Talk:Lough Neagh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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-youth^pléigh 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-youth^pléigh 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-youth^pléigh 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-youth^pléigh 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-youth^pléigh 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)

Pick up a real encycolpedia in a University library and you will either read United Kingdom or British Isles fact. If people have political sensativities about this then to be quite honest they should bugger off to a pub and bitch about it there. This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia not a politically correct forum. Encyclopedia Britanicca [probably offensive to some but still the most respected] uses United Kingdom as it's terminology. Want Wiki to be a respected resource and not a forum? I suggest it does the same?Captainbeecher (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

British Isles usage; the sequel

Before we wear this article out again. Please discuss here again, why BI should or should not be used - Better yet, see the archives which covers this ancient argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, not again. While my personal preference is for "British Isles", I'll be blanket reverting to "With an area of 392 square kilometres (151 square miles), it is 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." as per extensive discussion above. If it's going to change, there better be discussion, and that discussion better lead to consensus. Get your finger off the revert button and discuss, people. -- Mark Chovain 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My viewpoint, and I'll not be editing until a discussion is played out one way or another, is that when describing something as the largest you really want to use the largest geographical area to show that it is such. For this instance British Isles is a really good phrase to use. Largest in the UK yes, largest in the island of Ireland yes, but explaining that in the text seems to lead to a mess of jumbled sentences trying to concisely convey something that can't be conveyed concisely and efficiently. British Isles, an internationally used term that is admittedly objected to by some people, is the better way, to my mind, to explain it. Any controversy over the term is discussed at length in the BI article and others. Canterbury Tail talk 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mess of jumbled sentences" seems a bit melodramatic. It's OTT as a description of the three slightly varying UK/island of Ireland versions attempted on the page recently, all of which are perfectly clear. Beyond UK/island of Ireland, BI only implies the Channel Islands, which would have to be completely underwater to have a larger lake than LN, and the Isle of Man, which would have to be nearly entirely underwater to have a larger lake, so that the exclusion of both from this comparison by using UK seems no loss at all. My reasons for supporting alternatives to BI relate to ideas that have already been said on this board: "the term is verifiably problematic," to quote the now-disappeared poster from above. And there is evidence other reliable sources--some map/atlas publishers--are moving away from BI usage. Wiki would hardly be a renegade for reflecting something similar (on at least some pages). Nuclare (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My preference for "British Isles" or "British-Irish Isles" comes from the fact that we're really trying to say is "the archipelago containing Britain and Ireland". They're just nice shorthand - the fact that the countries are there is incidental. The islands have been referred to as something similar for a couple of thousand years (c.f. Brittannia from 1C and beyond). The area included in the "United Kingdom" has changed a *lot* over the years, and will likely continue to do so in the future - it really is incidental that it (and Ireland) happen to inhabit the archipelago we're talking about.

By the way, the "disappeared" comments have been preserved in the archives.[1][[Talk:Lough Neagh/Archive 3/Archive 2|[2]].

Finally, will editors please show a little more maturity and restraint with the editing? Discussions will be much more productive if they can happen without the rumbling of an edit war in the background. That said, the powers that be have refused a request to protect the page unless we're in WP:DR. Where do people want to go from here? WP:RFC seems a little redundant given the history here (more opinions are not what we need here). Would people be happy going to the mediation cabal? -- Mark Chovain 02:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"...we're really trying to say is 'the archipelago containing Britain and Ireland'". Ah, well, if that is what is really trying to be said, than by all means say it. I'd have no objection to such wording, or something similar. ...but--I understand what you are saying in your above comments, but I don't agree with some of it. For one thing, I don't think BI is a "nice" shorthand. ;-) And while an earlier, Greek form of BI may well have first been used 2,000 years ago, it doesn't follow that the term has been used for 2,000 years. The evidence would suggest otherwise. (btw, I wasn't referring to disappeared comments, but to a 'disappeared' editor--that is, one no longer at Wiki) Nuclare (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what this seems to come down to is not that British Isles isn't a good term to describe it, but some editors object personally to the term (correct me if I'm wrong). British Isles is a recognised international term that is translated into, and well used in, many foreign languages. I acknowledge that some people don't like it as they think it implies some strange kind of ownership over the country of Ireland. If it's not to be used due to objections then the island of Ireland should be left out altogether as we drop down to the next largest unit which is the United Kingdom. No reason for Ireland to be mentioned at all. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

