Jump to content

Talk:Isle of Wight/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

English version of Isle of Man

To me, the Isle of Wight seems a bit as fantastic as the Isle of Man, as the landscape evokes as much of a sense of Celticness as the Isle of Man's, I know, Celtic has nothing to do with the Isle of Wight let alone England. 69 schools is pretty impressive for such an island. I'm glad it's not part of Hampshire County though, 'cause that would just be an offense. With my headline, that's pretty much what I, and almost everyone else, can perceive it as. No hard feelings, as this should be a compliment! IlStudioso —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlStudioso (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

old comments

"It is traditionally considered part of the county of Hampshire; since 1974 it has been administered as a separate county for local government purposes."

This seems POV. Is the writer of the above the same guy who's been arguing for 'historical counties' on the list of UK towns page? It was in one county, now it's in another. -- Tarquin 15:58, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not the same guy, no, but it seems NPOV to me; the 1974 reforms didn't change geographical county boundaries, just local government ones. Would "It has been historically considered part of.." be fairer? Psmith 16:24, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The Isle of Wight did in fact become a seperate county in 1974, in fact the smallest in England before the revival of Rutland. Dainamo, March 22, 2004
The Isle of Wight is shown on this site as being 380km2, whilst Rutland is shown as 382km2. Does this not mean that the Isle of Wight is still the smallest county in England? Vectis Exeter, March 19, 2006.

Ah - but we get bigger at low tide !- and have territirial waters, including forts and lighthouses. Streona 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Material from Overwritten Article "Wight"

Unless it's utter nonsense -- the stuff about "were" (as in werewolf) and "world" being related isn't! -- the 3rd paragraph of this might inspire an addition (role of IofW in ancient lore) to the article Isle of Wight:

A being or creature, often referring to the elves. It is kin to the past tense of to be — were — and to world.
The Isle of Wight lies off the coast of the South of England in the English Sound, sundered from the town of Portsmouth by The Solent. It is a favorite seaside destination of sallow-faced Londoners seeking respite.
The Isle of Wight was originally settled by the tribe of Ingvæones (see Tacitus) known as the Geats in England's national epic, Beowulf. Beowulf selflessly saved his nation of Geats from the wide-spread destruction of the humanoid sea-monster Grendel and his accursed mother, by a remarkable combination of courage, athletic breath-control, and magic in a fearful drama undersea. He then was elected king, by grace of God.

--Jerzy 03:25, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

  • Here's an exact quotation from the Oxford English Dictionary Online:
[Com. Teut. (wanting in Gothic): OE. weorold, worold, world str. f., rarely m., corresp. to OFris. wrald, ruald, warld (EFris. warld, WFris. wrôd), OS. werold (MLG. werlt, warlt, LG. werld, MDu. werelt, Du. wereld), OHG. weralt (MHG. werelt, werlt, welt, G. welt), ON. veröld (Sw. verld, Da. verden): a formation peculiar to Germanic, f. wer- man, WERE n.1 + al- age (cf. OLD a., ELD n.2), the etymological meaning being, therefore, ‘age’ or ‘life of man’.

--Wighson 00:12, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)


Maybe the "sallow-faced" part should be added to London [wink], but i see now there's plenty on Beowulf already in Isle of Wight. And as to Beowulf, the last sentence and a half contradict that article, and may in fact be utter nonsense. --Jerzy 17:28, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

Jutes says Jutes settled IoW, not Geats. Morwen 17:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Isle of Wight History Centre says "Around 1900 BC the Beaker people arrived - so called from their distinctive pottery. They called the Island Wiht (weight) meaning raised or what rises over the sea. Then the Romans arrived in 43 AD and translated Wiht into the name Vectis from the Latin veho meaning lifting. The Roman rule started under Vespasian and continued peacefully for over four hundred years. Then followed a period of strife starting with the Saxons under Cerdic and Cynric in 530 AD. Many of the natives were slaughtered and four years after Cerdic's death the government was divided between his two nephews Stuf and Wihtgar. In 544 Wihtgar died and was buried at Carisbrooke. In 661 AD, Wight changed hands again when it was taken by Wulfhure, King of the Mercians, but it was in 686 AD that the West Saxon King, Caedwalla, conquered it and brought Christianity to the Island."
  • According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Jutes are Geats! The difference is a matter of spelling and due to the fact that the Venerable Bede wrote in Latin (Jutes), and not in Old English (Geats). Here again is an exact quote from the OED:
[In pl. Jutes, a mod. rendering of Bæda's Jutæ and Juti, in OE. Eotas, Iótas, ?Iútan (gen. pl. Iútna), also Geátas; = Icel. Iótar people of Jutland on the mainland of Denmark.

