Talk:Lough Neagh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lough Neagh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ownership of the Lough

So at what point in history did the Earls of Shaftesbury "acquire" Lough Neagh? Where did they buy it, in a Lough shop? Going cheap, was it?--feline1 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Asinine political troll wars

Can we stop the trollfest vandalism of this article, please? The geographical term British Isles is clearly defined in its own wikipedia article and not intended as a political insult to citizens of Eire. (And Lough Neagh isn't even in Eire anyways, its in the UK!).--feline1 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do about this political troll from "62.77.181.11" ? They clearly have no support for their views amoungst other editors, but still they persist in reverting the article. This has been going on for weeks. Shouldn't action be taken under the 3-revert-rule?--feline1 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule

Utterly unnecessary use of political labels for a geographcal feature

Ireland is not a "British Isle". Please desist from using this term. Lough Neagh is Ireland's largest body of fresh water. Geographical fact. "Éire" means purely "Ireland" and defines the nation of Ireland or the island of Ireland not the 26 county state which is known as "Poblacht na hÉireann" in the Irish language. The statement "And Lough Neagh isn't even in Eire [sic] anyways, its [sic] in the UK!" is completly nonsensical. Lough Neagh is physically and geographically part of the island of Éire.

The British Isles is not a political label, it is a geographical label for all the islands off the coast of north west Europe of which Great Britain and Ireland are the largest. Check the page British Isles and get involved in the discussion on the page if you feel it is needed. British Isles is a purely geographical term that finds common use worldwide including officially within the government of the Republic of Ireland, the government of the United Kingdom and every other english speaking country. It is a perfectly valid geographical term that some have chosen to take as offensive rather than any offense being included or meant in the term. Ben W Bell talk 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite! The "Britons" were the pre-Roman, pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Norman, pre-anything-else-within-recorded-written-history, of these "British" Isles. There's more "Britons" in the island of Ireland than their is in England. Please stop this pointless attempt to politicize as geographical term--feline1 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have been involved in the discussion on the "British Isles" article and already discussed it ad nauseam with the cryptounionists and Little Englanders that have completely taken over the discussion portal of that article. The term "British Isles" has absolutely no constitutional or legislative status whatsoever in this state. (The 26 county Republic of Ireland). It is rarely if ever used in this state and those who do use it, do so only occasionally and then almost always as part of a sinister neo-Unionist, cryptopartitionist, anti-Irish Language agenda or as a pathetic jibe at those who are actually comfortable and confident living in an independent state or it is used by those who suffer from and merely reflect the acute saturation by the UK media in this country. The term's use in other countries is nothing more than an aping of British usage. As I have wearily pointed out before for the slow learners to no effect, alas, I must state again: "British" is an adjective pertaining to the island of Britain. Ireland is not physically linked by a land bridge to that island of Britain. Therefore, Ireland cannot be a "British Isle". Of course, of course, you will continue to defy logic by claiming that including Ireland in any "British Isles" does not mean that Ireland is a "British Isle". It is rather like claiming that the proverbial dog may shake his own tail but the same tail is in no way part of the dog. There seems to be a sort of "blind spot" at work here in which logic is tossed out the window.

"Some find it offensive" here, you claim. How about the vast majority of the Irish people for a start?! And what about those who don't even find it offensive, but just annoying, or regrettable, or antiquated, or irritating or just plain illogical. Or those who simply prefer to avoid it for any reason. I was born and raised here. I live here in Ireland. I am Irish. Why in my thirty years of living nowhere else but here have I heard or seen "British Isles" being used on only a maximum of five occasions to refer to Britain and Ireland as a unit?

Yet again, I must say, there is no concrete evidence anywhere that either a majority or all of the people of Ireland were speakers of British Celtic or Brythonic Celtic at any period in our history or that they deemed their own island to be part of any "British Isles" or "Pretani Isles". Feline1 stated "Quite! The "Britons" were the pre-Roman, pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Norman, pre-anything-else-within-recorded-written-history, of these "British" Isles. There's more "Britons" in the island of Ireland than their is in England." The speakers of a P-Celtic language, in other words the "Britons", once lived over much of England, Wales and southern Scotland. Irish is a Q-language language which spread from Ireland into much of Scotland and the Isle of Man. Simple historical and linguistic fact. Irish is my first language and I have reasonable command of Welsh. Only someone completely ignorant of the language, history and culture of Ireland could make such a ludicrous statement as "There's [sic] more "Britons" in the island of Ireland than their [sic] is in England". Time and again, "evidence" is trawled up from Ptolemy and other Greek and Roman scribes for the historical validity of the term. This is analogous to the reliance on the bigoted and ill-informed writings of Caesar as concrete evidence of the culture and language of the Gauls, who like the Irish, were Celts speaking a Celtic language or the Greeks lumping non-Greek tribes as "Barbarians" because their languages were nothing more than a meaningless "babble" compared to Classical Greek. Furthermore, we are dealing with people who still believed that the seas were inhabited by "Dragons" or had an extremely inperfect knowledge of the physical world, through no fault of their own in many cases, and had to rely on second or third hand knowledge.

It has already been stated on the "British Isles" discussion portal that the opinions of Irish people on this matter count for nothing, so I'm not hoping that apologists for the term will be struck by a revelation of good sense anytime soon. In some ways, the Irish of today are like the Gauls of old. We will be described and labelled in any whichaway some petty neo-imperialist in a foreign country deems to be suitable and we will take what's good for us.

Feline1 also stated: "So what do we do about this political troll from "62.77.181.11" ? They clearly have no support for their views amoungst other editors, but still they persist in reverting the article. This has been going on for weeks. Shouldn't action be taken under the 3-revert-rule?". For a start, let me say that I hope Feline1 lives in a democratic state where free speech is permitted and encouraged. I also hope that Wikipedia and the discussion groups within it are democratic also. Therefore, I exercise my democratic right to contribute to this discussion and edit the article where errors or irrelevancies exist. The article relates to Lough Neagh or Loch nEathach which is a geographical feature, being the largest lake in Ireland, an island off the coast of mainland Europe. The article has nothing to do with artificial political territories like "Northern Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" or "United Kingdom". The article describes a physical, apolitical feature of Ireland's landscape and I have amended it accordingly. The threat to use the "3-revert-rule" against me really is petty. If you are not prepared to listen to my opinion or anyone else's, or remove the blinkers from your own eyes then you shouldn't be adding your tuppence worth to the discussion forum at all. I do like the term "troll", though, I have to say. No one has ever called me a "troll" before. It kind of has a ring about it, I think. So more childish names please!

