV editors remove the footnote; nationalist-POV editors won't accept anything whatever that mentions the British Isles. Doops | talk 02:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I come to think of it, I once bent over even farther to meet the nationalist-POV editors' concerns, writing something like: "...and indeed in the group of islands sometimes called the 'British Isles'." But it was all for naught. :)
Personally I think the footnote solution is the most appropriate. But I share Doops' view that those engaged in the edit war will not accept it. But then again, I don't accept *them* :)--feline1 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who wants "in the British Isles" and who doesn't?

This table lists all the (logged in) people who have previously commented on this TalkPage and the archive, along with their views (as best I understand them) on this topic. (I am ignoring non-logged editors and unsigned contributions, though some of these may have been from people who registered later).

Please add and update entries with your views and the arguments as you see them. Please check the Talk and the archives, I cannot guarantee I've accurately represented what went before, or even that I've picked up all the people who expressed an opinion. PRtalk 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles or not Brit Isles Reason given
An Muimhneach Machnamhach not British Isles 'British Isles' as has been explained to the point of exhaustion by myself and other Irish Wikipedians to no avail, alas, simply does not stand up to any criteria, geographical, historical, linguistic or political and yet there is a nefarious campaign by a small number of troublemakers here to insert it back into the article when no one is watching. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Derry Boi not British Isles BI is incorrect in political and geographical terms. And as already pointed out is historically incorrect as well.
bigpad not British Isles How can Ireland be considered the same political entity as UK/GB. Let's not resurrect that political question. Please leave it as it reads now: "the largest in Ireland" (fact) and third largest in western Europe" bigpad 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
sony-youth not British Isles Add me to the list of those "anti". This is something that needs wider attention, though. It affects and is faught over on a very large number of articles. Wider community attention from 3rd parties - honestly, everyone here too involved - is what is needed, not more bickering between ourselves. --sony-youthpléigh 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Chovain Neutral Offered mediation.
Angr Indifferent Whether or not its geographical unit also belongs to a larger geographical unit (an archipelago called the British Isles) is a different discussion that has nothing to do with Lough Neagh. Angr 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Robwingfield BI or not BI?? Commented only
Hughsheehy Not British Isles, or British Isles with a note. I see too many notoriously obnoxious editors participating in this table to expect any actual resolution. Call me when they (need I make a list) are not involved in this discussion any more. Also, the ignorance displayed on the composition and history of the "British Isles" from some editors is quite impressive.
Mal BI or not BI?? Commented only
Marquz BI or not BI?? Commented only
Kanchelskis BI or not BI?? Commented only
Doops British Isles I promise you that when I say "British Isles" I have no political agenda. I promise you that all over the world, people constantly use the phrase "British Isles" with no political agenda. It really is standard geographical usage. Doops 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
YourPTR! British Isles The island of Ireland is part of the British Isles that is a geographical fact, that is just the name for the islands and the best name in my opinion, nothin else works as a name for the islands and Lough Neagh is in Britain (UK) not Ireland (Republic).
Ben W Bell British Isles See British Isles article. Wikipedia is based on Verifiability, it is it's core tenant, and it is a verifiable fact that the majority of the world includes Ireland in the British Isles and that is the historical and modern meaning of it. Even the objection of some in Ireland to the term gives its meaning validity or it couldn't be an issue. Ben W Bell talk 11:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl British Isles the Irish government website itself uses British Isles some 43 times, so clearly the term is used in the Republic. User:TharkunColl 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
feline1 British Isles I believe the term British Isles is a neutral geographical one, and there's no sensible replacement. A small footnote to say that it is deprecated by Irish nationalists who regard it as an evil imperialist brute boot stamping on the face of humanity forever is quite adequate, in my opinion.
Waggers British Isles That Ireland belongs to a group of islands called the British Isles is an indisputable fact, and it's about time we put an end to all the nonsense and disruption that a handful of hugely biassed editors cause by trying to convince everyone otherwise. Waggers 12:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
PR British Isles "Anyone who *isn't* offended by the term (the vast majority) and who *does* understand it's correct intended meaning as neutral geographical one is just gonna think "huh? why doesn't it say British Isles?". PRtalk 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (with thanks to: User:feline1)
Traditional unionist British Isles This is clearly the term that best fits the needs of the article. It is a commonly used term, that cannot be mistaken for anywhere else.
Bazza British Isles ... simpler and more informative to say that it is the largest in the British Isles. Bazza 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
siarach British Isles "British Isles" ... has no modern ethnic or political connotations ... and even if it did this would have NO bearing on the fact that it comfortably predates the UK and ROI and that both are found within this archipelago. (edit:added comments below to what was copied/pasted above by PalestineRemembered)Its really pretty simple. British Isles is a term which pre-dates any existing polity. British Isles is the orthodox term used by most of the world - including those in Ireland. The campaign against the term is rooted in petty Irish nationalist POV and nothing more and is maintained by a small group of determined editors (some of whom are generally sound of thinking) who, on this topic at least, are incapable of differentiating fact from wishful thinking. Ireland can no more remove itself from the British Isles, which is a purely geographical term, than it could remove itself from Europe simply by leaving the EU. siarach 09:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay British Isles Ireland & Great Britain are the British Isles. It's a geographical term. GoodDay 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
MAG1 British Isles Geographical term despite assertions to the contrary, and the 'British bit is for the ancient Britons. It would nice to get on with editing the encyclopaedia rather than endlessly having to deal with people picking a fight.

MAG1 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Enter your name here BI or not BI?? Comment here

I would suggest that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the views of editors. If the consensus is not really clear (and remembering that this is not a vote), then we should likely offer the problem to one of the administrator boards, asking them to adjudge the matter and close the discussion on the quality of the arguments made. Put your best foot forwards (max 60 words? - link to a Talk essay if you need more). I will notify (if I can) each of the people above of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of having had this poll/consensus review (above). Even though it's 13-4 in favour of keeping British Isles, that consensus continues to be ignored. GoodDay 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
See why polling is not a substitute for discussion: "[S]traw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes." --sony-youthpléigh 19:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And if the suposeed 'straw poll' had went the other way? PS- when are you gonna have that Rfc? GoodDay 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Add me to the list of those "anti". This is something that needs wider attention, though. It affects and is faught over on a very large number of articles. Wider community attention from 3rd parties - honestly, everyone here too involved - is what is needed, not more bickering between ourselves. --sony-youthpléigh 08:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PRtalk 07:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)" Isn't PRtalk, who is for the term "British Isles", a very contentious issue (as seen from the article on the BI,) breaching that policy as he/she is not neutral? Those messages to various people could be regarded as canvassing for that POV. I'm sure they're well intentioned but lack credibility bigpad 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No PR has informed all editors currently involved in discussions that there is a discussion going on. If you notice he informed everyone, not just people representing a particular POV. If he sent messages to only pro or anti saying "this is happening, we must stop it, are you with me?" that would be different, but he didn't. The notice he/she sent out falls in the realms of Friendly Notice, and isn't canvassing. Ben W Bell talk 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Lough Neagh is in the British part of the island the name that the British (as well as most of the rest of the world) knows the islands by should be used. The fact is everyone apart from some in the Irish nationalist community call the British Isles the British Isles. While I have political asspirations for Ireland to be reunified with the rest of the nations in the British Isles (Ireland is only divided because 26 counties left the UK and the only way to get it united again is for those 26 counties to rejoin the Union), I fully recognize that the term at the moment is a geographical rather than a political one only. Some Irish peoples refusual to recognise that the islands proper name is the British Isles through pretending to misunderstand what the term means - once again it is a geographical rather than a political name - does not in my opinion diminish the proper name for the British Isles which is the British Isles. This lake is in Britain not Ireland and is Britain's largest and Ireland is just a sub division of British Isles. YourPTR! 11:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this page shouldn't decide whether or not Lough Neagh is in the British Isles, but should follow the British Isles article. Yes I agree that there are many who dislike the term British Isles, however the accepted definition of British Isles worldwide is discussed at great length on the British Isles article and talk page and is accepted to include Ireland. A few editors don't like this, and they are entitled to their opinion, but opinion doesn't trump verifiable fact. Remember Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not people's opinions. Want it to be in or not want it to be in is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's core tenant of Verifiability. Ben W Bell talk 11:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my comment above: I never said Lough Neagh isn't in the British Isles, I just said we can say what we're trying to say without using a potentially inflammatory term. I think the current wording--"the largest lake in the United Kingdom and in the island of Ireland as a whole"--says exactly what we're trying to say, and there's no good reason to change it to something else when we know that doing so will piss a bunch of people off. —Angr 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Ben, this is wholly different to the British Isles article where policy is to use the most common name for the title of the article. Here we can have a choice over what term to use. If the term "British Isles" is inflamitory to a section of our readers then An's suggestion, or simply "Britain and Ireland", are prefectly valid and acceptable alternative phrasings. Some examples:
  • "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Britain and Ireland, with a surface area of 383 km2 and a sizeable catchment of 4,453 km2, representing more than 40% of the land surface of Northern Ireland." - From a QUB School of Geography poster pubication
  • "Lough Neagh is the largest freshwater lake in Great Britain and Ireland. It is also the seventh largest lake in Europe." - BBC NI Learning
  • See this UK-published school atlas listing Lough Neagh as the largest lake in Great Britain and Ireland.
Is it truly inflamitory to a section of editors not to use the phrase or are they just trying to push a POV? The focus should be on our readers, not ourselves. --sony-youthpléigh 12:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it's impossible to tell, really, isn't it? Irish Nationalists may just be "pretending" to take offence at the term simply out of bleddy mindedness. Or they might genuinely find it wounding to the very fabric of their psyche. Likewise, the vast majority of other people living in the British Isles who are NOT Irish Nationalists might find it offensive to be told that they can't call it the British Isles because that offends people who find it offensive. Or on the other hand, they might not really care. It is easy to see how undue weight might be given to the issue by POV-pushers... the Lough Neagh article itself remains fact-lite and if a fraction of the effort spent on bickering about "British Isles" was spent on the content of the article, well! etc etc--feline1 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I accept British Isles, as it's only a geographic term. I've notice the lake lies entirely in Nortern Ireland (thus entirely in the UK). Wouldn't largest lake in the United Kingdom make everyone happy? afterall that statement is accurate. GoodDay 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay, "largest lake in the UK and Ireland" sounds absolutely fine.
feline1, it's well documented, see here for some sample references. My personal favourite is that, "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Surely the ammount of persistent trouble that an otherwise innoxious label causes throughout Wikipedia demonstrates that it is inflamitory to a certain section of our readers (unless you think that only crazy-eyed-bomber-Irish-republician-types are involved in Wikipedia.) --sony-youthpléigh 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Largest in the UK and Ireland (or British Isles for that matter). Anyways, the statement makes no sense - why? part of the island of Ireland is in the UK (as is Lough Neagh). GoodDay 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In otherwords it's either largest lake in the British Isles or the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland combined or Great Britain and Ireland or just United Kingdom. Certainly not United Kingdom and Ireland. GoodDay 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not a contradiction. It is the largest lake in the UK. It is the largest lake in Ireland. Therefore, it is the largest lake in the UK and Ireland.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning and maybe I'm missing something, but "Great Britain and Ireland" is fine too. (The lake is not in the Republic of Ireland.) British Islands and Ireland, too would be fine - the UK and the Republic of Ireland are not the British Isles (missing Isle of Man and Channel Islands). --sony-youthpléigh 15:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a contradiction: Northern Ireland is a part of the UK (just like England, Scotland and Wales are). If you wan't it to be purely geographic, then simply say largest lake in Ireland (the island itself), which it is. GoodDay 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And Northern Ireland is in Ireland too. Where is the contradiction? In any case, that's for your understanding. --sony-youthpléigh 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Newer edit is evern better - thanks! --sony-youthpléigh 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - the opening line is 'polticial' (pointing out N.Ireland is part of the UK) and the geographic line sticking to 'geographics' largest in Ireland. Surely, this is acceptable to all. GoodDay 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The comments by the four anti-British Isles editors are simply ignorant or (assuming they have read the prior arguments, outright determined nonsense). The term is completely justified (first and foremost) in terms of common, orthodox, use and (at least in terms of Wikipedia and WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability) much less important is the fact that the term comfortably predates either existing polity, is ethnically neutral and is simply a term relating to geography. Ireland was a part of the British Isles 2000 years ago. It was a part of the British Isles 1000 years ago. It is a part of the British isles today and will be a part of the archipelago in another 1000 years - regardless of what polities or ethnic groups might happen to inhabit said isles at that time. "British Isles" is a geographical term -regardless of how painful the connotations of the term "British" might be to some insecure Irishmen - this is the reality, get over it and stop wasting time on this ridiculous debate. An Siarach