--Wighson 00:12, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

I would not take OED's description for a fact. In my Scandinavian books on etymology, Jute has no connection to Geat.--Wiglaf 18:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does this fit with Geats or Jutes? Rmhermen 18:04, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think the article should certainly mention the Jutes - there was mention of this on a UK archaeology TV programme. I'll dig out the reference. Agendum 00:54, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's right! But this is rather general knowledge. Bede speaks of the Jutes (ie, Geats) settling the Island in his classic Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731 AD), q.v.

--Wighson 00:12, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is general article rather than a work of history. The arrival of the Jutes in the Island (from Jutland, Denmark) is nothing more than a footnote in English history in that part of the country, any more than you might mention the arrival of the Saxons in other parts of the south.

What is more interesting, and might deserve a mention (if you want to cover early history in what is only a general article on the IOW), is the discovery of artefacts and finds from many different periods going right back to the Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, etc - proving evidence of continuity of inhabitation on the Island over thousands of years. Agendum 09:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the original author of the paragraph. I think you might be right; it may not be strictly relevant. Perhaps an expanded section (as per comments above) could be added with more of the archæological and historical information and tourist sites. The Beowulf info. could be put in there. For now, I suggest an abbreviated paragraph, which can serve as an interesting lead-in and introduction if others feel that too much detail is currently included. This is an example of a briefer version:
According to the Venerable Bede, the Isle of Wight was mostly settled by the Geats. The Geats were an Anglo-Saxon tribe made famous in Beowulf. Today, the Isle of Wight is rich in historical and archæological sites dating from ancient times.
Current version: The Isle of Wight is unique among the British Isles in that it is a region which was, along with the adjoining Hampshire and Kent, claimed and settled in the early Middle Ages by the ancient tribe of "Jutes" or "Geats". The Geats are best known as the people whom Beowulf saved from the man-eating sea-monsters -- Grendel and his mother -- by a remarkable combination of courage, athletic breath-control, and magic in a fearful drama undersea. He then was elected Geatish king. The Geats kept their connection with the sea when they settled the island. Today, the Isle of Wight is rich in historical and archæological sites dating from ancient times.


--Wighson 03:29, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

I really feel that the second paragraph- about the Jutes ("Geats" or whatever) has no place here and has got to go. Out of deference to the original author I haven't yet deleted it, but please consider that this is not a historical work but an introduction to the Isle of Wight for the general reader of an encyclopedia. There may be some justfication for a brief outline of its history or archaeology later in the article, but not as virtually the first thing you read. Agendum 23:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that the article on a place cannot be expanded to include notes on the history of an area. Indeed this is the style of most encyclopaedias with reference to countries or places. The more infomration the better. If you consider the entry on the Jutes to be in the wrong place conisder editing it by placing under a section in the same article titled "History". I don't think the article needs this unless it gets longer though. Dainamo 14, June 2004

Removal of Image:wight9265.png

This is a terribly innacurate map and I have removed it from the Isle of Wight article until such time as a better one can be found. The river Medina ends at about Whippingham, with Newport starting at about the same place, Ryde appears to have been plonked somewhere to the east of Seaview and other towns including Southampton appear to have been placed at someone's rough guess. Total crap. Don't use it. Dainamo 21:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Rivers Yar

Concernings the following before editing:

The River Medina flows north into the Solent, whilst the other main river, the Eastern Yar flows roughly north-east, emerging at Bembridge Harbour on the eastern end of the Island. Confusingly, there is another entirely separate river called the Western Yar which flows from Freshwater Bay to Yarmouth. The south coast adjoins the English Channel.