Anyway, enjoy the weekend, ladies and gentlemen. Please, please try to chill out and broaden your own minds.

A.

Surely it's relevant to point out which political entity the lake is located in? For example, Volga River clearly states that it's in Russia which is a political entity, not a geographical one. River Liffey states that it's located in the Republic of Ireland. Mississippi River is described as a river in the United States, not a river in North America. It seems to me that you are removing important, relevant information from the article, and you are doing it against consensus. Demiurge 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Demiurge. I honestly believe there is no need to mention which political entity the lake is located in. Or at the very least, if one must insist on doing so, why not say simply "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Ireland" or even if one must insist on using a political title (though it would be better avoided) why not say "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the island of Ireland and is also the largest body of fresh body in the United Kingdom"? My objection is to the use of political nomenclature for geographical features in general. Whatever one might say about stating which political entity the lake lies in, the use of "British Isles" is wholly unacceptable. The information I amended in the article is wholly relevant and important. Lough Neagh is the largest lake in Ireland. There is no larger lake in Ireland. That is a simple geographical fact. Every school-going child learns that the Shannon is the longest river, Lough Neagh is the biggest lake, Corrán Tuathail is the highest mountain, Achill is the largest coastal island etc.

As for those who insist on using "British Isles" in the article, are they not defying consensus by stubbornly ignoring what most Irish people actually say and use in everyday parlance?

Anyway, enjoy your weekend. A.

And one more thing. Can someone replace the map shown with an apolitical map of Ireland please? A.

It seems to me that you're pushing an agenda here by trying to write "Northern Ireland" out of the article. Like it or not (and personally I'm not crazy about it, but there just isn't a better substitute), "British Isles" is widely used in an apolitical manner to refer to Britain and Ireland. Demiurge 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This guy is a troll, in violation of wikipedia policies. He should be reported to administrators without further delay. He can't even manage to set-up a login and sign himself on talk pages, never mind abide by the 3 revert edit rule etc --feline1 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

62.77.181.11 writes: "It has already been stated on the "British Isles" discussion portal that the opinions of Irish people on this matter count for nothing" (whilst still refusing to sign posts or create a login). This statement just shows a disrepect for the wikepedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus built up on the British Isles article. The Lough Neagh article is simply using the same consistent terminology. An encyclopedia show endeavour to be consistent between its articles. Moreover 62.77.181.11 displays such naked political bias in everything he writes, totally at odds with the Neutral point of view.--feline1 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Feline1 has clearly not read a single word of what I have written above and seems to be incapable of anything other than hurling childish names at others. He/she has brought nothing else to the discussion apart from once more labelling me a "troll" and has not responded to even one of the points I have raised above. I may not be the best looking guy in the world but I don't think I'm the worst either. I have just discovered that I was barred from editing for three hours on July 1st. No reason or justification was given for this. If this idiocy continues, I myself will forward a complaint of my own to the Wikipedia administrators.

The "British Isles" article has long been hijacked by those with a very clear political agenda. Feline1 accuses me of naked political bias. I must say, that really is rich! The neutral point of view was flung out the window by whoever decided to claim that Lough Neagh is in the "British Isles" and by those who insist pigheadedly in using such a blatantly political label. Also, Feline1 has failed to respond to any of the points that I have raised above.

In response to Demiurge, I would say that it would be better that "Northern Ireland" be omitted from the article because, as I have said before, the article pertains to a feature of the physical landscape not a political territory. As for the use of "British Isles", this term is wholly and completely unacceptable. The fact of the matter is that "British Isles" is inaccurate both geographically and historically. It is a term which the vast majority of Irish people quite rightly find distasteful as it suggests that Ireland is an offshore island of Britain or that we are inextricably bound to a foreign country. Whatismore, there simply isn't any need for a single term to describe Britain and Ireland as a unit because they are NOT a unit!! The seas that divide Ireland from Britain are very real. Ireland is a completly separate piece of land. Only one suffering from an anglocentric neo-colonial mindset would view Ireland as being part of some larger geographical unit with Great Britain. The notion is ludicrous. It is almost as if Ireland were a sort of greater Isle of Wight off the coast of Liverpool. As I have asked before and failed to receive an answer: would the Portuguese people be happy if the Spanish insisted on labelling Iberia, "the Spanish Peninsula" or the Norwegians if the Swedes insisted on calling peninsular Scandinavia "the Swedish Peninsula"? Or would the people of Corsica be overjoyed at the bullish intransigence and ignorance of their neighbours if the Sardinians insisted on "the Sardinian Isles"?? A.

Or how about the people of the Canaries? Do they get annouyed when the inhabitants of Gran Canaria call the whole island-group the "Canaries"? And the term "Spanish Peninsula" is often found in English. But all this is completely irrelevant because the fact is that "British Isles" is used in the Republic, as has been proved on its own talk page. Be that as it may, to call Lough Neagh the biggest lake in Ireland is a bit like saying that Mount Everest is the highest mountain in Nepal - true, but it hardly does it justice. TharkunColl 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are blanking important information from the article. The fact the lake is located in the political entity that is Northern Ireland is relevant. The fact that it is larger than any lake in Ireland or Britain is relevant. (I could change it to "largest lake in the United Kingdom", but I suspect that would be even less to your liking :).) Stop removing these facts to push your own political agenda. Take it to Talk:British Isles if you object to the term British Isles; this page is not the place to have that argument. Demiurge 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
To the anon IP user: how would you feel about "largest lake in Ireland and the British Isles"? Would that be an acceptable compromise for you? Demiurge 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge, that is a silly thing to have, "..in Ireland and the British Isles", since Ireland *is* in the British Isles. It's redundant. As for the IP user's statement: "Feline1 has clearly not read a single word of what I have written above and seems to be incapable of anything other than hurling childish names at others. He/she has brought nothing else to the discussion apart from once more labelling me a "troll" and has not responded to even one of the points I have raised above. I may not be the best looking guy in the world but I don't think I'm the worst either. I have just discovered that I was barred from editing for three hours on July 1st. No reason or justification was given for this. If this idiocy continues, I myself will forward a complaint of my own to the Wikipedia administrators." - I have read all your politically biased postings, and I have directed you towards the relevant wikiepedia policies. You were blocked by an Administrator because you violated the 3 Revert Rule. If you continue to violate wikipedia policies by repearted reversion, willful introduction of political bias, and refusal to seek or accept editorial consensus, no doubt you'll will encounter further bans. And why can you not make yourself an account and log in properly and sign your talk page posts? It is very bad manners and makes discussions much harder to follow.--feline1 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