Ah, but you see Siarach, while the islands were there 2000 years ago and 1000 years ago, you are wrong. 2000 years ago what was called the "Britanniae" included things that are not now in your "British Isles". 1000 years ago, the term "British Isles" (or anything like it" wasn't in use. The term "British Isles" comes from either the late 16th or early 17th century and was either invented or "recycled from the ancient" as part of a political project. "British Isles" isn't a neutral geographical description. Of course, you can call me "simply ignorant" again, or you can read the history. Hughsheehy 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I too prefer British Isles, I've made my recent 'compromise' edit, in hopes of ending this dispute. So far, it holding. GoodDay 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
In any sensible dispute i will try and encourage a compromise. In a dispute which is completely the result of one side pushing its wishful thinking, regardless of how emphatically orthodox opinion is against them, i do not. A compromise on this page is a concession to a small group of users who are determined to push a very, very petty nationalist POV and quite frankly no wikipedia article should be allowed to put forward a POV simply because of determined bullying by a clique of determinded editors. If British Isles were truly an invalid term or in any way innapropriate i would be the first to argue against it - Ireland is a brother country to my own and due to my own ethnic background i have more than enough reasons to sympathise with any valid argument in favour of an Irish POV - but the argument against the term isnt simply isnt valid and flies in the face of fact and any rational, neutral appraisal of the issue. siarach 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Do as you wish, my compromise isn't written in stone. I was just trying to help." GoodDay 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of editing the article itself - arguments and edit wars, such as this one, which have one side doggedly - and often successfully - pushing a POV in various other articles have left me without the will to bother. I hope that facts and sound, netural, rational thinking may come to dominate on wikipedia but in my experience many who espouse a POV are far too successful across the project. siarach 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"How can Ireland be considered the same political entity as UK/GB. Let's not resurrect that political question. Please leave it as it reads now: "the largest in Ireland" (fact) and third largest in western Europe"" Has anybody (other than you) suggested that this is how the term is understood? How can the Republic of Ireland be considered the same political entity as Spain? After all both form parts of Europe - to avoid any possibility of confusion presumably youl want to see the Republic divorced from this geographical entity as well? An Siarach