There is nothing confusing if one is the "Western Yar" and the other the "Eastern Yar", The confusion is that both are called "The River Yar" and the desigantion of either as eastern or western is only used in a context where disambiguation becomes necessary. Dainamo 00:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Feel free to make that point clear - and indeed, you're also right that they are not properly called either 'Eastern' or 'Western'. Naturenet 15:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Concerning Vectians

I'm not sure I agree with the prominence of the term 'Vectians'. I moved to the Island in 1970 and I've never heard the word until I saw it in the recent edit. In fact, I thought it was entirely fictional until I checked - so apologies for doubting the author. Google does show up one unqualified use of the word in the wild, although there are a few archaic usages. But I really can't see that it is anything other than a minor point, of far less prominence than Caulkheads or Islanders, for example (as I put it in my previous edit), as its a very uncommon term indeed. But, of course, I am open to being convinced, and would be pleased to see any other examples of the word in use. Naturenet 12:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you it was a little too prominent in its original positiion given the lack of use in more recent years outside erudite circles, but in recent years I've began to trip over it more and more recently from accademic references to pub conversations and it appears in my small Chambers dictionary as an adjective. I think also Google is more broad in its results than you have observed (and Google is somwetimes skewered to recent media anyway). A question relating to vectians it is even in the original GENUS edition of Trivial Pursuit. Since this is an encyclopedia, the term is correct and there is no substitute (Caulkheads is specific and "islanders" is used by many other island communities) it's worth its entry. Beside which, I rather the word like it as it provides a specific identity to all those who believe themselves to be "islanders" of the "Isle of Wight" and has neither the perjorative stigma or exclusitivity (depending on viewpoint) that other phrases may evoke. Nect time someone asks where you are from say "I'm a vectian" the more people do it, the less blank looks one will experience ;) Dainamo 17:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could you be admitting it's hardly a current word here, but you'd like it to be? :) I've asked everyone in my office (on the Island) and I got the blank looks too. I do agree the word exists, and should be in the article; but I don't agree that it deserves first place in the paragraph or to be called the proper term. However, I'm still ready to be convinced - in fact, I kinda hope you manage to convince me as it's a fun word. Come on now, provide some examples of the word on the loose. I'm eager to see them.Naturenet 11:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
sounds like fun. I need some time but herein are couple for now: The first is only a conjecture: [1]
Here is another being used in about the third review down [2] Dainamo 22:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nice hunting. The Stephen Leacock (what a great connection! I'm going to add that one in) quote actually mitigates against the term, as apparantly Leacock hadn't ever heard of it. The other one is the sole contemporary wild use of the word which I referred to in my first posting above... unless you're going to reveal some others, as you suggested might be found elsewhere in Google? So, no cigar yet. What about we compromise, move the paragraph down and remove the word "properly"? I'd be happy with that.Naturenet 10:11, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I hope the revised text is an adequate compromise and accurate.
Historical reference example the publication: Index of the Vectian Taxpayers in the Poll Tax Returns for 1379 With Two Appendices Compiled by Silvio Brendler published Baar, Hamburg 2000 ISBN 3-935536-00-3 A5 booklet 64 pages Price £5. [Quote] The booklet begins with an introduction to the background history surrounding the Medieval Poll Tax. There is a comprehensive list of references and an explanation of the abbreviations used. The main body of the booklet consists of an alphabetical index of the names of those recorded in the 1379 Poll Tax Return for the Isle of Wight and the district in which they were assessed. Although we are still in the period before the firm establishment of hereditary surnames and it is unlikely that continuous pedigrees can be linked to any of these individuals, it is nevertheless interesting to see if 'your' family names appear. Several recognised 'island' names, such as, Burt, Caus (Caws), Cheverdon (Cheverton), Holbrok (Holbrook), Mew and Urry are featured. This is a valuable transcription for those interested in potential early island ancestry.[Unquote]' The geological use is not in dispute (look in any decent dictionary) I have an up to date Chambers with it in. I admit isn't in my three-volume Websters, but that's a US publication anyway. I plan to look at some local references for the term in the next few days. Dainamo 19:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your revisions are very good. Thanks for being such a good collaborator, and the fascinating references! Not sure if 1379 counts as contemporary but I guess you would argue that the term was used in 2000 in this context, and I'd have no dispute with that. I've made some very minor changes (mostly spelling and punctuation) and I'm more than happy with it as it stands now. Naturenet 10:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd always thought the Latin-derived name for an Islander was 'Vectensian'. I've certainly seen this printed in Iow literature. Jess Cully 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial Isle of Wight To-Do list

