Talk:Fort Victoria (Isle of Wight)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as stub. --dashiellx (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK credit

In this edit, I have removed the DYK credit given for this article. Following the link to the 16th June 2007, there is clearly no article about Fort Victoria. There is however an article about Fort Victoria in the early hours of the 17th June but that is about Fort Victoria (British Columbia). Even in 2007 I can't imagine hat this unreferenced stub could have made it to DYK. Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I'm sorry but I felt compelled to revert the most recent edits to this article. Firslty I'd like to apologise for using rollback though - I didn't intend to, but I clicked on the wrong link. I would normally only use rollback to revert vandalism and this clearly wasn't.

That said, I believe the edits were in error. Firstly, I cannot see any evidence of a copyright violation from the first edit. The closest text on the IoW council website is this and it is clearly not the same, or similar enough to be a violation. Secondly, the subsequent edits introduced incorrect information into the article. This article is about Fort Victoria, not the unrelated forts that proceeded it. Fort Victoria bears no relation to Sharpenrode Blockhouse, which was not in any case a Device Fort but an earthern blockhouse built to support the true Device Forts of Yarmouth and Hurst. It was then replaced by Carey's Sconce in the 17th century and a Napoleonic battery in the 19th century. Subsequent to that, there was a coast guard station here, which was relocated to Yarmouth to make way for the fort. The only relationship these sites had to Fort Victoria is that they were on the same promontory of land and it isn't correct to claim that the present fort is an evolution of, or a rebuilt Tudor fort - therefore suggesting that Fort Victoria originates from 1545 isn't right. I do appreciate that all of this has been sourced to Pastscape, but all I can say is that Pastscape is catastrophically wrong in this example (as it so often is).

I personally feel that a separate article on Sconce Point detailing the history of the fortifications here would be more valid, or a separate article on the post medieval forts up to the Napoleonic period. Or an expanded history covering the earlier forts in this article, but not in the format that I have just undone. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the copyright vio, https://www.iwight.com/Council/OtherServices/Fort-Victoria-Country-Park/About says:

• "Fort Victoria Country Park is the Isle of Wight's largest and most popular country park, owned and managed by the Isle of Wight Council."

The reverted text says:

• "Fort Victoria is the Isle of Wight's largest and most popular country park, owned and managed by the Isle of Wight Council,"

The copyrighted text says:

• "The Country Park also has several attractions in the fort buildings including a marine aquarium, a planetarium, a café, the Underwater Archaeology Centre run by Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology and a model railroad layout display... In the summer months, the rangers run educational visits for Island and Mainland Schools"

The reverted text says:

• "it has several attractions in the old fort buildings including a marine aquarium, a planetarium, a café, the Underwater Archaeology Centre run by Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology, a model railway layout display; and the ranger base from where in the summer months, educational visits are operated by the countryside rangers"

The coyrighted text says:

• "Swimming is not advised due to the fast-flowing currents. "

The reverted text says:

• "although swimming is not advised in the fast-flowing channel"

Etc. This is copyright violation, and I've removed it again.

In terms of creating a separate article, you'd be very welcome to do so; the information added is all referenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So instead of respond to my points about the history of the fort, you've just restored all of your incorrect edits. As I said, Pastscape is in error. More to the poiunt, you haven't got a single reference to say this was a device fort. Anyway, his article is about Fort Victoria - if you want to write about the history of the earlier forts, you need to create that article, not me. Please also follow BRD, don't reinsert incorrect and misleading information into the article. I will revert your mistakes and wait for you to discuss them here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled by why you think both Harrington and Historic England are wrong, in the absence of any references to the contrary, but anyway... I'm glad you've agreed to remove the copyrighted material at least. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained what's wrong with Pastscape; Sharpenrode bears no relation to Fort Victoria. At Stonehenge, there's a series of Mesolithic postholes that pre-date the current site by some 5,000 years. By the time Stonehenge was built, they were totally removed and invisible. We wouldn't claim that the Mesolithic structure was 'rebuilt' as Stonehenge, likewise, we can't say that the blockhouse was rebuilt as Fort Victoria. It had been totally removed and two other forts had since replaced it. They were likewise gone when Fort Victoria was built.

Unfortunately Pastscape is very often fallible and in this case they've evidently misquoted Harrington (or he got it wrong too). I'd recommend Cantwell's "Fort Victoria 1852-1969", or Cantwell and Sprack's "The Needles Defences" or Fisher's "A short History of Fort Victoria" for more useful information on the evolution of the site.

PS. If you click on the Pastscape tab for the Fort Vic entry with 'More information and sources' you'll see that it does support the submarine mining claims. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the bit in Pastscape you mean... there's a bit that says "In 1891 electrical contact mines were laid at Fort Victoria by the Submarine Mining Company", but that's not quite the same as the article's statement that the fort was "used as a submarine mining centre". Pastscape is oddly formatted though, so I may have missed the relevant bit! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, just discovered that I've walked straight into a dispute here by (re)adding stuff on Sharpenode Bulwark to this page. I know that Pastscape can be unreliable sometimes. I've had a look in 19th century sources and it does seem that little of the earlier fortifications survived until the 1850s. I'll see if we can have a paragraph or two on the earlier forts without suggesting continuous use of the site. Pasicles (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Attractions

Please dont roll back or delete edits to the current attractions sections as "SPAM" , there is no longer an aquarium or an archaeology museum at the fort, in place is a Reptilarium and a visitor centre. As operator of said attractions it is most annoying when people visit expecting to see attractions that closed a long time ago thanks to outdated wikipedia info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8B40:2567:0:5D04:851B:1D55:F230 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)