The consensus is 13 to 4 infavour of British Isles. Therefore, I've followed this clear consensus, largest lake in the British Isles. GoodDay 21:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
An Siarach, "Has anybody (other than you) suggested that this is how the term is understood?" - Yes, to take an example from WP, see Talk:River Shannon:
User A: Regarding the Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles ... according to "Longest rivers in the United Kingdom", the Severn is longer.
User B: The Shannon is not in the United Kingdom, which is a different thing from the British Isles. See British Isles (terminology).
User A: I don't quite follow.
These kind of errors are not limited to Wikipedia. I can't remember the book right now but there is a diplomatic story about Gorbachev on a state visit to the Republic in the '80s. He remarked how he was surprised not to be met by the "Queen". Why? Because Ireland is one of the British Isles. All the dictionaries and encyclopedia in the world can define and describe the British Isles in as much detail as they like. People hear "British", they think "UK".
In any case, leaving aside pushing Irish-nationalist POV. I have never hear any valid reason for why the term has to be used when plenty other turns of phrase express the same meaning without inflaming anybody, least of all our readers. --sony-youthpléigh 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it is the job of Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to point out the error that the "British" in "British Isles" is specific to the UK, because it isn't. TharkunColl 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As too is the job of Britannica, OED, etc. The question was, despite this, does the error still persist. The answer: yes. --sony-youthpléigh 01:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
British Isles covers Ireland; let's please follow the consensus, shall we? Let's drop this Irish nationalist PoV, it's getting annoying. GoodDay 14:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
First, Goodday, I would suggest that you assume good faith. Second, please read exactly what consensus means and how it differs from staw polls (remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy). Did you engage in any of the following consensus-building procedures (which are policy): "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with theirs." or "Find a reasonable (if temporaty) compromise." There is a dispute here on involving two POVs, the issue relatess to: undue weight, fairness of tone, local bias, weasel words, language, biased writing, systematic biss, amond many others. Please try to resolve disputes, rather than end them.
Unless, you can provide a reference that proves that Lough Neagh is not in Ireland, of course! --sony-youthpléigh 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you stop going against consensus, your edits might be viewed as disruptive. Ireland is a part of the British Isles, therefore, there's no need to mention Ireland - If the lake is the largesst in the British Isles, it's obviously the largest in Ireland. Sorry about the 'nationalisht PoV' suggestion, but when someone goes against consensus, it gives that impression. GoodDay 15:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Gooday, I have already ask you to engage in consensus building and pointed you towards relevent policy as per what is meant by consensus and how it differs from polling. For a more specific guidance on the dangers of interpreting polls in such a way, please see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please pay particular attention to the section that expains why "Polling discourages consensus." Remember: "[S]traw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes."
Per policy on consensus building, I have made a change to the article in an attempt to integrate your ideas with mine. If this is unacceptable to you, you are by all means welcome to make further changes. I would recommend, however, that you begin to discuss matters here instead, in order to reach an agreement.
Finally, as per Wikipedia:Etiquette, please don't label people or their edits. --sony-youthpléigh 13:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So much for consensus. And please, don't lecture me on Wikipedia: Etiquette, thank you. GoodDay 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Good luck folks with this article. The political atmosphere of it stinks, big time. Consider me turned off & tuning out. GoodDay 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied on you talk - I agree with your sentiment. --sony-youthpléigh 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
lol, brainwrong "policies" like "polling is no substitute for consensus" and "wikipedia is not a democracy" are what wikipedia is all about, innit? lol OK so we can't take polls, but we must measure the consensus by counting the the weight of expressed opinions. But we can't allow decisions to be made simply on the basis of a majority of people agreeing with something. Or sthg. WTF??! ...... as another minor point a few people have forgotten about - Lough Neagh is not "solely within the UK" by any sensible geographical point of view, as its catchment area extends across the border into the Republic.--feline1 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the catchment area, I've edited it in with percentages. Brain dead or not this argument - in every article where it crops up - is exhausting, I'd be in favour of a wide RfC on the matter (way beyond those currently involved), ArbCom or going to a sub-page somewhere and sorting it out between ourselves. What say you feline? --sony-youthpléigh 17:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, ArbCom, either that or a strict programme of eugenics :) --feline1 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Smiley or no smiley, suggestions of using eugenics to sort out "political" differences are not in good taste. Hughsheehy 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well spides and bigots are seldom in "good taste" either, and I would love to be able to "sort them out" in an entirely apolitical way, giving parity of discrimination to the whole sorry lot of 'em. Perhaps Lough Neagh would make a pleasing receptical for them all, in fact? What's that, they wouldn't be able to breathe...? Well, they could try, Major, they could try...--feline1 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All I know is I don't like the way it is at the moment. That is, I don't like the use of "Great Britain and Ireland" here. I know the term is being used collectively, but a reader, unfamiliar with its collective use could very easily take that sentence to mean that Lough Neagh is in Great Britain, which it isn't. I think there are contexts in which the use of "Great Britain and Ireland" is useful, but this isn't one of them, imho. The sentence should be unambiguous without the need to follow the link. My vote would be for leaving it as it was before: "LN is by far the largest lake in the UK and in the island of Ireland as a whole." Nuclare 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine too. But I would suggest "the UK or Ireland" as the 'and' in your phrasings could be read as conflating the two. --sony-youthpléigh 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"...largest lake in Great Britain or Ireland"? It's geographical, leaves politics out of it. Hughsheehy 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Most certainly not UK and island of Ireland, as part of the island of Ireland is in the UK. GoodDay 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"...largest lake in Ireland or Great Britain"? It's geographical...leaves politics out of it..but might be awkward for NI Unionists.... Hughsheehy 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
But Lough Neagh isn't in Great Britain. Nuclare 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've cooked up an alternative wording -- not sure what anyone will think of this departure, but, here goes nothing!: "LN is by far the largest lake in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is also the largest lake on the island of Ireland and ranks among the forty largest lakes of Europe." Voila. If nothing else, that at least keeps the political and the geographic separate, since there have been objections to their mixing. Personally, I think the political should be included--why shouldn't we state that it's the largest lake in it's (political) country?--but this phrasing at least puts the political with the political and the geographic with the geographic. This keeps 'British Isles' out, but it also forefronts NI as part of the U.K. Will that, by some miracle!, make anyone happy?? :-)) Nuclare 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> That's pretty good. Much better than what's there now where - as you point out - Lough Neagh isn't in Great Britain in the first place. That was the same idea I had and the reason to say "Ireland or Great Britain" instead of "Great Britain or Ireland" or even any combination of "Great Britain and Ireland" or "Ireland and Great Britain". Hughsheehy 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would "keeping British Isles out of it" be a good thing?!? Anyone who *isn't* offended by the term (the vast majority) and who *does* understand it's correct intended meaning as neutral geographical one is just gonna think "huh? why doesn't it say British Isles?". It's like refusing to use the word "penis" in that article because someone's Aunt Ermintrude might find it offensive.--feline1 10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So, British Isles is to Lough Neagh what penis is to penis? Interesting attempt at an analogy, but not very convincing. I doubt most people miss the phrase BI here. Words like 'United Kingdom' and 'Ireland' are far more common and used in modernity than BI. Most people might not be raging in offense at BI, but neither do they weep when it's absent. I'd be curious to see your statistics on how many people do or don't like the term and how many miss it when it's absent. Nuclare 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well OK then, if the sexual intercourse article wasn't allow to include the word penis because someone's Aunty Mabel found it offensive so instead we had this huge argument of "well we could call it 'the male sexual organ'" but then someone piped up "b-b-but it's also used for urination!' and so we had to have "the organ male organ for sexual intercourse and micturation" and ARRRRGh. Anyways, as for how many people find the term offensive or not, as I have stated many times before, surely the only surefire was is to wire up every inhabitant of the British Isles to a huge Angstometer™ and say words like "British Isles", "potato famine" and "Miners' Strike" to them and measure the fluid volume of tears they cry and then, knowing the specific heat capacity of water, we can calculate how many cubic centimeters of tears would be boiled by what magnitude of righteous anger and thus the whole thing would be put on a scientific basis.--feline1 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I sense a double standard. There's not nearly as much complaining at Irish Sea as there is here. Let's stop walzing around the facts and just put in British Isles. Isn't Wikipedia against having politics influencing the articles? Come on folks, let's end this. GoodDay 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well back in the day, I did add some 'hilarious' bits to the Irish Sea article about how the names was considered offensive by Welsh people and should not be taken to imply Irish sovereignty over the waters, etc etc, but due to WP:POINT, it had to be removed :) --feline1 14:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to split this between two talk pages, but TharkunColl ("pro-British Isles") brought a point on Talk:Ireland relating to Hiberno-English and national varieties of English. Wikipedia guidelines on national varieties of English are that, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. ... Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." He seem pretty OK with that for Ireland-related articles, but worries "British Isles" being edited out from other contexts. I've posted some proposals on that page. Could people here take a look.
Feliine, I saw your comments on Irish Sea and though catty about it, I did think that they should have be added to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, if only that page still existed. As a note, in Irish- and Manx-language the names translate as Manx Sea, and that phrase is not altogether unheard of in English. --sony-youthpléigh 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The deleted nonsense page was deleted?!? My god, what's gone WRONG with the world?! :-O --feline1 14:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Are we gonna restore British Isles or shall we call for the renaming of Irish Sea. Let's end this 'double standard'. GoodDay 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I, personally, would be all for renaming the "Irish" sea as the Manx Sea, or as Seabhcán suggested before, the Unfortunately Narrow Sea, but I can't find any guideline or policy to support that. Neither can I find anything on WP:DOUBLESTANDARD. --sony-youthpléigh 15:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars...? :)--feline1 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We were already once very well represented there over whether it is an English or and Irish breakfast! If that could be resolved amicably (kind of), surely we can get past this one. --sony-youthpléigh 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the core of this dispute is to not offend; I suggest we rename Irish Sea as Irish-British Sea and English Channel as French-British Channel. GoodDay 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should rename Celtic Sea as Anglo-Celtic Sea as well. And German Bight as Bight of the North Sea. TharkunColl 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Only if Ireland can be renamed Can't Someone Feel our Pain?? and England be renamed You B*stards!!!. Perhaps Germany could be renamed Who Won the Bloody War ANYWAYS?!?--feline1 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm neither pro-British or pro-Irish. Keeping British Isles here is being NPOV; Omitting it is Irish PoV. GoodDay 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly folks, I'm still amazed as to how a 'small minority' here controls this article -simply amazed-. GoodDay 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Take it to the National Geographic Society or the countless references to the fact that this term is not what is commonly used Ireland. Then go to WP:NPOV to see why it is important and take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, if you still can't keep to a consensus. --sony-youthpléigh 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Consensus here is to keep British Isles. Again, I'm simply 'amazed, impressed, in awe, etc' - as to how the -Irish PoV pushers- control these British/Irish related articles- Absolutely incredible. My hat's off to all of you. GoodDay 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As I ate my lunch today, the weather forecaster on BBC News 24 talked about a weather front moving "across the British Isles". However I could tell by the evil twinkle in his eyes that he silently added "and I'm glad it's gonna soak all your paddy b*stards first before it hits us". I felt ashamed. How long must this oppresion continue?--feline1 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm opening a discussion at Ireland, to have the entry Irish Sea changed to Irish-British Sea or Manx Sea. Afterall, we don't want to offend the British (particularly the Welsh) do we? GoodDay 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm also making a proposal at British Isles, for that article description to be 'historical only' in nature. GoodDay 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think the only discussion that really needs to be opened at this point is a discussion of the finer points of making analogies. We're running 0 for 3 here today. Making analogies that are actually analogous would be a start. Being next to something (Britain in relation to the Irish Sea) is not analogous to being described as part of something (Ireland in relation to the "British Isles"). Nuclare 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The term British Isles (in Greek and Latin) predated the British state by 2000 years at least. If you wish to get annoyed at something, then in my opinion you should get annoyed at the appropriation of the Celtic-derived word "British" by the entity that came to call itself the British state. Please feel free to launch a "reclaim the word British" campaign to show those pesky English just where they can shove it. TharkunColl 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"The term British Isles (in Greek and Latin) predated the British state by 2000 years at least." - This is the English-language Wikipedia, Thark - though, thankfully, not the English Wikipedia (though, I believe you mistake it sometimes to be). As for "reclaim the word British" - nah! you're welcome to it. Never did much for me. --sony-youthpléigh 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, I don't really want it myself very much. You keep it, please - it's Celtic, so it's yours. TharkunColl 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, no. It's yours. You're welcome to keep it. Seriously. Keep it. Here's some backgrounder:
"Geographers may have formed the habit of referring to the archipelago consisting of Britain and Ireland as the Britannic isles, but there never had been a historical myth linking the islands. Medieval historians, such as the twelfth-century Geoffrey of Monmouth, had developed the idea that Britain (i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales) had first been settled by Trojan refugees fleeing after the capture and destruction of their city by the Greeks. The founding monarch - Brutus - had then divided up the island between his three sons, the eldest (Albion) inheriting England and the younger sons Scotland and Wales. This permitted English antiquarians to claim a superiority for the English nation and the English Crown. In the fourteenth century the Scots developed their own counter-myth which acknowledged that Trojans had first occupied England and Wales, but asserted that Scotland had been occupied by colonists from Greece - the conquerors of Troy. Faced by such Scottish counter-myths and by the scepticism bred of humanist scholarship, few people took any of these historical claims seriously by 1600. English claims that kings of Scotland had regularly recognized the feudal suzerainty of the English Crown had to be abandoned in 1603 when the Scottish royal house inherited the English Crown. But the fact is that many of the inhabitants of Britain - especially intellectuals around the royal Courts - had for centuries conceptualized a relationship which bound them together into a common history. There was no historical myths binding Ireland into the story. The term 'Britain' was widely understood and it excluded Ireland; there was no geopolitical term binding together the archipelago." -John Morrill, 1996, The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain, Oxford University Press: Oxford
Understand? It's all yours. And you're welcome to it. --sony-youthpléigh 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been a few years since I've read Geoffrey, though I definitely seem to remember that Ireland was conquered by King Arthur. Geoffrey makes it clear that to him, the only true British are the Welsh. It was the Irish-descended Stuarts who appropriated the term British and applied it to all their subjects. TharkunColl 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't take that spiel from pléigh very seriously either. The Welsh are the most different (linguistically, culturally and I believe genetically) from all the other inhabitants of "whatever we call it". But there's most certainly "historic links" with Ireland, eg St Patrick was Welsh, kidnapped by slavers. At least one Scottish clan straddled the Irish Sea. Lots and lots and lots of "English" over there, always have been (that's one of the things they keep telling us!). I can't quite understand where the soap-boxing comes from, nor where it belongs. We don't quote from race-hate sites, I'm not sure we should be pandering to those who dabble in this stuff. PRtalk 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Various King Williams were French and Dutch, many Hugenots lived in England, many Irish lived in England, the Pilgrim fathers all moved from England to Leiden, France and Scotland were allies for years, St.Patrick was Roman British and became a priest in France before returning to Ireland, most of England was ruled by Danes at various times, England ruled half of France at various stages, the Kings & Queens of the UK were/are Germans and Greeks. Half of the population of the western Isles are probably viking descendants, and half of Newcastle populated by Norwegians. Everywhere is mixed with everywhere else. So what? As for accusations that Sony is dabbling in race-hate stuff, that's an outrageous suggestion. Hughsheehy 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This generosity stuff is great, but it doesn't settle the British Isles inclusion/exclusion dispute. GoodDay 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> So, if I understand correctly, Thark doesn't want the term "British" or "Britain" applied to anything English. This is a novel idea. Can I therefore suggest he go and start bringing this point of view to the British and English WP pages. I might even monitor his progress to see how he gets on. In the meantime, Thark is again putting forward the debunked idea that "British Isles" has continuously been the common name of the islands since antiquity, a fact he knows not to be true. Tsk tsk tsk. As for GoodDay, he needs to go find reference to support his idea that the term "Irish Sea" is offensive to the Welsh/Manx/English and that other names are used. Good luck to him. My only point of view on the name of the "Irish Sea" is best represented by a quote from Gone with the Wind: "Frankly my dear...". Hughsheehy 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, Tharky's gotta be just pulling our leg. British absolutly applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In fact, I was just arguing (days earlier) that British should be used to describe people from the United Kingdom. Example - comedian Bill Connolly is called Scottish, where's I believe he should be called British (I lost the argument - it was settled before I fought it). GoodDay 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I know too little about Scottish themes to comment on Bill Connolly, but perhaps you should try the term "UKish". That way all uncertainty/confusion is eliminated and you can be unambiguously accurate. Meantime, if we are to assume good faith, we should not assume you and Thark are trying to be funny and disrupting WP to prove a point and should assume therefore that you are both being serious. Hughsheehy 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I confess I have a silly side, however I'm serious about these discussion. Sony has recommend at Ireland to use British-Irish Isles in place of British Isles. I support his idea there and here, if it's adopted here? we should keep it wiki-linked to British Isles though (as there's currently, no Britisih-Irish Isles article). GoodDay 15:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I would urge you all to consider renaming the British Isles Naming Dispute article to British and Irish Isles Naming Dispute, before several million weep themselves to death in sorrow.--feline1 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop with this sarcasm, it's not helping. Give Sony's proposal a chance. GoodDay 15:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have read how "wikipedia is not a democracy" - it's opaque manadarin-like mantras do not change the fact that wikipedia insists we seek "consensus" but does not appear to offer a metric for assessing that "consensus". How do we know if consensus has been achieved? How do we measure it? Surely we must count and tot up editor's expressed opinions? Is this not "voting"? Do we place more weight on certain expressed opinions because they are "better" than others? Who decides this? If three smart editors agree and have good opinions, whilst 30 idiot editors disagree with them, is this consensus? These are serious questions.--feline1 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British and Oirish Large Landmasses Off the Continental Koast in the Sea