References on this Talk page to an island or place called Britain are wrong. There is no island of Britain. Similarly, the reference to British Isles as a political label is incorrect as it is a geographical term. The Lough is, incidentally, at the same time the largest freshwater body on the island of Ireland and in the United Kingdom; it isn't, of course, the largest freshwater body in Ireland, nor the largest on the island of Great Britain. Which is why it's simpler and more informative to say that it is the largest in the British Isles. Bazza 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"It's redundant." — true, but a bit of redundancy is a small price to pay to resolve an edit war. Anyway, either is fine by me, as long as the two relevant facts I mentioned above are included. As I said above, "British Isles" isn't my favourite phrase in the world, but it is widely used as an apolitical term, so I'm not going to engage in any revert wars over it. Demiurge 16:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The point is not redundant - it could have been largest in Ireland, but not the British Isles. Carrauntuohill is the highest in Ireland, even though the British Isles high-point is Ben Nevis on Great Britain. Giving both is informative and clarifies things. As this is a geographical article, a geographical map would be better than a political one. As there isn't one, I suggest replacing it (for now, at least) with a satellite photo — Image:Ireland.NASA.jpg in Wikicommons should suffice. I would also suggest that the introduction should likewise favour to geographical terms:

Lough Neagh (pronounced [lɒx neɪ]; Irish Loch nEathach [lɔx ˈɲahax]) in Ireland is the largest freshwater lake by surface area in the British Isles, and the third largest lake in Western Europe, with an area of 388 square kilometres. Approximately 30 km (20 miles) long and 15 km (9 miles) wide, the lake is situated in Northern Ireland some 30 km to the west of Belfast.

Bazza 18:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The country that a location is in should be mentioned in the first line about a location. This is the accepted Wikipedia guideline I believe and therefore the fact it is in Northern Ireland should be mentioned in the first sentence. Ben W Bell talk 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Which guideline is being referred to here? I looked for it in the Manual of Style and can't see it. The closest I found is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which is a proposed guideline and does not cover this issue anyway. The largest lake in Europe has its country location after its geographical location; the second largest is the other way round. There seems to be no accepted guideline to follow, so my suggestion stands. Bazza 20:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a suggestion I'd favour. I agree with Ben W Bell. Saying "Lough Neagh, in Northern Ireland, is the largest freshwater lake (by surface area) in the British Isles" is simply the most succinct way to convey the information. It is the largest lake in the British Isles (a geographical term), and Northern Ireland is the part of the British Isles in which is lies, not Scotland, Wales, England, the Rep. of Ireland, or anywhere else. And I'm sure, like many wiki editors, I feel averse to being barracked into re-writing a perfectly good little article simply to satisfy the naked politcal obsessions of an anonymous user, particular one which so flagrantly flouts wiki policies.--feline1 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And moreover, why do we need to eliminate "political" (an emotive term) items from a "purely geographical" article. Geography is not all "capes and bays", there is such a thing as human geography - and the article itself explains that Lough Neagh is very much used by the people of Northern Ireland, in which it lies, for recreation, commercial operations such as eel farming, and as a large part of the province's water supply. These activities are particular to the province of Northern Ireland - the political boundary with the Rep. of Ireland does affect them. Lough Neagh is not, for instance, being used to supply water to (say) County Cavan or Monaghan, as it might conceivably otherwise do--feline1 22:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Take care in your replies. I'm assuming I'm not the one being accused of barracking — my suggestion was neither anonymous nor anything to do with political obsessions I don't have. My wording was to improve consistency in the description by avoiding mixing geographical terms (British Isles) with political ones (Northern Ireland), and so referring to Ireland as the island in the group in which the lake lies is reasonable. Text which follows giving details on the human aspects of a natural feature will, of course, refer to political/human entities such as counties and states. My suggestion was just that — a suggestion for improving an article, hoping to elicit discussion rather than terse dismissal. If I wanted otherwise I could have just edited the article regardless. Bazza 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm yer jets Bazza! LOL - of course I wasn't referring to you (as you correctly spotted, you're not anonymous) - I was referring to the bold anonymous IP adress whose provoked this whole edit war.--feline1 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I am prepared to compromise on mentioning "Northern Ireland" and the "United Kingdom" in the article so long as any mention of "British Isles" is deleted. In a question put to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, in 2005 regarding the State having an official policy on the use of "British Isles", the Minister replied that the term has no recognition whatsoever in the State and that the Irish Embassy in London monitors the media there for the abuse of such terminology in reference to this State. I have tried to find a direct link to this piece on the Oireachtas website but it keeps crashing on me. The opening phrase would therefore read "Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland, is the largest freshwater lake in both the island of Ireland and in the United Kingdom".—Preceding unsigned comment added by An Muimhneach Machnamhach (talk • contribs)

The thought that the Irish embassy monitors newspapers in the UK is rather chilling to be honest. In any case, the Irish government website itself uses British Isles some 43 times, so clearly the term is used in the Republic. TharkunColl 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr IP Address, just who do you think you are, exactly - "you" are prepared to compromise and tell us what to do? You are waaaay out-voted on the issue, you must accept the consensus of the majority. The lough is used by the people of Northern Ireland, and that is why the term is mentioned in the article - on the basis of simple good writing and logic, not as a concession to you. You have no right to dictate against the majority that all mention of "British Isles" is deleted from the article (it is the most appropriate geographical term to use). You wouldn't happen to be one of those people working in said Embassy, monitoring the world for use of the term "British Isles", would you? Such political machinations are wholly unnacceptable within wikipedia. We proceed by consensus, not unilateral political censorship.--feline1 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some searching and turned up [1]. Quoted here for your convenience because of crashing problems:

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is an official Government or Department of Foreign Affairs position on the use of the term British Isles when referring to Ireland and Britain; if the use of this term by Government agencies and the media in Britain is discouraged in any way by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern): "The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term. Our officials in the Embassy of Ireland, London, continue to monitor the media in Britain for any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation. These include the name of the State, the President, Taoiseach and others."