@Ben, again, this is not a question of "some people" objection to the term on a personal basis. The objections to the term in Ireland are widely referenced and there are editors that are pointing that out. The objection to the term by the ROI govt is not relevant for Lough Neagh because it's in the UK, but many people in NI don't like the term British Isles and the term British Isles is decreasing in use in many maps and other publications. Some people don't like the fact that the term is becoming increasingly controversial but it's still true. In fact, it may be particularly sensitive in Northern Ireland...which is where Lough Neagh is. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the phrase that I borrowed and used was "verifiably problematic," not personally problematic. And Britain, UK or Ireland are also internationally recognized terms (much more so than BI, I would say); they are also all translated into lots of languages. I don't know what you mean by "strange kind of ownership"--BI either implies ownership or not--what would be strange about it? But, regardless of whether it implies ownership, ownership is not the point, or it certainly isn't the only point: the root of the objections seems to be the general placing of Ireland under an umbrella of "British," be that 'ownership' in the political sense or identity or geography or whatever. It is certainly not just based on a fear of political ownership. Nuclare (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst wikipedia is supposed to proceed by consensus, it must be clear to all editors on this article that here were can only proceed by punching each other repeatedly hard in the face, most likely until we are all hideously mutilated beyond the recognition of our own mothers.--feline1 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

At least until things are settle at the proposed Task force; let's use a pipe-link Britain and Ireland. Remember? Sony-youth's idea? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a workable compromise because it assumes that British Isles is unacceptable for Ireland - and once in place will be impossible to alter. ðarkuncoll 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to hear Thankun's definition of 'stable'. Nuclare (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not usable as Lough Neagh isn't in Britain so linking to Britain and Ireland is not correct. British Isles is an encompassing term, Britain and Ireland is just the name of two islands. Canterbury Tail talk 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. CarterBar (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. ðarkuncoll 17:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case perhaps you British men ought to devote your time to working on the "Britain" Wiki page, because it certainly doesn't imply Britain only refers to one island. Nuclare (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was just an idea, no harm done. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Must this continue? Is page protection required again? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I requested page protection a week or so after this flared up again. The request was rejected on the grounds that we had to enter dispute resolution first. I agree to some extent (unless we go through dispute resolution, this issue is just going to flare up again when protection expires), but figure protection might inspire people to actually work towards a resolution. Another "win" for WP bureaucracy, I say. -- Mark Chovain 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There could be another way. Leave the edit wars continue & let the warriors get themselves blocked. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the most recent anon IP address as it is clearly a continuation of other, closely related IP addresses that are switched to avoid a straightforward 3rr infringement. However, I think it is clear that a sensible interpretation of the rules allow for a block in these circumstances. However, if the edit-warring continues and intensifies with different IP addresses being used, I will protect the article until some kind of consensus compromise is worked out on this page, or, if it cannot, it goes to other stages of dispute resolution. I was not the admin who refused the previously mentioned request for protection.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP is back immediately after their block expired. This edit war is distracting. -- Mark Chovain 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, although it is worth noting that their edit is not factually incorrect, it represents a point of view that has previously been on this page. Tharky's previous making the accusation of political bias was probably the wrong way to describe the position and provocative, as the insertion of British Isles is also political. There is no politically neutral way to handle this. --Snowded TALK 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected, as advised beforehand. Please try to work out an agreed-upon solution or course of action here.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be a waste of effort to try and work out a solution completely separate to WP:BISLES. They're likely to come through here when they make a decision anyway. What I reckon we should be doing is monitoring their progress, and discussing how the likely outcome will affect this article.

My understanding of the current consensus is that they're going to want to put "British Isles" in here, on the grounds that it is an article on physical geography, and we have good sources saying "British Isles". -- Mark Chovain 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Who knows what will emerge as a workable consensus there. I suppose I should be participating, but I'm not sure I've the strength for it. We also have sources for alternatives to BI for LN. Here's some:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Nuclare (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please read WP:BISLES first so we don't need to repeat their entire discussion here. They're not idiots; they're not going to come up with a decision saying, "see which side can come up with the most hits in a Google search, and edit war until both sides run out of steam." The current most-likely decision for physical geography articles is to use BI unless no-one else does for some reason. -- Mark Chovain 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. And I didn't call anyone idiots. And I certainly never suggested they would come up with an 'edit-warring is good' verdict. Why even respond that way to me??? Nuclare (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure BI will get necessary preference, the conversation is including concepts such as the "most appropriate". That could mean Shannon being Ireland, Neagh being BI or Neagh being BI and Ireland. Ideally the conversation should be taking place there --Snowded TALK 05:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise - that was just plain rude of me, and counter-productive. I overreacted to you providing a list of references, thinking you were suggesting that the existence of lots of references to lots of alternatives would automatically override a particular decision over at BIT.