Or BOLLOCKS for short, sounds like a good name to adopt for the British Isles, and has the advantage of not sounding in the slightest bit contrived, unlike all the other alternatives proposed. TharkunColl 13:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait sec, this is getting out of control. See above for 'suggestion' of using British-Irish Isles, I've decided to support it. GoodDay 15:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
As on other pages, TharkunColl and GoodDay are apparently engaging in disruptive trolling. Hughsheehy 15:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't paint everyone with the same brush Hughie. I'm fairly new to these 'British/Irish' topics. My intentions are good; you should assume 'good faith'. GoodDay 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
And for my part, it was merely intended to be humurous. TharkunColl 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps they're satirising the disruptive trolling which passes for one of Wikipedia's Lamest Edit Wars's? Have you a BETTER suggestion for ending the edit war? I know I put forward the notion of eugenics, but it did not appear to meet with consensus approval?--feline1 15:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Accept the compromise British-Irish Isles. GoodDay 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You'll never get Plaid Cymru and the SNP going for that. Oh, and stop oppressing the Cornish while you're at it! --feline1 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see trouble ahead over whether it should be B.O.L.L.O.C.K.S. or BOLLOCKS. --sony-youthpléigh 19:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British-Irish Isles

Howabout adopting Sony's idea, everyone? It can be put into the article in this form British-Irish Isles, let's give it a chance. GoodDay 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - it's bad enough keeping other people's neologisms out of the project, let alone making up a new one ourselves. Furthermore, I cannot see the point of having it here, where we have a pretty good consensus (except we're black-mailed into not operating it). PRtalk 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Neologism, yes, but neologisms per se are not against Wiki policy. There's guidance on where and when to use them. It's well defined in suitably secondary sources and in-use (although limited) as a term to move beyond just the sort of impasse that we are experiencing here. My suggestion on Talk:Ireland explain in more detail. --sony-youthpléigh 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - the article needs stability, above all. GoodDay 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - while normally I'd be against neologism, this one is well defined and dealt with in secondary sources (a requirement to use neologisms on WP) and is intended to get beyond just the kind of impasse we are experiencing here. --sony-youthpléigh 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see an impasse. I see a consensus, with a large majority bending over backwards not to steam-roller the minority. However, there comes a point where cooperative people are simply being black-mailed away from the one solution that is acceptable to most editors. And this accepted solution is bound to be far more acceptable than any other option - this new suggestion being only one of a range of possibilities. PRtalk 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, I know there are sources for it, but it still seems way too 'we're trying really hard here!'/'makey-up name' to me. I know this probably won't cut it with the BI-ers, but I'm going to throw out another wording just for the heck of it: "With an area of 392 square kilometres (151 square miles), it is by far the largest lake in the United Kingdom. It is also the largest lake on the island of Ireland and ranks among the forty largest lakes of Europe." The only things missing from this that is included in BI are the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, but, in terms of notability in relation to a lake not in those locations, I don't see that as a significant loss. This wording ranks LN in relation to its country, with its island, with its continent and uses modern, common, unambiguous names to do it. Its wording is also only a half sentence longer than saying BI. Sooo...other than BI being a sacred phrase that *must* appear on all Irish pages, what's wrong with this? ('What's wrong with this?' is a sincere question by the way.) Nuclare 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "British-Irish Isles" is vanishingly rare. We could probably find more refs to "Atlantic Archipelago". Again, it's not up to us to start defining new terms or creating new facts. Either we use a description like Nuclare proposes or we say "British Isles" and tag it with a footnote or link to the fact (indisputable, please no POV accusations) that it is not universally used or acceptable. Hughsheehy 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - it is not up to us to create terms for items to avoid offending a few people, this is an encyclopaedia not the United Nations. Like it or not the British Isles is the common term, and lest tongue stumbling phrase, to be used for what we are looking for. The fact that some people misunderstand what the term actually means and stands for isn't our concern, only that it is a valid term used worldwide and appropriate to the discussion. We don't rename the article on sushi, or refer to sushi in different ways because a lot of people mistakenly think it means raw fish. If they don't clearly understand the term it is linked, they can read what it actually means and all the details that go with it. This article isn't the place to mention the dispute over the name or the dislike of the term by some, it is an article on a lough and it isn't appropriate here. Any discussion or mention of its acceptability belongs elsewhere, it's not appropriate to mention it in every article the name is used. Ben W Bell talk 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - British Isles is the correct, orthodox, internationally used term which AND (not that this is anywhere near as significant) has been accepted by wikipedia consensus on this vary page. There is no good reason to replace it with a term simply to appease petty Irish nationalists who would prefer to promote their own wishful thinking above factual/historical/geographical reality. siarach 08:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


OK, this ain't going down, I can see that - in defense, though, I'll just re-post here what I posted on Talk:Ireland, as I think it is acceptable under the guidelines for neologisms. If consensus is still anti then fair enough. --sony-youthpléigh 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Ireland;

For Ireland related articles, how about using British-Irish Isles. This is a neologism but, I think, fits as per guidelines for neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that Wiktionary is not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)"

This is a defined term, for example see British Civilization: A Student's Dictionary:

British-Irish Isles, the (geography) see BRITISH ISLES

British Isles, the (geography) A geographical (not political or CONSTITUTIONAL) term for ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES, and IRELAND (including the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND), together with all offshore islands. A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

For other secondary sources about the term, and that recommend it, see:

--sony-youthpléigh 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(As also seen in Northern Ireland.) --sony-youthpléigh 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That dictionary entry just seems to my mind to support why British Isles should be used. It states for British-Irish Isles to see British Isles, implying that British Isles carries more weight and is more accurate. It also emphasises that it is a geographic term. Yes it states a more accurate term is "British-Irish Isles", but that is in their opinion and they state it's more politically acceptable but have clearly stated it is a geographic term. Since we're discussing geography here it seems to support more clearly the use of the term British Isles in my eyes. Plus it is still a neologism that isnt' even very widely used. Which should we use? A widely used, worldwide term that is geographical, or a very rarely used term that is stated as preferable from a politcal standpoint? Ben W Bell talk 13:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the above smack of highly selective reading? Ben, how can you simultaneously say that we should use "British Isles" because a dictionary implies (in your view) that the term carries more weight and is more accurate, while managing to discount the fact that the same dictionary says that the term is not politically acceptable. Ehm...... Hughsheehy 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There are, of course, many terms in the English language that are "not poliically acceptable" (as defined by those who have the authority to do so, whoever they might be). And I'm not just thinking of really obvious ones such as the n-word, but much more innocent ones such as milkman (sexist), girl (sexist), or Oriental (racist). Whilst I wouldn't normally use "nigger" in everyday speech (except perhaps in an ironic sense), I do most certainly use the last three, as do most people. Sometimes political correctness - however well-intentioned - really can go too far, and becomes self-defeating as people rebel against being told what to say, and what not to say. TharkunColl 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Whilst I wouldn't normally use 'nigger' in everyday speech (except perhaps in an ironic sense) ..." - when's that?? when you're speaking to your homies from the classics department!? But, really, the phrases "political correctness" should really be added to a list of Godwin's Law type arguments. --sony-youthpléigh 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Apart from politico-linguistic discussions such as this, or if I was quoting someone else, I would only really use the word "nigger" when speaking to close friends of mine who happened to be members of that particular ethnic persuasion, in a spirit of friendly banter. TharkunColl 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
That goodness, I was imagining conversations peppered with studded phrases of the kind, "Nigga' pleeze! Doz' Trojans were bad-ass mo'foes!" --sony-youthpléigh 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Let the dictionary speak for itself, Ben. "A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles." --sony-youthpléigh 14:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes the dictionary does say that, however the term just isn't widely used. Simple searches will tell you that. You are proposing removing a term that is known worldwide, and replacing it by one that isn't widely used and recognised to appease an absract number who have decided they don't like it. That's just not Wikipedia's job. Even though it has been shown that some people in Ireland don't like the term British Isles (though no numbers have ever been shown to support just how much it's disliked, it could be by just a few), it has also been shown that it is still indeed used in Ireland and recognised for it's meaning as including Ireland (otherwise people wouldn't have grounds to dislike the term). Ben W Bell talk 20:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but the issue certainly is real and has been reported on widely, as you know. Neither does it concern only Irish people, as you know again, but is an issue raised by British writers also - hence the term "British-Irish Isles" itself, included in a London-published dictionary by Routeledge no less. Of all the alternatives, "British-Irish" is probably the most 'British-leaning' politically as it maintains an entwined relationship between the peoples of these islands and 'whole-view' on geography of them.
It is a minority phrase, for sure, but given the current situation, it's one that I feel might move us past this recurrent debacle on a limited number of articles. (Another alternative is being discussed on User_user:TharkunColl's.) --sony-youthpléigh 20:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I cannot agree to using such a minority and little used term just to avoid causing some offense to an unknown number of people. I will as always abide by consensus whatever it ends up as. I am however only one person, and a person who doesn't live in Ireland or even the British Isles any longer. If the warring cannot come to some consensus I would agree to leaving the term out completely, even though it has been shown to be a geographic term, just for some stability of the article, though it is not my preferred solution. Ben W Bell talk 22:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about not living in UK or Ireland anymore (neither do I at the moment either, but that will change in a week). I've no doubt in the faith of other in meaning it as just a geographic term - the shock shown by one "side" here that there could be objection to it by any reasonable person demonstrates that - but the problems are substantiated by literature. I've no issue with alternative phrasings (such as "largest lake in the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland" etc.) which express the same thing. --sony-youthpléigh 23:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this term "Ireland" is potentionally offensive, as it could easily be confusing and taken to imply that the Republic of Ireland has political control over the whole island. Perhaps we should change it to "Islands to the West of Britain" instead? Or "Ireland-NornIrond"? --feline1 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh Yes..feline might be right, much as the term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" should be changed because it might make people think that everything north of a Galway-Dublin line was in the UK. Let's propose to change the name of the UK. Still silly season, despite Thark's comparative recent quiet.
Meantime, @BenWBell...I also find that "British-Irish" is an odd and rare term. However, despite everything else, the problems with "British Isles" are very well referenced. These references meet every possible test for verifiability on WP. These references appear in books about the subject and are by highly respected publishing houses. Repeatedly asserting (without any supporting data) that these problems are "minority" or "unknown number of people" (and apparently implying that is a minority) or anything else is to depend on your personal knowledge as the reference. Hughsheehy 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just mystified why we're not editing to consensus. British Isles far, far preferred over all others put together. PRtalk 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
@PR - because we're aiming for a neutral point of view, not a majority view.
I have yet to have it explained to me how wikipedia determines "consensus" without totting up expressed views: in short, the aphorism "wikipedia is not a democracy" is bonkers. (Well, to be fair: wikipedia does NOT proceed by consensus, but by the tenacity of POV-pushing nutbags exhausting the will to live of those holding a Neutral Point of View. Cos the fact is that, by definition, someone with a "neutral" position on something is not as interested and motivated about it as a POV-pushing loon, and thus will seldom both to stay the course in an edit war, leading wikipedia to converge asymptopically to drivel as seen on this talk page.--feline1 23:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
@feline1, the idea of reaching consensus is to discuss material that should be on the articles and to sort out a sensible representation of the verifiable facts, not to exchange insults and accusations. Sony, for one, has referred you to pages of references about the term "British Isles". You, on the other hand, simply persistently accuse people of being "Irish Nationalist loons", of "pushing a sectarian POV", of acting as an organised gang to push a POV, etc., etc.,etc. You advocate violence (eugenics, bottom slapping, etc) as a way to solve the problem (which problem is presumably that not everyone agrees with you). What you have NOT done so far is introduce any evidence to support your views. If you can't or won't do that you are basically acting like a flat-earther, and no matter how many other flat-earthers you can summon it won't change the fact that the earth is round. Similarly, if you can't address the reality of the problem with the term "British Isles" then your views aren't worth much on WP. You may not like that people hold that view, or you may not like many of the people who hold that view, but neither of these things are relevant. Please try to stick to the actual issue. Hughsheehy 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
@feline - issues with the name Ireland for the 26 counties is also supported by literature. Reflecting this, where these issues arise, the term Republic of Ireland is used on Wikipedia, despite this not being the name of the state in any way, shape or form. For examples, see the title of the article dealing with the state and many other cases. You see, now what is meant by common sense, understanding and a neutral point of view? --sony-youthpléigh 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guys, stop bludgeoning an editor defending the consensus reached here. Other people have important work to do, and you're holding it up. PRtalk 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Palestine, you restarted this discussion by making that table. Now you are calling it the "consensus" - a table of polarized opinions!? Stop bludgeoning alternative points of view with cries of MAJORITY RULE! Since you made the table, I have presented many alternative wordings, proposals for how we can resolve our differences, or integrate our ideas. All I hear from you is constant harking to your perferred wording only, and anyone who disagrees with described as holding up consensus. Consensus is not your POV. --sony-youthpléigh 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And the underlying dispute? Wiki Consensus (show British Isles) -VS- Wki, not a democracy (hide British Isles) - Is there a visit to the Mediation Committee in the near future? Or does this stalemate continue! GoodDay 22:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to see only personalised responses in this particular discussion, and I don't believe they're helpful. Consensus requires people in the minority to be prepared to back down once their arguments have had a reasonable hearing, and once they've been allowed (at least?) one proposal for a compromise solution. I don't wish to see the majority bull-dozing anyone, but the current situation is that one choice is generally agreed to be better than all others put together - and this by a big majority. (I don't believe my table above introduced a bias, was "loaded", or distorted the real feelings of people here - nobody has suggested as much).
If anyone thinks we should have another attempt at a "compromise solution", then perhaps we should do so - but those who've already made the case for a failed nomination might reasonably be expected to recuse themselves from introducing another.
If (as I suspect) there are no other feasible alternatives, then we need the minority to act gracefully and withdraw their objections. Otherwise, further opposition to consensus will start to look like disruptive and uncollegiate behaviour. I cannot see mediation achieving anything other than devouring even more time from good-faith editors. PRtalk 09:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus requires people in the minority to be prepared to back down once their arguments have had a reasonable hearing ..." - please include links to relevant policy or guidelines, otherwise is may appear as if you are just making things up. For example, here are some real policies:
From NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors."
From WP:CONSENSUS: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon."
"I cannot see mediation achieving anything other than devouring even more time from good-faith editors." - by this do you mean to imply that those who do not hold your POV are not good-faith editors?
"... further opposition to consensus will start to look like disruptive and uncollegiate behaviour." Does this include editors who accuse their colleagues of being "POV-pushing loons"? Does it include those who imply bad faith? Does it include those who demand a right not to negotiate a consensus because they are in the majority on a talk page? There has been NO attempt on behalf of the "pro-British Isles" camp to understand this dispute or to negotiate an agreed NPOV. The "anti-British Isles" camp editors have already compromised by agreeing to the geographic framing of the island of Ireland (bizarrely) in terms of an adjacent island. The "anti-British Isles" camp have presented countless proposals to integrate both of our ideas. Yet, the "pro-British Isles" camp have done nothing except accuse their advisories of bad faith, and deliberate bias. They have done nothing to understand this dispute or to settle it. I have heard nothing from them but abuse, disruption of other talk pages, and demands that its "my way or the high way."
All that is being asked is to use an alternative phrasing to what is being demanded. Otherwise, let's just go back to Lough Neagh being the largest lake in Ireland and one of the largest in Europe - and forget about the POV pushers. Unless you believe that to be untrue? --sony-youthpléigh 09:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<Deindent>Coming to this page and reading all this is, frankly, bizzare. British Isles is rejected, despite being a geographical term, because it could be confused with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then the same editors propose 'Biggest lake in Ireland and United Kingdom' which uses a geographical term thats even /more/ likely to be confused with a political entity (In this case the Republic of Ireland). My personal view is that British Isles is the name the the island group on which I live, despite my other personal view that Northern Ireland should acctually be given back to the Irish (God knows I'd be stoned by my Irish relatives if I said otherwise). Really. I think if you all took a step back from this, read this talk page, you would fall over laughing. Oh well. At least it was amusing :)
PS: For the record, British-Irish Isles does leave a terrible taste in my mouth because it is such a niche term and wikipedia should not lead the way on things like this. I also suspect it will annoy some people because British comes first, or because it ties Ireland to Britain or because Britain is tired to Ireland or because the Daily Mail told them to hate it...
Narson 12:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"because it could be confused with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Sorry, but, no, I do not think that that fully covers why there are objections to BI. It's not just political.
"then the same editors propose 'Biggest lake in Ireland and United Kingdom' which uses a geographical term thats even /more/ likely to be confused with a political entity (In this case the Republic of Ireland)." Not really, no. Many of the suggestions (including the two I've proposed) include the phrase "island of Ireland." They do not simply say Ireland. The wording that was up there for a while said "UK and the island of Ireland as a whole." My suggestions separated UK and "island of Ireland" from each other into two separate sentences partly so as not to confuse the jurisdictional issues. Nuclare 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:::It should be decided (once and for all), if we're gonna insert or leave out British Isles. Once that choice is made, any editor who reverts that choice, should be reported as a disruptor and blocked accordingly. Time to end this stalemate. GoodDay 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed Great Britain and Ireland and kept out British Isles. Please leave both terms out, until dispute is resolved. GoodDay 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this dispute was resolved a long time ago, pretty conclusively. If I'd been in the minority back then I'd have dropped it and not carried on slugging this one out. Consensus requires some people coming second, and that's what's happened. PRtalk 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Palestine, you seem (again) to be trying to cast the consensus-seeking process as one where only two possible ideas exist, and where one of these wins. That's not correct. Consensus may result when people select an option that did not previously exist or that had not previously been proposed....a situation which requires an open mind and a willingness to accept facts instead of opinion. That's why consensus is not determined by voting. Hughsheehy 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How is consensus assessed without "counting" editors' views in some fashion? How do we determine when "consensus" has been achieved? --feline1 10:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> "Counting" is fine. It's just that we don't have to have a "I win you lose" approach. Do we? Can't we all actually engage on the facts and try to find a consensus? Hughsheehy 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Palestine: "Consensus requires some people coming second ..." Please read how Wikipedia is not a battle ground.

Feline: Please read how Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Now, both of you, please take some time to try to understand what the other point of view on this matter is and suggest a way that we can arrive at a neutral point of view through consensus building - just as I, Hugh and others have tried with you in the past. --sony-youthpléigh 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could share in your confidence about reaching a consensus. However, the fact remains that no matter what wording we use the 'British Isles Brigade' will stop at nothing until this bogus term is inserted in the article. Everyone, it appears, must have the overriding say on the matter except for the people who actually live here. Logic would dictate that the Irish people themselves are the ones to decide on the merits or otherwise of a term used to denote Ireland. I have already tried to devise a wording which I sincerely felt to be the most neutral and not introduce a piece of bogus Victorian jingoism into the article. The idea that Ireland is part of some Great British Archipelago is assumed without question, as an incontrovertible given rather than the personal POV of those espousing the term. These people expect us, in all seriousness, to believe the patent absurdity that while Ireland is not a 'British Isle', it is simultaneously and indissolubly one of the 'British Isles'. According to this particular credo, the term 'British' can shape-shift into whatever form may suit the particular mindset of its apologists. Anyone who doesn't follow the official script is either a 'sectarian loon' or a 'petty nationalist'. This is a rather pathetic way of avoiding any serious consideration of the matter. If I label another person either a 'loon' or as being 'petty', I need reflect no further on that person's particular argument, for what good could possibly arise from listening to a 'petty loon'? And, of course, there is always the added danger that said petty loon might actually have a point. 'Heaven forfend!!' An Muimhneach Machnamhach 15:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, An Muimhneach Machnamhach, so your objective, neutral and consensus-seeking position is: (1) the term British Isles is "bogus". (2) It is promoted by a homgenous cabal who with "stop at nothing". (3) The island of Ireland is occupied by a monolithic homogenous population of "Irish" people, all of whom share the exact same opinion on everything, including being white, racist, sectarian bigots who view an amorphous "other" called the "British" as their colonial enemy.
Thanks for that, I'm sure it'll move the debate forward.--feline1 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
These issues are dealt with in the wide literature on subject that you have been directed to many times, Feline. On points 1 and 3, it is exactly because the island of Ireland (as with it's neighbouring islands) is not occupied by a monolithic homogenous population that the term is described as being invalid (viz "bogus") by the literature. (Incidentally, is it me that you are calling a "white, racist, sectarian bigot"? Or just anyone from Ireland, including all of your Ireland-based colleagues on this encyclopedia?)
As for point 2, I don't see that Muimhneach has written that. He's just expressed that his lack my confidience that you, Palestine and some others will ever seriously engage in consensus building on this matter. And I must say, after being called a "white, racist, sectarian bigot" on no grounds other than my place of residience, I'm losing confidience too. --sony-youthpléigh 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, User:Sony-youth, I was not talking to you, I was talking to An Muimhneach Machnamhach. I indicated this in the conventional manner by using his name in the vocative case at the start of my paragraph. I'm sorry if it was confusing. I criticised his comment because it contains the assertion/assumption that all people living in the island of Ireland are ethnically "Irish" and all share his sectarian antithethetical views towards "British" people. This is demonstrably wrong by any demographic analysis of the people living in the island, since there is a substantional minority who espouse a unionist point of view of belong to other ethnic groups than "Irish" (e.g. there are notable Chinese and Polish communities).--feline1 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand that you were talking to Muimhneach, but fear that you were talking about me. You see, I'm a residend of Ireland, and you said that, "The island of Ireland is occupied by ... white, racist, sectarian bigots ..." Muimhneach did not say this, you did, though you did try to attribute it to him. I don't suppose there is any chance of an apology, just as none was forthcoming after your attacks on Irish editors before. --sony-youthpléigh 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
pléigh, I state again plainly, I was not talking "about" you. I was paraphrasing Muimhneach's statement. I did not assert that "The island of Ireland is occupied by ... white, racist, sectarian bigots ...", I said that Muimhneach's statement implied that. As someone born in the island of Ireland, I find Muimhneach's claims on behalf of all "Irish" people rather offensive. Muimhneach's sectarianism does not represent the views of all people born in or living in Ireland.--feline1 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, let me respond to the points Feline1 has raised:

(1) 'British Isles' is "bogus": Well, firstly from a linguistic perspective. Since the original meaning of 'British' denoted speakers of a P-Celtic language who once inhabited large swathes of England, Wales and southern Scotland (hence 'Great Britain') and there being no concrete evidence anywhere, apart from conjecture, that either all or any of the inhabitants of this island spoke P-Celtic, then the 'isles' cannot be legitimately termed 'British' in a linguistic sense.