Feel free to add topics as you notice them!

A Template?

This page is getting too long and detailed - look at the 'prisons' entry to see what I mean. There are also way too many images - Ok on a wide screen but looks awful on a smaller one. All of it is good stuff (well, almost all), and none of it deserves deletion. I propose a template box of 'Articles about the Isle of Wight' which can house a list of all the sub-articles of this group, and appear on each one of them. thenm all the detailed stuff can be filletted out of the main article. Comments, volunteers? Naturenet | Talk 10:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Done it Naturenet | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pages to be created

Parishes/Villages needing pages

Source: List of civil parishes in England

Stubs

Comments

  • Would somebody like to add to the article on Freshwater which I have began, but as I know little about the village, cannot continue (the previous page linked to Fresh Water). Might be better to use Freshwater, Isle of Wight which has more potential links to it.--NeilTarrant 22:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're right, there's not much there, is there? I'll have a look in due course but anyone else is welcome. Naturenet 12:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If we can expand some of the sections of the Isle of Wight article themselves, then maybe they could be placed on supplemental pages (e.g Geography of the Isle of Wight). --NeilTarrant 22:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Another thing, if anyone is hanging out in the Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board page, then there is talk of a page for every electoral constituency in the UK, which would therefore neccesitate another Island page (onto which some of the political history could be moved) and pages on constituencies of Yarmouth, Newport and Newchurch. --NeilTarrant 22:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what purpose this would serve (and what's WP:UKWNP?). Can you elaborate? And as the IW is only one parliamentary constituency now, and has been for ages, I doubt much useful stuff could be dragged up about the old ones which wouldn't fit better into 'political history', either as it is now or as a separate page. Naturenet 12:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Erm, not sure what I meant by that link... try the link to the new page I've put there . I'm not really in favour of the proposal as it seems a bit redundant, but if any contituancy does deserve a page, then its the Isle of Wight :-)... --NeilTarrant 14:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

regarding the list of parish

What's this list here for? Note that there are also town councils and unparished areas (most prominently Ryde and Newport, Isle of Wight), not on this list. Naturenet 09:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All needing pages - all the towns had pages, so I edited the list to remove them. I've re-edited the title to show this.

Important Local Issues...?

Is this the right thing for an encyclopaedia article? Interesting, to be sure, but aren't these items more like debating points? They don't really impart much information. Apart from the fixed link they're hardly anything special to the Island, either, are they? Or have I missed something here?

I added it as I think I have seen similar elsewhere (but can't recall where)... Feel free to delete, and I won't be offended. NeilTarrant 14:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What a gentleman! :) Let's leave them for a bit and see if anyone else bites. Naturenet 18:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I took the liberty of altering the text slightly and then merging to show the issues as part of (contemporary) Political History. IMO this keeps the entries, but avoids any conflict with encyclopaedic style. Dainamo 12:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought I recognised your distinctive copy writing skills! The Autonomy section is great, and fits in better where it now is. Good editing. The Fixed Link paragraph is also good. But I'm still unsure that the alternative energy paragraph is worth having at all, as it is not specific to the IW, and there is no end of information about this debate elsewhere. Thoughts? Naturenet 21:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, I thought the same when I saw the text in its original form, but was a bit ambivalent about what to do with it. I have removed ir. If there is anything that may be "peculiar" to the IOW concerning this matter then it can all ways go back in again. Dainamo 09:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of chaff

Removed the following:

Movies:
  • In Shaun of the Dead, after being bit by a zombie, Philip complains, "I'm quite alright, :Barbara...We had our jabs when we went to the Isle of Wight."