Thanks for creating an account by the way; makes it much easier to carry on a discussion. Demiurge 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and the relevance of this Irish government operating procedure to a wikipedia article hosted on servers in the USA, about a lake in the UK, contributed to by editors of various nationalities is...?--feline1 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Touché. Demiurge 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You've tripped up on yourself - the lake is the largest on the island of Ireland and, indeed, all island in the British Isles (in which you may, or may not, include the island of Ireland). You can't mix your references by stating island of Ireland and United Kingdom — apart from anything else, you've left out the Isle of Man. Bazza 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as John Lennon reminded us all, there's nothing you can say that can't be said - it's easy. But then someone shot him.--feline1 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish Pronunciation

Might I also suggest that the suggested pronunciation in IPA characters of the lake's name in Irish be changed? Surely the vowel in the second syllable of "nEathach" should be a schwa rather than a distinct vowel? I would say [lox n'ahəx]] but then again I speak broad West Kerry Irish so I leave this to someone more knowledgeable of Ulster Irish, particularly of historic East Ulster Irish. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In Ulster Irish, the second syllable of nEathach indeed has a full [a] vowel, not a schwa. (At least, this is true of Donegal Irish; I don't know if it's true of the historical accents around Neagh itself.) User:Angr 15:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, East Ulster Irish is "extinct", but arguably still survives in the majority of placenames for the area - thus the name "Neagh" surely is still "Irish", albeit written in some attempt at an anglicised orthography? "Neagh" isn't an English word! Any native of the area pronounces it the same way they'd say the English word "nay" (which isn't *quite* the same was BBC English would pronounce "nay" - a ulsterman will tend to have a bit of a dipthong on the main vowel, and trail off the "y" onto an "uh" sound)

Why on earth would a British lake need a Irish pronunciation? Wikipedia is not the place for republican propoganda. YourPTR! 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fionn mac Cumhaill

I have already corrected the misspelling of "Fionn mac Cumhaill" as "Fionn mac Cumhail". Nobody ever writes "Fionn mac Cumhail" but I see the incorrect spelling has been reinserted into the text. The final "l" is, historically at least, a tense labial consonant according to traditional terminology, hence the double "l". "Finn mac Cool" is nothing more than anglicised gobledgook. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me... I did it because the article is Fionn mac Cumhail. In the article, it says that "Cumhaill" is an old spelling. If that's not the case, I'd suggest moving the article to Fionn mac Cumhaill, and then correcting this page to point to the new name. However, for the moment, I'm going to change this page back to point to Fionn mac Cumhail to be consistent with the main article. I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination - just taking my information from the main article! Robwingfield ^(talk) 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just seen your comment on Talk:Fionn mac Cumhail, so I've moved the article to Fionn mac Cumhaill on your behalf. Robwingfield ^(talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff! Without getting too technical, Irish is an inflectional language in which cases etc. are commonly indicated by altering the ending of a word. This is particularly so in the case of nouns. Cumhall is a masculine proper name. The genitive form of which is Cumhaill (in other words "Cumhaill" means "of Cumhall", or "belonging to Cumhall"). In other words the final "l" is palatilised or "slenderised" in traditional terminology. Cumhall is pronounced /ku:L/ or /ku:l/ and Cumhaill ("of Cumhall") is pronounced /ku:L'/ or /ku:l'/. I can't see the symbol which indicates a palatilised consonant below so I resorted to using an apostrophe! Anyway, that's in a nutshell! I used to teach Irish grammar classes at university and Irish linguistics lectures for a while as well. Thanks for letting me know! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the info on the grammar, by the way. I'm a novice linguist myself... currently learning Russian. Irish can't be any harder than that! ;-) Robwingfield ^(talk) 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Keep up the good work! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Units of measurement

The first paragraph in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement says Conversions should generally be included and not be removed. yet User:Setanta747 has removed the kilometre equivalents for miles. No explanation is given, so I've reverted this edit. If you want the units the other way round, then fine, but don't remove valuable information needlessly. Bazza 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The United Kingdom uses miles for location distances. I edited this in the midst of editing a load of other articles, and I was not aware of the policy which you have pointed out (although it is more of a "general" guideline). I will edit again, but include the km measurements. --Mal 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Third?

Actually, is really Lough Neagh the third in Europe? The voice states that it's after Lake Geneva and Costance.. But Lake Balaton and Lake Ladoga?? They are the largest in Europe! Kanchelskis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.83 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually it reads it's the third largest in Western Europe, not Europe, which is correct. Ben W Bell talk 08:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh right! I didn't read it carefully maybe. Thank you.Kanchelskis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.83 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Not correct anyway: List of largest lakes of Western Europe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.83 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually it is, that list is wrong. Sweden and Norway aren't counted as being in Western Europe. Someone has recently added them. Ben W Bell talk 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry then! Kanchelskis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.83 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The writer of the article has not done his/her homework. Lough Neagh is definitely not the third largest lake in Western Europe. What about the Ijsselmeer which is 1250km2 (or at least 1100km2 when taking into account the impact of all the polders created during the last 5 decades. By the way this is by all accounts a lake not an inland sea as it consists of fresh water and is fed by rivers. It is also disingeneous to disregard the various lakes in Sweden and Finland which are bigger by claiming that these countries are not in Western Europe! The reality is that Lough Neagh may be big in the Irish or British context but it is medium sized within the European context.

It is obviously not the largest lake and according to Wikipedia's ranking it is not even in the top three. Let's settle this by stating it's among the ten largest lakes of western Europe. Marquz 10:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

altitude/elevaton

Hi. Why is there no mention of how high the surface of this lough/loch/lake is above sea level? Is it notable enough to include? I know it's about 0 - 100 metres (m) above sea level (asl), but I wanted to know the actual height. Anyone have a source? Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology: Ireland, UK, British Isles, etc.