The Geographic perspective: Ireland is an island off the coast of north-western Europe. Great Britain is another island off the coast of north-western Europe. No part of said island of Ireland is linked physically to said landmass of Great Britain. Therefore, no part of the island of Ireland can be a part of Great Britain. Therefore, no part of Ireland can be 'British'.

The political perspective: The island of Ireland is divided between two jurisdictions. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland controls roughly a fifth of the land area of the island. The Republic of Ireland controls the other eighty per cent. No part of the island lies within Great Britain and therefore no part can be 'British'. The use of 'British' to refer to the United Kingdom in its entirety is a political invention. There is no natural adjective to refer to the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom is not a natural geographic or ethnic entity but a political construct. Since 'British' can only logically refer to the British landmass (see above), its use to refer to all or any of the island of Ireland is a patent absurdity. In the absence of a suitable adjective to refer to the United Kingdom, 'British' is used in its stead (already 'Ukonian' has been proposed as a more accurate alternative). To claim that the Republic of Ireland is part of some greater geographic British landmass goes even further beyond absurdity.

(2) Homogenous cabal: Yes, cabal is the perfect term to describe the 'British Isles Brigade'. A 'British Isles Cabal' is exactly what it is.

(3) Monolithic homogenous population: It is so tedious and so unfortunate to see Feline1 revert to type yet again. Ok, well,let me analyse what he's saying here. Am I white? Yes. Am I racist? Do I hate people of a different race to my self, I presume. Uh, no. Absolutely no hatred of people having different coloured skin. Am I sectarian? Do I hate other "sects" purely out of the sheer fun of despising them? I presume this means that I must by definition, being of course a 'petty sectarian nationalist loon' belong to the Roman Catholic church. Umm, nope. I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant nor a Presbyterian, although, my cousins are all Church of Ireland, and I actually like them a lot. Are all of the people living in Ireland Irish? No, we have many people here who have been born abroad and have come here to help us make the economy of the island vibrant and dynamic and for that we owe them all our gratitude.

Are all people born on the island of Ireland Irish? Well, let's just see for a minute. Uh, yes, of course. And Feline's final point: Are the British our colonial enemy? Well, historically, yes they were. They carried out an extremely successful policy of colonialism and plantation over several centuries. This involved years of economic mismanagement, theft of land, the denial of universal suffrage over a number of years to most of the population, official and unofficial linguacide (probably British colonialism's greatest success in Ireland) and, what will probably turn out to be, a permanent partition of the island into two equally artificial territories. As for Feline1's pet topic, the Irish Potato Famine, no the British certainly didn't cause the famine, in terms of there being a single "cause", but they didn't do much to alleviate the situation, either. The second most successful British colonial policy in Ireland was probably the plantation of Ulster, by which settlers from Scotland and England appropriated land taken from the indigenous inhabitents. When these people arrived here, they were of course, as native inhabitants of Great Britain, British. What else would they be? But are these people "ethnically Irish" today, you ask? Well, if someone is born in Ireland, grows up in Ireland and speaks with an Irish accent, then of course one is Irish.

And finally: given the historical animosity between Ireland and Great Britain, should we hold this against the British people of today? Uh, no, we shouldn't for the simple reason that the British of today are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors, however, it would be foolhardy to deny that these sins were committed. I judge individuals on their own personalities not on stereotypes and therefore reject utterly Feline's claim that I am a 'white racist sectarian bigot'.

And FINALLY!!!! My objective, neutral and consensus-seeking position is this: "Lough Neagh, in Northern Ireland, is the largest body of fresh water in the United Kingdom. It is also the largest lake in the island of Ireland as a whole". Feline1, can you spot any 'petty sectarian bigotry' in that statement? Go on, have a go. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) An Muimhneach Machnamhach 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that An Muimhneach Machnamhach *is* a white sectarian bigot, I was paraphrasing his particular talk page comment, which I found offensive reductionist, and to be implying that "all" "Irish" people share his same political views and animosity towards the enemy "British". I respectfully submit that his latest tirade shows that this editor is obsessed with historical woes and seeing everything in a sectarian context and can only repeat once again how LITTLE this has to do with a neutral GEOGRAPHICAL article on a bloody LAKE!! An Muimhneach Machnamhach appears to have nothing whatsoever to the geographical substance of this article and is only interested in using it and this talk page to make political points.--feline1 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, it's me the Canadian again. Howabout we, leave 'all' terms out British Isles, Great Britain and Ireland and British-Irish Isles. The article looks great without either of them. GoodDay 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in the interests of consensus, I’d like to support GoodDay’s proposal as an admirable solution. I don’t hold out much hope, though, that the British Isles Cabal will allow the article to go unmolested for long, but we live in hope.

According to Feline1, one of the central tenets of my view of the matter is this: “The island of Ireland is occupied by a monolithic homogenous population of "Irish" people, all of whom share the exact same opinion on everything, including being white, racist, sectarian bigots who view an amorphous "other" called the "British" as their colonial enemy.” Now, the statement “ . . . all of whom share the exact same opinion on everything, including being white, racist, sectarian bigots . . . ” could mean either (A) all Irish people share the same opinion about being white, racist, sectarian bigots (i.e. they either believe they themselves are white, racist, sectarian bigots or are not) or (B) all Irish people share the same opinion and are at the same time white, racist, sectarian bigots. Now, it is not clear from any of that whether Feline1 is accusing me of being a white, racist, sectarian bigot but he is clearly accusing someone of being such, probably anyone who disagrees with his particular credo of Ireland being a ‘British Isle’. Mmm. Interesting tactics being employed here. So, in addition to being a ‘petty nationalist loon’ for opposing the ‘British Isles’ mindset, one is also a ‘white racist’. The implication here is clear. Anyone, who dabbles in ‘petty nationalism’ must by Feline1’s definition also be ‘a white racist’. The two are part of the same package, if you will. IRISH NATIONALIST LOON = FELLOW TRAVELLER OF HERR HITLER AND THE KU KLUX KLAN. The use of ‘white’ seals the deal. One is not just a ‘racist’. One is a ‘WHITE racist’!!

So, the government of the Republic of Ireland, the media north and south of the border who either never ever use the term or use it so rarely as to be negligible in statistical terms, and the common man and woman in the street who either expressly disapprove of ‘British Isles’ due to their political opinions or who are not all that particularly bothered about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and just choose to avoid the term because they find it anachronistic or unsuitable for any reason are all ‘white racists’ and ‘petty sectarian loons’ to take Feline1’s reasoning to its logical conclusion.

And yet again, Feline1 runs for cover behind that old reliable ‘IT’S A PURELY GEOGRAPHICAL TERM!!! IT’S A PURELY GEOGRAPHICAL TERM!!! IT’S A PURELY GEOGRAPHICAL TERM!!! . . . . .”. Forgetting, of course, that it is human beings with all their prejudices that concoct geographical nomenclature. That geography, as with any field of study, is frequently at the mercy of human subjective opinion. What is more, Feline1 has failed once more to address any of the points I raised in objection to the term ‘British Isles’ apart from claiming that if the guid people of Portadown and Tunbridge Wells think it’s just ‘peaches and cream’ living in a ‘British Isle’ just across from the ‘Mainland’, then the rest of us on the island should just button our lips.

Frankly, I couldn’t give two hoots what political party Feline1 votes for when he visits the polls. He’s entitled to vote for whichever party he likes. However, does that also give him and those of a similar mindset the right to jackboot their way over the rest of us who don’t sign up to the idea of a ‘British Volk’ inhabiting all of the ‘archipelago’, especially the 4.2 million citizens of the Republic of Ireland, whether we like it or not??? An Muimhneach Machnamhach 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple, An Moominhooch: my contention is that all the people born in and/or living on the island of Ireland are NOT all 100% part of some monolithic homogenous mindset, who can barely get out of bed in the morning without weeping in anguish about the potato famine. In fact, a plurality of opinions exists, and any attempt by rabid Irish nationalists to pretend that everyone shares the xenophobic hysteria deserves ridiculing for the delusion it is. The opinion of an individual can be respected - attempting to grandstand that opinion and imply it must be shared by everyone "Irish" can not. I submit yet again that you are fixated on hijacking this article and its talk page to make a political point and have no interest in consensus at all. Instead of replying to me with yet more paragraphs of over-the-top rhetoric, why don't you ADD SOMETHING TO THE ARTICLE?? Just one little geographical fact? A single sentence? A better place for a comma? Anything but these tiresome tirades--feline1 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
"rabid Irish nationalists" - who are you talk about, Feline? Your colleagues in this collaborative encyclopedia? "The opinion of an individual ..." We don't work on the opinion of individuals, we work of verifiable published sources. You were pointed to a page load of these before. Have you looked through them? Clearly not, as you still persist in mal-informed attacks on colleagues rather than trying to understand the situation and reach a neutral point of view through consensus building. --sony-youthpléigh 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
consensus *is* composed of congruence in opinions of individiduals. Wikipedia works on consensus. Therefore wikipedia works on the opinions of individuals. Wikipedia does not work on misrepresenting or seeking to appropriate the opinions of individuals.--feline1 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

“It's very simple, An Moominhooch: my contention is that all the people born in and/or living on the island of Ireland are NOT all 100% part of some monolithic homogenous mindset who can barely get out of bed in the morning without weeping in anguish about the potato famine. In fact, a plurality of opinions exists”. I agree. It would be impossible to expect some six million people to share a “monolithic homogenous mindset” as you put it. Bring any group of people together from anywhere and they are sure to have different opinions on all sorts of topics. Many minds, many men, as they say. That is the basis of free speech in a democratic society. However, should those of a partitionist persuasion in north and east Ulster, representing in or around one sixth of the population of the island as a whole be permitted to dictate to and browbeat the other five sixths of the population into accepting without question their particular viewpoint of what terminology should be used in reference to Ireland as a whole? Now, can you explain to me please how the entire Ireland of island and everything in it can accurately be described as ‘British’ in terms of the criteria already mentioned: linguistic, geographic, historical, political and ethnic? When exactly did the people of Cork or Derry or Galway or Belfast cease to speak Old Welsh? Pray, do tell.