I think Snowded is right. We should be having this discussion over at WP:BISLES so that they can see, and take part in any decision. -- Mark Chovain 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of overriding final decisions. But I see no harm at all in listing sources. I don't think alternatives should automatically override anything, but the opposing idea--that BI automatically overrides alternatives, simply because BI sources exist, is one that I would also find problematic. BTW, there aren't lots of alternatives. Almost all are to Britain and Ireland. Nuclare (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I think it's clear that this dispute is not going to be simple to resolve (based on previous efforts). What do people thinking of opening a case at the mediation cabal? -- Mark Chovain 02:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, there is debate at WP:BISLES (the British Isles Terminology task force) on the use of the term "British Isles". A similar debate to this one is at River Shannon (though has got very specific to this article). Medcab may/may not be be useful here, but there is related discussion too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean River Shannon? Nuclare (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - now changed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Big Lake

POV is ruining the lede paragraph of the article, it's the biggest in NI, the biggest in Ireland, the biggest in the UK, the biggest in the BI. It's just pure silly nonsense to hide these facts. Tfz 01:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted CarterBar. The encyclopedia cannot say that Lough Neagh is the biggest lake in Ireland? If that is the case, then what is the encyclopedia worth as an educational tool, CarterBar is assuming that everyone has read the BI article first, which is most probably not the case. Tfz 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a de facto agreement some time ago that left Loch Neagh as the largest lake in the British Isles, and the River Shannon as the longest river in Ireland. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A "pov pro quo", mind boggles.) I didn't remove anything, but added extra notable facts.Tfz 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit harsh, it was a long edit war and some resolution was needed. The principle was largest geographical unit respecting national boundaries. So if something is the largest in Europe then that is all that is needed to be said. Northern Ireland is in the UK, so BI was chosen. There were of course citations for both. --Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it to - what's that phrase - oh yes, the stable version. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing Paradise, 'harsh' in my arsh! Where is this lake? In China? Ireland must be included. I did not delete anything! Therefore rv! Tfz 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But Ireland is included. Largest lake in British Isles, Ireland is included there. Canterbury Tail talk 02:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete tosh. You are assuming that everyone understands what BI is supposed to mean. Why should a reader have to go to the BI page to work the conundrum out. To many people, BIs means, "islands belonging to Britain". Wikipedia is supposed to educate, and also for the "reader" to understand, and not to placate editors' pov-nationalisms. Why should Ireland be excluded. In many years time historians will view these talk-pages, and wonder what the fuss about including Ireland was all about, and the anti-Ireland (anti-Irish) brigade will look ridiculous. Tfz 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Complete tosh. You are assuming that reader's don't understand what BI is supposed to mean. Why would a reader not go to the BI page if they needed to work the conundrum out. To many people, BIs means exactly what the BI article says it means. Wikipedia is supposed to educate, and also for the "reader" to understand, and not to placate editors' pov-nationalisms. Why should Ireland be explicitly named. In many years time historians will view these talk-pages, and wonder what the fuss about including Ireland was all about, and the pro-mentioning-one's-country brigade will look ridiculous." There - fixed it for you. -- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is incredible, Ireland can't be "mentioned". Tfz 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do you a deal - You put Ireland in here, and I'll put the Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles at River Shannon, how's that? Mister Flash (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is a disputed area, Ireland is not. Tfz 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys can we pleases stop the threats. There are many absurdities around the use and non-use of BI as a term. In practice the Shannon-Neagh compromise was was one of the better examples of ending an edit war, we really don't want to go back there. I suggest putting the energy into the discussion page on how we create a long term solution. It doesn't look hopeful, but at least we should try. --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I never realised people were so stupid as to not know that the two islands are geographically known as the British Isles in the same way Scandanavia covers the Nordic region. Britain is a geographic term and has never been a nation. It refers to a series of islands, the largest of which is Great Britain. Ireland [regardless of any politics whatsoever] is known purely and simply in geography as the second largest island of the British Isles. This is a fact pure and simple and the arguments here are a shining example of why wiki will never be taken seriously.

Other Names

There should be a section detailing the name history of Lough Neagh for as far as i know going by old maps dating back centuries, Lough Neagh has also been known as Lough Sidney as well as Iveagh, though the latter is probably the then habit of writing N as a V etc. I can't remember at the moment who the Sidney it might have been temproraily named after is but i think it'd make a nice section. On the arguement that seems to have raged on this talk page - British Isles gets my backing as its only a geographical term not a political term. Mabuska (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Mabuska (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)