Refactored from former §s "Suggestion" and "largest in X, Y, Z --- why it's worth mentioning Ireland & the UK"

Perhaps it would be less inflammatory to say "the largest freshwater lake by surface area both in the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom". That would cover both the geographical and the political location without using a term that makes some people see red. User:Angr 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be left as British Isles. Also any discussions on this point should be discussed in the (rather large) debate over at the British Isles article as this gives a central area for this wider ranging debate. Ben W Bell talk 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about British Isles as a term in general, I'm talking about how to describe where Lough Neagh is the largest lake. It's the largest lake both in its geographical unit (the island of Ireland) and in its political unit (the United Kingdom). 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. User:Angr 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated from my comment above: the lake is the largest on the island of Ireland and, indeed, all islands in the British Isles (in which you may, or may not, include the island of Ireland). By stating United Kingdom you've left out the Isle of Man. --Bazza 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you don't include the island of Ireland in the British Isles, then Lough Neagh isn't the largest lake in the British Isles. And the Isle of Man has nothing to do with anything. User:Angr 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But British Isles does include Ireland, as also described at British Isles (terminology); I acknowledge contention over the term, but this is also described at British Isles. The lake is the largest in the whole set of islands (that is, GB, Ireland, IoM and all the others), which is why you can't just say Ireland and UK - UK does not include Isle of Man. --Bazza 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You said "(in which you may, or may not, include the island of Ireland)", but that isn't true: for someone who doesn't include the island of Ireland in his definition of the British Isles, saying Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles is like saying Lake Superior is the largest lake in the Greater Antilles. The fact that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands don't happen to have a lake larger than Neagh isn't really relevant; the Faeroe Islands and Iceland probably don't have a larger lake either, yet no one is suggesting saying "the largest lake of any island off the northwest coast of Europe". The thing is, by saying "Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the British Isles", you're assuming that the archipelago consisting of Man, the Channel Islands, and all islands belonging to the Republic of Ireland and the U.K. is a single geographic entity that deserves a name. Many -- even most -- people would agree; but enough people find that assumption offensive enough that I don't see any need to drag the controversy into this article about a lake. Saying "both in the island of Ireland and in the United Kingdom" completely avoids the controversy without taking sides, and the fact that the possibility of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands having a larger lake is no longer excluded is a small price to pay. User:Angr 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes well I'm sure all the inhabitants of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands won't find it offensive AT ALL that bloody-minded Irish nationalists find their islands so insignificant that they don't even think they're worth considering in the issue. Not.--feline1 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That could have been put more tactfully. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is to state facts unambiguously and with a neutral point of view. Prices to pay are nothing to do with it. The undisputed fact is that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the whole island group known as the British Isles, and that is what this article should say. It is also a fact that islands' commonly accepted label is controversial and open to misinterpretation, which is why the appropriateness or otherwise of name is discussed at length in the British Isles article. This article, on the other hand, is to do with Lough Neagh and, as such, includes descriptions of its physical attributes which include its ranking size-wise in comparison to other bodies of water in its own locality and wider. If you know of another commonly accepted name to use for said group of islands, then by all means try it out; but do not censor or bend facts to fit a point of view. --Bazza 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's the largest lake in the island of Ireland and in the U.K. is neither censoring nor bending facts. But using a term known to be inflammatory when it isn't necessary (and it isn't necessary here) just seems pointlessly provocative. User:Angr 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the whole island group adds informational value to the article and is accurate. The label as used here isn't provocative - go and read the British Isles article if you want to find out what it means and what the context is. And if you don't like that name then be constructive and come up with an alternative as I invited above. --Bazza 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of what I like. I don't personally care one way or the other. But the recent edit war has shown that there are people who mind a great deal. I was just trying to come up with a compromise that was both accurate and non-inflammatory. But apparently I was overly optimistic in thinking the editors of this page would be willing to compromise, so forget it. I'm taking this page off my watchlist again. User:Angr 17:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tactfully put? The Manx have feelings too, you know! :)--feline1 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