Yet another interesting ploy being employed here by Feline1. Apparently, the opinion that Ireland is not a ‘British Isle’ is not one of several million people but merely of one ‘xenophobic, rabid, hysterical, Irish nationalist’ (or, should that be ‘sectarian, bigoted, petty, xenophobic, rabid, hysterical, white, racist, Irish nationalist loon’, perhaps? Nice collection of adjectives there, none of which I’ve used in relation to any other Wikipedian, I hasten to add . . . ). “The opinion of an individual can be respected - attempting to grandstand that opinion and imply it must be shared by everyone "Irish" can not.”. But, uh, hold on a minute, isn’t that exactly what you and your comrades in the British Isles Cabal have been attempting to do here all along with your own particular worldview? Having this ‘British Isles’ nonsense rammed into the text by hook or by crook. Accusing anyone who dare object of being a ‘nationalist loon’, in blatant disregard of the fact that at no point was the concept of a United Ireland ever mentioned in the article or its inclusion even attempted.

“I submit yet again that you are fixated on hijacking this article and its talk page to make a political point and have no interest in consensus at all.” Really? And I suppose attempting to ram this ‘British Isles’ idiocy down our throats at every juncture has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘hijacking’ the article and that you and your comrades here are entirely apolitical and thinking only of the furtherance of knowledge and enlightenment?? I have no interest in consensus at all? Can this be so? Oops, hang on a minute where did this come from: “Firstly, in the interests of consensus, I’d like to support GoodDay’s proposal as an admirable solution.” Did I really write this? Or perhaps Feline1’s failure to comment on it sprung from his habit of selectively reading in other Wikipedians contributions what suits his own personal ideology.

So, does ‘Neagh’ come from an Irish language word? Uh, yes, it does indeed, Feline as you would see if you read the very first line of the article. Of course, a drowning man will clutch at anything to save himself from going under . . . . An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we now agree, leave out all terms? British Isles, British-Irish Isels and Great Britain and Ireland GoodDay 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neagh - etymology

Something that might be of interest for the article itself: the word "Neagh" - is that an Irish word? Does it translate to anything in English? Like many Northern Ireland placenames, the article provides a phonetic backtranslation of the name as currently used by English speakers, but I suspect the name is essentially an Anglicised spelling of the original Irish anyway...--feline1 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, does ‘Neagh’ come from an Irish language word? Uh, yes, it does indeed, Feline as you would see if you read the very first line of the article. Of course, a drowning man will clutch at anything to save himself from going under . . . . An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It says the Irish form is Loch nEathach - which is the same thing, is it not? (i.e. "Lough Neagh" is just an the same thing written in English orthography). What does "nEathach" mean?--feline1 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
'Lough Neagh' isn't quite the same thing as Loch nEathach written in English orthography. It is entirely probable, though, that the pronunciaion of 'Neagh' as /ne:/ stems from the pronunciation of 'nEathach' in the local dialect originally spoken in east Ulster whereby the loss of the final '-ach' lead to compensatory lengthening and raising of the inital vowel. According to Deirdre Flanagan in 'Irish Place Names', 'Eachach' comes from 'Eochaidh', being a man's personal name. The same name can be found in the west Ulster surname 'Haughey' < Mac Eochaidh today. Old Irish had three genders; masculine, feminine and neuter. (Modern Irish has two).'Loch' was formerly a neuter noun which caused eclipsis of a following consonant or the prefixing of 'n' to an initial vowel. Hence, 'Loch nEathach' < 'Loch nEochaidh'. 'Eochaidh's Lake'. A colleague from Belfast here tells me that Eochaidh was a character in the Rúraíocht cycle of tales, but he's not sure who exactly he was. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, An Muimhneach Machnamhach, {south park}I guess we've all learnt something today{/south park}. Henceforth I shall always think of Lough Neagh as 'Lake Charley Haughey' :) PS there is a http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BAra%C3%ADocht , perhaps you could translate it for us. I daresay the etymology might make an interesting addition to the Lough Neagh article.--feline1 09:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After all my time arguing over this article, this one slipped me by! There is a few of us working on translating Irish place names. An Muimhneach, maybe you want to get invovled. Eathach was a barony in Co. Down. That name has been translated as Iveagh in English, so maybe "Lake Iveagh" would be a more straight translation - though as Muimhneach this was originally a male name (very common for place names in Ireland to include people's names, usually a noble family of famous saint/religious). The anglicization is straight from the Irish Loch nEathach. The n comes as Muimhneach descibes. The 'th' is fairly silent to an English speaker; the 'ach' less so, but still fairly forgettable to an English speaker. So an English speaker would hear/say, "Lough Neagh". (Iveagh, comes from Uibh Eathach, the noble title for the barony, which an English speaker would hear/say as something like "Iev Ea'gh", eventually ariving at "Iveagh").

There is a template for adding this info. I'll add it in. Feline, the GA page you link to is for the Ulster Cycle series of Irish myths. --sony-youthpléigh 11:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the article you linked to says that the "Barony of Iveagh" was a modern construct (late 19th century) so it is anachronistic to suggest that the name "Lough Neagh" derives from it. It would surely be more correct to simply note that "Lough Neagh" (Eathach) and modern peerage "Earl of Iveagh" share the same etymological root? --feline1 11:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Another general point on the translating of Irish placenames - I do tend to see a lot of "Irish" forms of Ulster placesnames in wikipedia articles. The thing is, nearly all these places names appear to me to be simply Anglicisations of the original (extinct) East Ulster Irish Gaelic dialect (e.g. my home town of Carryduff, and other such down placenames as Ballynahinch (Bally- anything), Killinure, Oughley Hill... there's something doesn't quite site right to me about "back-porting" these Anglicised East-Ulster-Irish names to (Munster? Connaght?) Irish dialects... surely, phonetically, the current Hiberno-Irish *pronunciation* of the name *is* still effectly (all that remains of!) East-Ulster-Irish?--feline1 11:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your right about the link, but I couldn't find anything better to link Iveagh to (if it even needs a link?). I'll take it out.
I think I know what you mean by "back porting", but don't think it's such a problem. The main issue is not so much what the name means (most place names in Ireland a "descriptions" rather than place "names" like in English), but that these are often written in the official standard used in the Republic. This causes obvious political problems in Northern Ireland (where there would already be tensions re: the Irish language). Irish-language versions of place names in Northern Ireland are often written in different fashion (different spellings, etc.), just as place names in the Republic often are (using other written standard), but practice is to normally "spell them right". In theory, the actual sound of these when spoken should be in the local dialect, but obviously a written standard presses in on pronounciation, just as people pronounce the same word differenly in English dialects while still spelling it the same.
The anglicized version of Irish-language names can be quite far off what would be spoken in Irish (e.g. Dingle vs. Daingean pr. roughly: daeng-en. - the 'n' sound is very tough for a English speaker to hear/say, so we get an 'l' sound in the Anglicization, which apparantly comes from thin air).
Feline, would you too be interested in helping out on a Irish places names project? This would need to be started up as a subset of WikiProject Ireland. --sony-youthpléigh 11:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I fear I have virtually no Irish at all, and as I currently live in Sussex rather than Killinure, have found precious little opportunity to change this :( So I doubt I'd be much use, despite my interest in the subject. I take your point about official standard spellings, I guess... it just does seem a bit odd to me, growing up in Killinure, surrounded by placenames which clearly are "irish" (and probably all that remains of East Ulster dialect) to see them then "translated" into "Irish" in ways which suggest they should be pronounced differently - but I guess your Dingle example covers this sort of thing. --feline1 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As for ‘Lake Charlie Haughey’, I bet the old weasel himself would be delighted with a lake being named after him! Ha ha!! He probably even tried to ‘buy’ it at some stage! I wouldn’t put it past him. Just like he ‘bought’ or ‘acquired’ Inis Mhic Aoibhleáin in the Blaskets. I bet Ian Paisley would have burst a blood vessel if he ever got wind of old Charlie trying to buy Lough Neagh!

Not so sure about your ‘Lake Iveagh’ interpretation, Sony. My colleague from Belfast tells me that the barony you mention lies much farther south than Lough Neagh. He also says that the explanation for the name of the lake can be found in one of the stories of the Ulster Cycle, but unfortunately he’s not sure which one. Remember that the anglicisation, as you correctly point out, comes straight from ‘Loch nEachach’ but not ‘Loch Uíbh Eachach’, which would be case if the name meant ‘Lake of Iveagh’. Uíbh Eachach, by the way, is pronounced ‘eev – akhukh’, with my ‘kh’ here being like ‘ch’ in Bach. It literally translates as ‘The Grandsons of Eachach’. Uíbh is the dative plural of ‘Ó’ meaning grandson, an extremely common element in Irish surnames: Ó Súilleabháin > O’Sullivan, Ó hÉalaithe > Healey, etc. Now in Ulster, as can be heard commonly in the Donegal Gaeltacht, medial –ch- is often reduced to –th- (‘h’). As is the case in other dialects, most notably Cois Fhairge in Galway, medial –th- tends to disappear in speech. Another distinct feature of Ulster Irish is the raising of some vowels in initial position. Initial ‘a’ written as ea- in Eachach would first be lengthened and then raised to something like an ‘ai/aye’ diphthong giving us ‘Nay’ as the final result. I’m trying to avoid using IPA symbols here that not everyone would be familiar with. A good example from Donegal would be the name Pádraig in which the initial ‘á’ is raised to such an extent that it is almost pronouced as ‘é’. Hence one hears ‘Pway-drig’ instead of ‘paah-drig’.

Feline is right in saying that in many cases the anglicisation may give us some valuable clues about the vernacular in the area where the placename occurs and may be the only link remaining to the original dialect of the place. However, anglicised placenames need to be treated very carefully indeed. They can be more of a hindrance than a help and don’t always conform faithfully to the original pronunciation of the area. Thorough research by someone who speaks flawless Irish and has studied Old and Middle Irish as well as the history of the area concerned are essential. In Highland Scotland and in Wales, placenames have largely escaped the mangling inflicted on them by monoglot English speaking cartographers in Ireland.

Not so sure about your point Sony regarding different written standards and spellings existing for placenames and there being some tension in the north over this. I’ve never heard that myself. The only controversy I’ve ever heard about is the Derry v. Londonderry affair but that of course affects the anglicisation not the original Doire, although I do remember reading a poem in Irish somewhere where the poet spoke of ‘a bheith ag taisteal go Londaindoire’ (‘travelling to Londonderry’)!!

As for Dingle, I reckon it has nothing to do with An Daingean at all but just sounded similar to something familiar to the part of England the English colonists had come from.