Non-notable. If every tenuous literary or film link like this were added the page would have more bytes than pacman. Dainamo 12:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC). (I Left Wyndam's Triffid Books entry as at least the Isle of Wight is an important plot item. I nearly removed the Beatles entry, but thought the international ubiquity of the song lets it get away with mention.)

Use of "the Island"

I'm also guilty of this one, but the article can refer to "the island" or "the Isle of Wight" but using "the Island" as a proper noun should be avoided as this is a colloquial designation. Dainamo 12:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transport and Tidyup

I've spotted the sentence "GKN based at East Cowes (previously known over the years as Saunders-Roe, Westland Aircraft, British Hovercraft Corporation remains one of the most notable historical firms; having produced many of the flying boats, and the world's first hovercraft." in the article (Industry and Agriculture section). This is clearly missing a closing ), but I'm not entirely sure where it should be (otherwise I'd have added it myself). If it is after 'Corporation' then I think the comma after 'Aricraft' should be replaced with 'and' (I think).

The transport section of the article about transport says the FastCat service runs from Portsmouth Harbour station to Ryde Esplanade station. When I visited the island (1996) the ferry service went to Ryde Pier Head station - has this changed?.

Thryduulf 21:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Well spotted! I've resolved the matters you raised. Naturenet 22:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Politics of the Isle of Wight

I've created a page called Politics of the Isle of Wight based upon material from this page, but including results for the most recent and upcoming elections. Can people please take a look, and edit as appropriate (there are likely to be a number of spelling errors) before I link to it from the main Isle of Wight page. --Neo 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Miscalanious Facts"

User:Azezel has made a new section and some good contributions of facts to the article, but I'm not quite sure they are ready to go in without a bit more work. So I have removed the following content and the heading "Miscalanious Facts"(sic):

  • Residents of the Isle of Wight are traditionaly known as 'Caulk Heads', though in fact the term is only correctly applied to those whose family has lived on the Island for four generations.
  • It has been said that the entire population of the World could stand together on the Isle of Wight.
  • Ths Island, specificaly Cowes is considered by many the Spiritual Home of competitive Yachting.

My reasons are as follows:

  1. A much fuller treatment of Caulkhead is found in History of the Isle of Wight.
  2. This is a good proverbial saying, but is certainly no longer true. I'd like to see a more comprehensive discussion of it, perhaps also in History of the Isle of Wight.
  3. This is already dealt with in Cowes Week and Cowes.
  4. I'm not entirely sure about the section heading, either. Miscellaneous is a bit of a meaningless heading. But the facts are all of some merit, perhaps all these things can be fitted into existing articles - such as the ones I've suggested - if indeed this has not already been done.

Naturenet 20:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm opposed to any 'facts' 'trivia' or similar sections. I would agree that if a fact is important enough it should be integrated into the main body of the article. I don't like the 'population of the world' claim - its always struck me as being a little silly... plus the inevitable question 'If the entire population of the world could stand on the Isle of Wight, why the hell would they want to?' Neo 22:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Years ago I read a Science Fiction book which concerned the ever-increasing population of the world. It asserted that the Isle of Wight was no longer big enough. The book's title was "Stand on Zanzibar". 'Fraid I can't remember much more than that, but it's only trivia anyway!--King Hildebrand 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I just thought I'd calculate this... apparently the population of the world is circa. 6.5 billion, and the size of the Isle of Wight is 380km squared, therefore each person in the world would get 0.13 metres squared... for comparison the size of an A4 sheet of paper is 0.06 metres squared, so each person would get a little over 2 sheets of A4 each (which I think would be enough for most people - maybe not Americans). --Neo (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think I'd struggle on a bit that size. But maybe on average people are a bit smaller than I am. Anyway, without a doubt John Brunner's pessimistic predication about Zanzibar has not yet come true, although quite a few of the other predications in that remarkable book have been proven all too accurate. Naturenet | Talk 11:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Joe Wyeth

I've removed from the list of famous connections:

  • Joe Wyeth - Famous for starting numerous riots.

on the following grounds:

  1. This person has no article on Wikipedia, therefore if notable no more information on him can be established
  2. A google test reveals only 45 results for "Joe Weyth", many of which seem to be a sportsman from New Zealand. A news search only reveals 1 result, relating to the New Zelander.