British nationalism again! Yuk!! Oh! do they ever shut up?86.42.142.19

In the opening sentence "Lough Neagh (pronounced [lɒx neɪ]; Irish Loch nEathach [lɔx ˈɲahax]), in Northern Ireland, is the largest freshwater lake by surface area in the island of Ireland and indeed the whole of the British Isles", the phrase "and indeed the whole of the British Isles" sounds unnecessarily pompous, almost as if the lake's position in the "British Isles" is beyond question. This is blatantly POV. It has already been stated again and again on the "British Isles" main page and discussion page that "British Isles" is a contentious and controversial term. As I stated above on this page, I see this article as one describing a physical feature of the landscape and not a political teritory. In an ideal world I would prefer if the article remained purely geographical but I don't hold out much hope for that. I have already offered a compromise but no sooner had I done so than I was immediately shot down. However, I offer it once more. I propose that the opening line read "Lough Neagh . . . in Northern Ireland, is the largest freshwater lake by surface area both in the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom". I cannot for the life of me understand how unionists and anglophiles can possibly object to this. Both the lake's geographical position as the largest lake in the island of Ireland as well as the fact that it is also the largest lake in the United Kingdom state are accurately conveyed. I hope, fingers crossed, that I get some positive feedback on this. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to avoid political terms. I would like the article to say that the lake is the largest on the island it is on, and also the largest in the whole island group it is on. How might this be worded without using political terms? --Bazza 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of "because the Isle of Man isn't in the United Kingdom" don't you understand, exactly? Even with your Irish Nationist green-tinted glasses on, can you not perhaps see the irony of your objection to the use of "British Isles" on political grounds, and yet your merry willingness to deny the very existence of an entire island and culture to further your own political POV? You don't think Manx people might consider their erasure from an encylopedia article vaguely offensive? It's funny how every time I go to the talk page of someone who objects to the term British Isles, they consistently have it emblazoned with their love of all things Irish - i.e., all these gripers are just pushers of a political POV. And they should not be allowed to foist undue weight to that POV on everyone else. The large majority of of the 65+ million people living in the British Isles view it as a neutral geographical term and not some celebration of the potato famine, and indeed many find this narking Irish Nationalist POV in itself offensive. Clearly, what we need is a large offensometer, which can measure relative the historical politcal grievance of everyone living in the islands, and decide which has the most validity. Failing that, we could all bomb each other and stuff. --feline1 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For a start, when did I ever mention the Isle of Man? You must be mistaking me for someone else. I really am not in the mood for trading petty insults at people so I am not going to lower my tone to that of your petty little rant above. As for your assertion "It's funny how every time I go to the talk page of someone who objects to the term British Isles, they consistently have it emblazoned with their love of all things Irish - i.e., all these gripers are just pushers of a political POV." I think I know what you are getting at here. Because my personal page is in Irish that therefore means that I am pushing a political agenda simply by writing in Irish. What I choose to put on my page is my business and you really do live in the dark ages if you believe that to be an Irish speaker you must necessarily have some political agenda. I live in Dublin. I am from west Cork. For your information, not that it's actually any of your business anyway, my first langauge is Irish because both my parents came from Gaeltacht areas and raised me in that language. They had no political agenda whatsoever in doing so. What about my friends from the Czech Republic, Australia, Spain, England, the United States, Poland, Italy, Sudan, Germany, and Bulgaria who all speak fluent Irish and live in Dublin? Are they ALL Provos? Are you seriously suggesting that all native Irish speakers are card carrying members of the IRA??!! What planet are you on pal? Probably Saturn's moon Titan. That's the one with the thick Orange haze of methane for an atmosphere. But of course, do forgive me. You and the other apologists of this "British Isles" codology are completly apolitical and are not pushing any political agendas. I have tried to put forward a solution that I honestly believe to be neutral and not upset anyone. But you must consistently shoot me down and insult me! I'm willing to agree that the lake is in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. That states which political state it is in. It is the largest lake in both the island of Ireland and in the United Kingdom. I see nothing political in that. "British Isles" is a term that causes me and many other Irish people throughout the island of Ireland offence or just unease. I don't see why you must continue to provoke and offend other people. The term is NOT a purely geographical term as already claimed. When will you ever learn??!! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is you who is hysterically equating Irish Nationalism with Irish Republican paramilitary terrorism, in what I imagine is a deliberate rhetorical strawman. I am frankly sick to death of you and your ilk bleating on about how "offensive" the term British Isles is, when it is clearly being used as the most appropriate and neutral geographical term, and so many editors have been to such pains to lay out any naming controversy in a calm and neutral way on the British Isles article. No matter how neutral editors try to be, there simply is no appeasing your mentality - you will insist on taking offence where none is ment. Well two can play at that game. I am offended! Right here! Right now! By your politically-motivated anti-UK agendas! I demand parity of esteem! I demand you address the causes of conflict! How dare you try to edit out "British Isles"? Can't you see how offensive it is to the majority of people living in the islands? Hear our pain, damn you! Won't somebody please think of the children!?! And WHAT ABOUT MAY HYUMIN RAITES, LEEK?!? --feline1 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the tiff between you two, which incidentally breaks virtually all guidelines about participating in Wikipedia, I repeat my comment from above: I also would like to avoid political terms. I would like the article to say that the lake is the largest on the island it is on, and also the largest in the whole island group it is on. How might this be worded without using political terms? --Bazza 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bazza, you already know the answer: the correct wording is the one there at present. As for tiffs with these people - I already spent hours and hours of my time, with other editors, a few weeks ago on the British Isles article, trying to create a sensible neutral wording, but just had to give up and withdraw in the end. There is no compromise or appeasing with these people. Their dogged bloody minded attitude to take offence at the term "British Isles" knows no bounds. The only way to deal with them is to play them at their own game, and take offence in return. Their criterea for why the thing should be worded the way *they* want is simply that anything else would offend them. OK, so we accept their reasoning as valid... and point out to them that about 40 million more people will take offence if we *do* do it there way. Solves things nicely :)--feline1 21:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to mention that it's the largest lake in the British Isles at all? If you were to name the two lakes larger than it in Western Europe then it would be obvious that it's the largest lake in Ireland, Great Britain, IOM, Jersey plus any other countries you wish to include in an arbitary list. Something like "Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland is the third largest lake in Western Europe (after Lake Geneva and Lake Constance)..." --MikeNolan 22:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been away on holiday for the past few weeks and so haven't been able to contribute to the discussion. Firstly, the only alternative term to "British Isles", if one is going to insist on them being some sort of unit, is this: "Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and surrounding islands". I excluded the Channel Islands as they are geographically part of France. If that sounds like a mouthful, then tough. The term "British Isles" is objectionable and not used by most people in Ireland and therefore should be avoided. It is geographically and historically inaccurate as a I explained ad nauseum before. The term "British Isles" is just as bogus a term and as lacking in credibility as "Irish Isles", if the Irish insisted on thus labelling the said islands. As I have said before, there is no solid evidence anywhere that either most or all of the people of the island of Ireland spoke a British Celtic language at any time in our history instead of the Q-Celtic language, namely Irish, that dominated the country as a whole for many centuries before being supplanted by English during the colonial era. That's not to say that a British Celtic or P-Celtic dialect wasn't spoken here in Ireland. It may well have been. But its speakers may have been only a small and scattered minority who probably settled from Britain. I say this in response to those who claim that "British" is an ancient term that existed long before the foundation of the current UK state and so is legimate in the term "British Isles" utterly ignoring the current meaning of "British". All of this has been said before and all of this has been ignored so I'm not holding my breath that anything new will come out of it.

I think that the best alternative term that has so far been proposed is "Anglo-Celtic Isles" although that is problematic in so far that only a miniscule proportion of the people are "Celts", if we use the only proper defintion of a "Celt" as being a person who speaks a Celtic language. Otherwise the term is pretty much meaningless.

It has been stated before that because the majority of people in "the English-speaking world" think "British Isles" is AOK then that makes it alright yet most of the "English-speaking world" are not Irish, do not live in Ireland and have never been to Ireland. What exactly somebody in England or Canada or Australia or New Zealand has got to do with how the people of Ireland describe themselves and where they live is a complete and utter mystery.

In the opening paragraph of the article, it states that Lough Neagh is the "largest freshwater lake by surface area in the island of Ireland and indeed the whole of the British Isles, and the third largest lake in Western Europe". The word "indeed" is wholly unnecessary in an encylopedic entry and is clearly designed to be deliberately inflammatory. I would therefore ask that it be removed and replaced with more moderate language.