And, yes, I would be interested in an Irish placenames project. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this all sounds to me like it could result in much interesting material. For now though, the "Iveagh" thing seems to be teetering between 'original research' and just being plain wrong ;0) so perhaps it needs a further change?
More generally for the Irish placenames project, it does rankle with me a bit when you have, for instance, some auld Down townland names from near me such as "Lisnashallagh or "Oughley" or "Drumalig" or "Killinure", and some hi-falutin' linguist from Dublin comes along and says "the Irish form is such-and-such" ... to me these are surely the last remaining bits of spoken East-Ulster dialect left (the names sound like a mouthful of phlegm and mashed spuds to any "English" speaker, no-one's ever gonna convince me they are "English" placenames!), I'm a bit dubious about correcting them to "proper" Irish, it would be like "correcting" pronunciation of some Scottish name to make it be spelt the way it would be prounced by a Cockney. Or sthg. Maybe. But I'm getting off topic for Lough Neagh...--feline1 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Muimneach and Feline, you're right, I am running away with myself. I was trying to translate Eachach via the surname Iveagh (despite obviously missing the "Uibh") and making matter worse by trying to link it to a territory. Blunderbuss stuff. Nothing I can say in hindsight but arsewise enthusiasm. Would you say "Lake of Eachach", Muimneach?
The caighdean and differing spellings came up in some bluster or another during the media debate on Irish-language place names in NI road signs arising from the proposed Irish Language Act. --sony-youthpléigh 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the name be translated as “Lake of Eochaidh” and a footnote made showing that the reference is from ‘Irish Placenames’ by Deirdre Flanagan and Laurance Flanagan (Gill & Macmillan Ltd, 1994). That saves us from accusations of original research and our own speculation. If we find another source stating otherwise, we can amend the text accordingly.

I appreciate Feline1’s point about local anglicised placenames being the only bit of the original local dialect remaining, however, in virtually none of the anglicised Irish placenames does the English version conform completely faithfully phonologically or morphologically to the original pronunciation of the original Irish speakers of the area. Anglicised names give us clues to how the language was spoken in a particular area, but that is all they do. This has been borne out by research done in areas where Irish has survived as a community language up to the present day and where the anglicisations can differ markedly to how the locals themselves actually pronounce the name. This applies not just to north Co. Down but to anywhere in Ireland.

As for “some hi-falutin' linguist from Dublin comes along and says "the Irish form is such-and-such" ...”, I don’t think that’s true. For a start, most Irish language linguists don’t even come from Dublin ;o) The Irish Placenames Commission carries out exhaustive research into placenames from all over the island of Ireland. They take into account both the local Irish dialect of the area (if its primary traits are known) and the current English pronunciation before reaching conclusions on the Irish language version. In many cases, this is like unravelling a particularly thickly knotted ball of string, where the name has been heavily anglicised. “I'm a bit dubious about correcting them to "proper" Irish, it would be like "correcting" pronunciation of some Scottish name to make it be spelt the way it would be prounced by a Cockney.” I don’t think it’s true that students of topographical nomenclature “correct” names to “proper” Irish. There are many placenames across Ireland that don’t conform in their official Irish versions to standard spelling or grammatical rules. Newtownards, for example, is “Baile Nua na hArda” not “Baile Nua na nArd”. Whitehead is “An Cionn Bán” not “An Ceann Bán” and Saintfield is “Tamhnaigh Naomh” not “Tamhnach Naomh”.

Have either of you heard of The Northern Ireland Place-Name Project? They’ve published a number of volumes based on the baronies and an incredible amount of research has gone into them. I can give you the ISBN number Feline if you’re interesting in finding out more about the placenames of your own area. We only have a few volumes here in the office. One covering Iveagh as it happens. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading wikipedia say "Eochaid or Eochaidh (earlier Eochu or Eocho, sometimes anglicised as Eochy) is a popular medieval Irish and Scots Gaelic name deriving from Old Irish ech, horse" leads to the marvellous interlinguistic pun of "Lough Neigh", don't you think? :) --feline1 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Droll, indeed, feline. --sony-youthpléigh 14:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] waterways map

Could we perhaps get a map which also shows the (now largely derelict) navigation links between Lough Neagh and the Lagan, Ulster Canal, coalisland canal, Lagan Navigation etc, as well as just the Bann. Perhaps the Irish Waterways Association or Waterways Ireland websites would be a possible starting point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

I noticed this and then read the (somewhat surreal) discussion here. Is it any wonder that Wikipedia is ridiculed by some when we let this sort of political correctness dictate our usage rather than verifiability? Ireland (and Northern Ireland) lie in the British Isles. In the absence of the verifiable coining of a more neutral term, this article should give the correct fact that this lough is the largest lake in the British Isles. If some are offended by the term, they should perhaps attempt to get out more. This is what the world calls these islands. Get over it, please. --John (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - we don't avoid the term "North America" for fear of offending the Canadians and Mexicans, but I suspect in this case there are people that think censoring the term "British Isles" will somehow further their political cause. Unfortunately, there are excitable editors on both sides of the debate who refuse to discuss this matter in a calm and objective manner, railroading previous attempts to resolve the dispute. -- Mark Chovain 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I get what you both are saying, however, the term is verifiably problematic (for a whole raft of reasons, not just to further one political cause or another - as indeed the term itself has been used to do also - see here) and alternative phrasings do exist and are just as common a way of saying the same thing, if not more so e.g. "largest lake in Britain and Ireland", "largest lake in Ireland", "largest lake in the UK and Ireland", some even dictionary defined alternative terms exist.
It doesn't seem like a big deal. So - an alternative phrasing, anyone? --sony-youthpléigh 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense; I don't have a fixed idea on which exact wording we use, obviously, but it should also be equally obvious that redacting this important, verifiable and interesting info from the article will absolutely not do. We need to remember that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and not a debating society or an organisation devoted to righting the world's wrongs. We reflect the world, we report upon it, but we do not censor our coverage to cater for the sensitivities of those who are ready to see offence behind every bush. --John (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Though I prefer British Isles myself, I know from past experience 'not to go there' (not to add it the article). You're correct though John, political correctness/fear of hurting feelings has gone too far on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
would someone mind cut and pasting everything else I've already said on this ridiculous issue, and then I won't have to?--feline1 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing in the literature about the phrase being inappropriate in this context owing the a "fear of hurting feelings". Can you point to it, please? What I do see is that the phrase is considered no-longer appropriate, especially in the context of the island of Ireland, due to the historicity of the phrase indicating an arrested process of state building across the archipelago. As the literature says, while British Isles is still in common use, "Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression ..." This is the turn of phrase that I would use. It's the turn of phrase that is used by contemporary map-makers (see here or here for examples). --sony-youthpléigh 12:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I could live with that wording, as I said. There can be no justification for redacting the information altogether. I don't particularly care why the information was redacted, I just want to see it restored. This is an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's just leave the article the way it is (as I've suggested months ago) and stay away from this topic. OK folks? GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"British Isles" is POV and offensive.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
All terms are being left out Vintagekits. We've settled on Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain and Ireland work just aswell. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
One could just as easily say that it's the largest lake in Ireland and France, or whatever. "Great Britain and Ireland" is not a name, but two names. In any case, why is there any objection to British Isles? It's in that part of Ireland that chose to remain British, so even by Irish nationalist POV standards British Isles is still correct here. TharkunColl (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Though I prefer British Isles, the long fought out struggle (of months ago) over the usage of it was very destructive. Therefore (for the sake of peace) I've chosen to accept Northern Ireland or Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I too would have preferred "British Isles". However, as compromises go, it is vastly preferable to have Great Britain and Ireland than to omit the information entirely. --John (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's best we keep the peace. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved for understanding. --sony-youthpléigh 13:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Great Britain and Ireland" does not work just as well. Lough Neagh is not in Great Britain. (Uhm, I'm having a feeling of deja vu here...) Even if we intend the term ('GB & I') as collective, there is no way for a reader to know that, and the wording is misleading, at best. Referencing Great Britain and Ireland adds nothing that "U.K. and island of Ireland" or some such far more accurate wording wouldn't also cover. Personally, I think a wording that includes "U.K." and "island of Ireland" is the best (not necessarily linked by "and") -- those are the least ambiguous terms that can be used. Nuclare (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind of agree. My preference would be for Britain and Ireland as it covers all bases - Britain being capable of referring to both the island and the state. Otherwise UK and Ireland is another very common way of referring to the same thing, similarly exploiting the blurriness in the name Ireland. I've always slightly disliked "UK and the island of Ireland" type constructions for being a bit too wordy and convoluted in everyday use for something otherwise rather simple. Though if you have a concrete proposal for a rewording that uses it then, I've no real issue against it. --sony-youthpléigh 12:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Here was the last suggestion I made when this discussion previously went 'round: "With an area of 392 square kilometres (151 square miles), it is by far the largest lake in the United Kingdom. It is also the largest lake on the island of Ireland and ranks among the forty largest lakes of Europe." I don't actually object to "Britain and Ireland," but I'd prefer the less ambiguous terms. If "Britain" in "Britain and Ireland" refers to the island, than it is just as incorrect as "Great Britain," and if "Britain" means the U.K., than why not just call it the U.K.? That's my feeling. "Britain," I suppose, could also be a way of referring to "that which is British" (i.e. including the Isle of Man), but that almost feels like a stretch of usage. I know my wording makes this longer, but there were previously objections raised to the mixing of political (U.K.) and geographic terms (Ireland), and my wording was a way of keeping them separate. I've no strong feelings about "island of," but it does clarify the geographic rather than political usage, but it might only work well in my separated, two sentence wording. Having said all that, I could live with "Britain and Ireland." IMHO, it's preferable to "GB & I" Nuclare (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The only objection I have to your phrasing is that I would have put the island of Ireland as a point of reference before the UK if pushed to make a choice, but would by preference mention both in the same breath. I don't see the problem of "mixing" geographic and political terms - are we not doing so by saying that it is the largest lake (i.e. a geographic feature) in the UK (i.e. a political entity)? How do you feel about UK and Ireland? --sony-youthpléigh 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't fully remember what the objection was in regards to mixing terms. I think someone thought it confused whether the U.K. is entirely separate from Ireland and whether Ireland meant the island or the state. I should think that the phrase "U.K. and Ireland" is most logically read as a listing of two distinct things and, therefore, it would refer to the two states, whereas, in this case, Ireland pressumably should refer to the island or else we are in the same situation as with saying "LN is in Great Britain and..." In terms of the two sentence wording that I wrote, my personal preference would also be to reference Ireland first, but I was looking for a compromise with those that preferred 'British Isles' to any of these kinds of wordings. Putting U.K. first seemed a way to compromise: forefront the British connection, but without the 'British Isles' term. Nuclare (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've changed this to avoid use of "Great Britain," which I genuinely feel is a deceptive use in this instance. Don't know if my wording will last, but I don't think there's anything inaccurate about my wording, at least. Nuclare (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution here would be to keep referring to "Great Britain" and refer to Ireland as "Lesser", "Little", or "Wee Britain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 March 2008

We've went from British Isles to Great Britain and Ireland to seperately United Kingdom & Ireland; I hope there's no more changes. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
But, I like this current solution. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flora and Fauna

I think the article could do with some information on the flora and flauna of the lake and its shores. I've been wondering if such a large lake might have isolated races of fish species such as trout. Also, has pollution from industrial and agricultural runoff ever been a problem in Lough Neagh? An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see there is an article on dollaghan, which is a variety of Brown Trout, but the article fails to state whether it is a local race or merely a term used to differentiate this non-migratory group of fish from migratory trout in other river systems. An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)