Talk:Firth of Lorn

message: The OS uses the spelling Lorn without the E.  Is there a good reason for using this spelling?--JBellis 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any reason why the E should be included; no official citation that I can find uses it. I'll remove it from the heading and the article (if I can) Angusmcdiarmid 13:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could as well have left it. On these ancient places with a long history there is no "official" version to use in referencing. There might be a government standard and there might not, but whatever it might be, it does not cover it. One might use a standard encyclopedia, but that has nothing to do with it either. There have been quite a few of those. I understand your desires to be "officially" correct and I'm for correctness as much as any man, but where is such correctness to be found? The problem really starts in Middle English, which has numerous ways to spell everything. Most of the variations have been culled away, but a lot have not been. I don't think we should present a standard here. There was no reason to change Lorne to Lorn but now that you did there is no reason to change it back. The variation extends over to the Canadian Lorn/Lorne's and no doubt to many other places in the former British Empire. But I have more to say of the Firth of Lorne below.Botteville (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do a quick search on "Firth of Lorne" on Google Scholar and you'll find hundreds of hits. Both spellings have been in use for a long while. Surely the important thing is to make sure that users can find the right article whichever spelling they use. Kognos (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: ... on the Firth of Lorn, just after 6am this morning. Should be available on the iPlayer soon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lqpwl/Open_Country_Firth_of_Lorne/
--NSH001 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC R4 "Open Country" ... 

message: The Firth of Lorne! What a romantic and nostalgic place which generations ago the Scots left perforce to found new ones in their new homes, Canada. Lorn! Why, my great great great great grandfather came from there! Down home, Lorne. But where would that be, exactly? The gem of the Firth of Lorn, Colonsay, is held in its mouth, we are told! But how can that be, when, according to us, Colonsay is nowhere near the firth. WP tells us in miles and meters exactly where it is and how long and how much surface area. I wouldn't count on it if I were you.
First of all, the article being a stub, there are no references to those numbers. We need book citations and page numbers or article names. Second of all, whose account of where it is, is that? On the Internet I see a great many points of view. There are obviously differences of opinion by credible sources. That being so, we need to represent the major points of view.
The information that is there appears to refer to the government protected area. This is the old government reduction trick, practiced so often in the states it is a joke. You want to protect Indian lands, right? So, you define those to be Oklahoma, so now you don't have to protect any of the rest of it all the way north to the Canadian border. I suppose the government wants to protect the Firth of Lorn, and that is very laudable. But, they've defined it to be less than half what it traditionally has been considered to be. What about it? According us, who cares, it is not the Firth of Lorn!
In the WP ideal, if there are credible alternative points of view, you present all sides; otherwise, the article merits a tag saying "unbalanced." This stub is unbalanced. Moreover, even for the view presented, there are no references. So, it merits another tag, "needs references." I'm saying all this so that you will not think that by throwing in a couple of references you can make this into a good article. We need to start up front with the first paragraph.
You are probably wondering why I am not doing it, as I am an active editor. I find that dabbling in an article takes up all your time as you get drawn into the controversies. So, momentarily I am not going to spend more time even to place all the tags it merits. That is because I am over on Commons helping to classify the many thousands of pictures that have been donated. At some point I will be back on these Hebrides articles. I'd rather take on each one as a whole article rather than meddle with it. I think it a more efficient approach. But, this is what is mainly wrong with it. Incomplete coverage, faulty definitions, missing references.Botteville (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete 

message: Despite the eloquent baloney of my previous note - I suppose I was influenced by the graphic eloquence of Wikiwand, which, if you have not seen, you should - I decided I would do some work on this to dispel some myths based on WP inaccuracies and fill the topic in better. It was after all only a stub. I find I had to remove a paragraph, listed below. It has no references, but here is what is not up to quality about it:
"It separates the Isle of Mull from the Slate Islands and the region of Lorne on the Scottish mainland. Its width ranges from  and it has a total length of ."
There is no region of Lorn now. Moreover, historically the boundaries varied. Also, the editor means, of course, the Inner Firth. But, no points between distances are given. They would depend on exactly what area you chose as the firth, but there is no such statement. Also the issues mentioned in the article above the paragraph remain unaddressed. Does that width include the islands or exclude? I did find a statement of the old Firth of Lorn in one of the gazeteers that go with the Ordnance Survey Map so if you don't mind I think I will put that in instead. However, if you have a reference with a better statement you are certainly welcome to use that.
Also I think some mention of historical geography is relevant. The Firth is not just a pretty place put there by the creator for our enjoyment. It is one of the two main conduits to the Caledonian Canal, which dissects Scotland and was of strategic interest at various times in modern Scottish history. It is a protected way to haul freight from sea to sea although it only affords access to ships of medium or small size. I am working on such a section.Botteville (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: More on the Firth

message: As it stands, the article is unbalanced, because the majority of it is not about the Firth of Lorn, but about Lorn. I suggest that most of this material should be removed, and where relevant merged into the separate article on Lorn. The material on the Firth itself needs to be re-organised and supplemented - there is nothing on economic activity, in particular fishing, and there are specific problems, such as that tides, though very important,  have nothing to do with climate. I'll start working on a revision over the next week or two. Kognos (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the changes referred to above. As you can see, it's mostly from a modern perspective. I hope this forms the basis for a more balanced article. It might be useful to add some historical material. If so, I suggest it should be about the Firth, not about the province of Lorne, which has its own article. One possible topic is the last campaign of Alexander II, who brought a fleet into the firth and died on Kerrera. Kognos (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on the Firth