I therefore suggest that the text be amended thus: "Lough Neagh is a freshwater lake in Northern Ireland and has a larger surface area than any other body of freshwater in the islands of Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man and surrounding islands". An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, Irish Wikipedians have already discussed the term "British Isles" at length in the "British Isles" article and have largely conceded to its inclusion in this encyclopedia if not entirely to its content. Like the vast majority of Irish people throughout the island of Ireland, I find the term uncomfortable. One concession has already been made in regard to the "British Isles" article. The insistence on using the term in other articles really is rubbing Irish people's noses in it and is deliberately provocative where there is no need. The use of the word "indeed" is particularly inciteful. It is sufficient that the term be explained once in its own article and not be bandied about willy nilly in other entries. This is simply a question of respect for others. If I pigheadedly insisted on using "Irish Isles" at every turn, I'm sure that British and Manx Wikipedians would be none too pleased. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated ad nauseam already, many British people find your deliberate derogation and politicisation of the term "British Isles" offensive. And there's about 50 million more of us than there is of you. Can't you feel our pain? Will you please cease your hurtful and spiteful attacks. --feline1 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the word "indeed" is inciteful — it just qualifies the statement. "and moreover" could have been used instead. Step back and assume good faith. In any case, in all your point-scoring you've been ignoring MikeNolan's excellent suggestion on how to get the factual statement past the political bigotry, and I've implemented this as an ideal way to convey the facts required. Bazza 13:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that MikeNolan's suggestion is the best yet and avoids any politically bigoted vocabulary. Pardon my hairsplitting but surely there are larger lakes in Europe than Lake Constance? In surface area at least, Lake Ladoga in Russia is by far the largest lake in Europe and there are those two big lakes in southern Sweden whose names escape me. Lake Vanern and Lake Vattern I think they're called. Even a cursory glance at the map of Europe on my office wall shows a number of lakes in European Russia such as Lake Onegawhich are much larger in surface area than Lake Constance. Even we were being really picky, we could say that the Caspian Sea is Europe's largest lake by surface area which would be technically true although Lake Ladoga would still be the largest freshwater lake.

An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hair-split all you like — it generally ends up with more accurate articles. Note, however, that the article quotes Western Europe rather than the whole of Europe for size comparison. (And the article on the Caspian Sea introduces it as a sea not a lake.) Bazza 10:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Europe is extremely vague. Where is Western Europe exactly? How do we define its borders? Is Finland in Western Europe? And there are a number of lakes in Finland which dwarf Lough Neagh in surface area. Just by looking at the map of Europe here beside me, I'd guess that Lough Neagh would fit into Sweden's Lake Vanern many times over with room to spare for Lake Constance. Even leaving European Russia out of the discussion, that still leaves Lough Neagh as the sixth or seventh largest freshwater lake in Europe. Another matter are the reservoirs of Europe some of which dwarf Lough Neagh. Do we factor those in also? Or do we just stick to natural bodies of water? I take your point about the Caspian Sea. It is called a sea as its water is salty, just as the Sea of Galalee and Dead Sea are called seas even though they are lakes. However, the Caspian Sea is generally accepted to be the world's largest lake. Not all of it is in Europe, though.

An Muimhneach Machnamhach 10:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Europe is likewise vague in its eastern boundary. The introduction is there to set the scene. I'm happy with the comparisons as they stand - they point out that this is a large body of water, exceeded in surface area by only two others in its locality. There are links to those, and links to a more detailed list for reference. Looking at Lake Geneva's article, it is referred to as the second largest in central Europe. Perhaps someone with a keen eye for lists and figures might want to re-examine the articles to bring more consistency. Bazza 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well fine, who cares about wikipedia being accurate, so long as it appeases the parochial grievances of the usual cabal of Irish nationalists on here? We've managed to make the asinine point that "British" =- "bad", and that's surely the important thing.--feline1 12:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Bazza. Europe is indeed vague in its eastern boundary. The most commonly accepted eastern boundary of Europe is a line following the Ural Mountains and running down at an angle towards the northern shore of the Caspian Sea. Europe itself isn't technically a seperate continent to Asia. Rather the two form the continent of Eurasia, or Eurasia-Africa if we include the three continents as a single landmass, seeing as all three are physically joined to one another (Africa and Asia by the Sinai Peninsula). Anyway, I too am happy with comparisons being given to set the scene but let's give Lough Neagh its proper ranking according to the definition of Western Europe as given in that article. In that case, Finland and Sweden are included in Western Europe, making Lough Neagh either the sixth, seventh or eight largest lake by surface area in Western Europe. I'm afraid I don't have any concrete statistics here in front of me but I'm sure a little bit of research could clear this up for us. Either way, the introduction as it stands is as good as we're going to get it. We just need the proper ranking. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Europe doesn't claim the UK or Ireland anyway, but Northern Europe does, verified by UN subregion list. I'll do a bit of research on lakes in Europe, then we can not only give Lough Neagh its due, but improve the lakes lists as well. Bazza 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:03, 18 August 2006 (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" (do people have to be so pedantic about what is western Europe? What is wrong with how it reads now? bigpad 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"How can Ireland be considered the same political entity as UK/GB." — I'm mot saying that it is; please read more carefully before you revert. The fact remains that Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the United Kingdom (of which NI is a part), and that is important, encyclopaedic information. Demiurge 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Your latest change is fine by me, however I'm sure someone will come along and change "the island of Ireland or Great Britain" to "British Isles" and the whole merry cycle will start all over again :) Demiurge 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi All, I have made what I hope is a *final! edit that will keep everyone happy and retain the "UK" link, if you like. We don't want this page to turn into something the Stormont assembly could learn from (if it were up and running)!! bigpad 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So a lake is a geographical feature, not a political one; and therefore the primary context for the lake is its geographical one -- viz. 1) the island of Ireland; 2) the British Isles (or whatever name you'd rather call it); 3) Europe; 4) the world. But the fact remains that people are occasionally interested in the geographical features of a given political unit such as a country (or sovereign state, if you prefer that term); and so while the fact that it is the largest lake in the UK may not seem interesting enough to make the UK particularly relevant to Lough Neagh, it is certainly enough to make Lough Neagh relevant to the UK! And the fact that it is relevant to the UK makes it relevant here, if you see what I mean.