I'm assuming that this edit was made in good faith, and would encourage the author of this comment to provide further information on this character, and possibly write an article on him if notability can be established. --Neo 12:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

New Commons category

I've started a new category in Wikipedia Commons of images from the Isle of Wight. Not many in there yet, I've got a few on thier way. Please, Island Wikipedians, feel free to add a few in. See Commons category: Isle of Wight Naturenet 10:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested for inclusion

Under "Other fictional references", what about Monty Python's absurd reference to Shanklin, Isle of Wight in the Episode 'Mr Neutron' [1976]? http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode44.htm

(Maybe just too passing to include?)

Yes, I think it is too passing. I guess you probably do too! Naturenet 14:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Culture of the Isle of Wight

In my never ending quest to ensure that at least half of Wikipedia articles are about the Isle of Wight I have created a 'Culture of the Isle of Wight' page. Can anyone who has this page on their watchlist take a butchers, and edit if needed. I think we can maybe lose a little of the content of this page now onto the culture sub-page, and we ought to maybe link to it somewhere. Apologies if anyone thinks the page is a needless extravogence... but I like it ;) --Neo 19:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Grey squirrels

To be fair, although the reverted post [3] was invalid as original research, there have been reports. Tearlach 18:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there have. Following one corpse being discovered in 2002, over £10,000 was spent on trapping and hair-tube studies, with hundreds of hours of work by volunteers and paid staff. Thankfully not a single grey squirrel was located. We are now confident that there are no breeding grey squirrels on the Island. No confirmed sighting or recovered corpse has been received since 2002. [4] Naturenet | Talk 21:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (and this is me too - I don't normally mix work with Wikipedia but in this case it seems relevent!)
Accepted. Seriously unsubstantiated, then? Tearlach 23:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The Council is always interested in reports of grey squirrels, we get perhaps 2 or 3 a month and every single one is followed up. With only one exception in the last 5 years they always turn out to be something else, such as red squirrels, rats or rabbits. At present, there is no evidence of any grey squirrels at all on the Island, and certainly none breeding. If anyone thinks they've seen one they should immediately ring 01983 823893 in office hours or, out of hours, email the Countryside Section and the report will be dealt with as a priority. Naturenet | Talk 09:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like the Isle of Man and foxes. Repeated reports, but when the Manx government got in marksmen a couple of years back, they couldn't find any. Tearlach 11:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Subsequent to these edits a local DJ was convicted of organising a hoax "plot" to blackmail the local authorities by threatening to release grey squirrels on the Island. This would be potentially serious as it is now suggested that the cause of the greys hegemony over the reds is due to their carrying squrrel-pox, to which they are resistant but the reds are not.--Streona (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed this from 'Transport and Communications'

The cost of ferry travel is reputedly high for those taking a car, and the omission of pensioner concessions on ferry fares that had applied to land transport in the Travel Concessions Bill in 2001 was highlighted by the constituency's Member of Parliament: "Given that, on 4th July, the Prime Minister promised concessionary travel for pensioners on long-distance coach services, does he sympathize with pensioners on the Isle of Wight who have to cross the most expensive stretch of water in the country to board those coach services? Will he provide similar concessions on ferries?”

My reason was that it was too detailed for this article, and seemed to be teetering on the POV as well. I'm sure a place could be found for it somewhere so I've left it here for anyone else to pick up. Naturenet | Talk 23:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The map

The map gives the impression that the Isles of Scilly are not a part of England. //Big Adamsky 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If only there were a cartographer on Wikipedia who was able to actaully draw maps! They'd soon be able to fix it. Naturenet | Talk 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ticket to Ride

This has appeared before. Unless a reliable source can be named, I suspect urban myth or just wishful thinking by those familiar of the said town. I have removed the quote:

Ticket to Ride, the Beatles classic, is a pun on 'Ticket to Ryde', the ferry port to the North of the Island.