Of course it's not true to say that a true fact is inherently NPOV in an article; there are plenty of true facts which are irrelevant to a given page and therefore would seem POV if added. But if a fact is relevant, on the other hand, its omission has the danger of being seen as POV. Doops | talk 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I don't think mentioning it is the largest in the UK is actually necessary. It's in Northern Ireland and we've mentioned it is the largest in the British Isles (an accepted term on Wikipedia and most of the world, even used by members of the Irish Senate, Irish news and TV stations and others), so it's implied it's also the largest in the UK. I think adding in the UK on top of this just adds a possible confusion level to the reader and isn't needed. Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say im sick to death of this ridiculous "controversy" and i draw the line at being warned for 3RR by busy-body admins with no idea what the issue is let alone whether or not there IS a legitimate issue for them to concern themselves with. "British Isles" is a term with a pedigree stretching back thousands of years. It predates any existing political entity extant in the British Isles. It has no modern ethnic or political connotations (except for those of that some of an Irish nationalist persuasion like to invent) 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. The facts simply couldnt be clearer in this debate. As well as the myriad sources and evidence already provided showing the prominence and acceptance of the term il point anyone who cares towards the Dictionary.com list of definitions for the term which has a collection definitions from various dictionaries all of which happen to include Ireland. Ireland is a part of the British Isles. It always has been and always will be ( at least so long as this archipelago exists ) and this is NOT a political or ethnic issue. Should some extremist group of Canadians decide tomorrow that they object to Canada being treated as part of North America due to the fact that America/American has over time come generally to refer to the USA they would instantly have just as much legitimacy as the "Ireland is not a part of the British Isles" brigade. Its time for the Irish nationalists who so abhor the geographical placing of their nation to simply accept history and reality and grow up. siarach 09:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're so right, but I can virtually hear the extremist Canadians sharpening their pencils as I type... --feline1 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

'"British Isles" is a term with a pedigree stretching back thousands of years.' More blinkered British nationalist rubbish. The "pedigree" dates to 1621, a book called 'Microcosmus: a little description of the great world' by Peter Heylin to be precise. And this felicitously coincides with the British attempt to conquer Ireland. Ooops- oh what a coincidence. Geographic term...geographic term...geographic term....And unlike you two utterly lamentable little gobshites I am Irish and I live in a place called Ireland where nobody but self-declared British settler-colonialists and West Brits use the term "British Isles". Had either of you two ever visited the Talk:British Isles page you would be made aware of this very swiftly. Now, piss off and "civilise" some other poor people. 89.100.195.42 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The term 'British Isles' belongs in one article and one article only on Wikipedia: the 'British Isles' article itself. Irish Wikipedians have already argued long and hard over the 'BI' article and broadly conceded to its inclusion in Wikipedia if not to its content.

I really am baffled that while it is insisted again and again and again that the entire island of Ireland is part of the so-called 'British Isles', the labelling of the entire island, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as a 'British Isle' in no way and under any circumstances whatsoever implies that the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland is ruled by the United Kingdom government. So, the term 'British' seems to metamorphose Houdini-like from an adjective which means in this year of 2007 A.D. either 'pertaining to the United Kingdom state, government, etc.' or 'pertaining to the island of Great Britain' into a term which can indeed be legitimately, according to apologists, be used to describe the Republic of Ireland state and its people, etc.

Evidence is trawled up ad nauseam of its 'ancient pedigree', yet, the only evidence of its use here in Ireland, and bear in mind this is the very same island which it is claimed is an integral and insoluble part of the 'British Isles' and 'always will be' are a handful of references from a tiny number of journalists and politicians with anglophile leanings. That of course is their right in a free and democratic state, to use this term if they so wish, but they represent a negligible proportion of the populace. It seems to matter not a jot that the term is only extremely rarely heard or encountered amongst indigenous writers, broadcasters and politicians or that the vast majority never ever use it. The bottom line, of course, is that Irish people should have no say whatsoever in how they are labelled on the international stage because we simply don't matter. It is for someone who doesn't even live in Ireland to deem what is the appropriate terminology to be used to refer to Ireland. Remember, says Feline1 to the point of tedium 'there are fifty million more British people than Irish' in the 'archipelago'. Quite. None of whom actually live here in this island of course.

Someone born and raised in a sovereign, independent state, i.e. the Republic of Ireland, is expected by those pushing the term 'British Isles', who are almost all British themselves, to accept the term 'British Isles' as pertaining not just to the UK but to their own sovereign state and land. In the year 2007. Think about it. We have our own government, our economy is one of Europe's strongest, our own language, history. We are a fully paid-up member of the European Union and the UN. We have been a sovereign state for over eighty years. People gave their lives so that we could live in a free and democratic society and yet despite all of that, we are still expected to swallow the sort of Victorian mindset which 'British Isles' represents.

I accept that there are some British people who mean no offence and can't possibly see why Irish people should reject this term. I realise now that most British people are indeed totally ignorant of Ireland and the Irish. I suspect, though, that others are lamentably not so impartial. These would have us believe that if someone on the other side of the world thinks 'British Isles' is just peachy, then it must follow that, we too, must accept it as AOK, in spite of the fact that these people neither live here nor were born here. The bottom line is: Irish people should have no say in how they are labelled.

Northern Ireland is currently part of the United Kingdom. Lough Neagh's position within both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom is incontrovertible. However, to claim that the entire island is 'British' really is jarring (and remember this is the year 2007). As to what term should be used instead really isn't our problem. We didn't asked to be labelled by something which would baffle most of the population here.

Another vital fact is that there is no solid evidence provided anywhere in the 'BI' article that Ireland was once inhabited from north to south by P-Celtic or Brittonic Celtic speakers. Can someone please tell me when 'Old Welsh' ceased to be common vernacular of Dún Chaoin? An Muimhneach Machnamhach 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, out of that long and rambling comment I'll pick the crucial point and reply:

I really am baffled that while it is insisted again and again and again that the entire island of Ireland is part of the so-called 'British Isles', the labelling of the entire island, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as a 'British Isle' in no way and under any circumstances whatsoever implies that the sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland is ruled by the United Kingdom government.

Although it may baffle you, it's absolutely true: 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. I suppose there might be an exception in Ireland, and particularly in Northern Ireland; perhaps the phrase is politicized there. Perhaps there Unionists have a loaded meaning when they say "British Isles"; perhaps there Republicans are taught from childhood to hear the phrase as aggression. But for the rest of us around the world, I have to emphasize again: we really hear the phrase as a single proper noun; we really do not hear "British" in that context as an adjective meaning "relating to the UK." Really and honestly and truly. Doops | talk 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Lough Neagh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.