Dainamo 12:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My source is 'Revolution In the Head' - fantastic (and very well respected) analysis of The Beatles' music by Ian MacDonald (ISBN 0-7126-6697-4) - its on page 127, and to quote;

'The title arose from a pun on Ryde, the ferry port in the north of the Isle of Wight. Lennon and McCartney took a daytrip ferry from Portsmouth to Ryde to visit friends (possibly on 8th April 1963)

I think its well enough established (and now sourced) to make the article - didn't add the reference to the article 'cos I wasn't sure it really added anything (and don't really know how to do it anyway) - but there you go - cheers, Petesmiles 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Long way round to Yarmouth

I was in the Isle of Wight for the first time today and, by chance, took the double-decker 7B bus from Newport to Yarmouth to catch the Lymington ferry - the trip should be a tourist attraction in itself: sort of roller-coaster time-travel on the edge of a cliff.--shtove 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Folklore

Is there any folklore about keeping strangers out? Say, legends about punishments meted out to Roman/Jute/Norman invaders?--shtove 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See Peter de Heyno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Wight UDI

I today removed this text:

REMOVED TEXT STARTS

Isle of Wight (U.D.I.). [[5]]

After a brief dispute with the British government over the threatened closure of 1 the island hospital and the minting of a charitable collectors' issue of Euro coins; the island's council declared there interest in creating a devolved system similar to that of the Isle of Man after a proposal made by the council leader, Morris Barton of the Liberal Democrats. A referendum of sorts was to be held on July 17th, 1996.


Their plan was to take control of-

1/ Tourism,

2/ Local laws,

3/ Taxation,

4/ Agriculture,

5/ Local media,

6/ The fate of a disliked fixed transport link to Hampshire,

7/ Whether the island should become a duty free zone,

8/ Whether the island's ports should take up a 'free port' status.


The council voted 17/3 in favour of the bill, but the Labour (opposition) leader, Ken Pearson added the need for a separate E.U. infrastucture/regional funding body, rather than just relying on the U.K. to negotiate for them. The Conservatives and some Independents chose to form a loyalist movement that campaigned against devolving the island's authority.


A £12,000 survey of 8,000 people by Mori Poll, on July 17th, showed only limited support for this proposal. None the less The fixed link was voted out of exsistence and the Island's campaign was aired on the B.B.C.'s Newsnight program and Channel 4 news.


The Later the councli decided that the Island should declare U.D.I. from the U.K. after their wishes were not honoured (give or take the now scrapped fixed link issue) by the British goverment. This only lasted a few weeks, since, after realising everything was going too far and the U.K. was not in anyway impressed by their actions, they gave up and rejoined their former home-country.

It is worth noting, none the less, that the handful of charitable Euro coins were not declared illegal tender and the threatend hospital stayed open as a gesture of good will towatd the council (or goverment) of the Isle of Wight. The fixed link was, of course, scraped, since evey one on the island agreed that it would be a unsightly intrusion on the north of their beautiful island.

REMOVED TEXT ENDS

My reason for this is that the information is not suitable for the encyclopaedia, as it is too detailed for the general article. It is also not written from a neutral point of view and needs some copy editing. However the information is interesting, and sourced. I include it here as parts of it may be of some merit possibly to go in History of the Isle of Wight or Politics of the Isle of Wight. Naturenet | Talk 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There were way too many links on the page. There should not be a list of all IW-related links but only those suitable for the main IW article. The following links have been removed, leaving only those with particular relevance to the whole Island and not a particular aspect of it. These may be good links, and many of these would be usefully included in other IW articles, so please reallocate them as you see fit, and strike them out from here with <s>...</s> when you've done so.

Naturenet | Talk 21:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Grockel / Duver ?

I always thought we called 'em grockles. Is there a sound basis for either spelling? --TheMadBaron 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

and talking of colloquialisms does anybody know the origin of the word duver used as a name for a thin neck of land or spit as at St Helens and Yarmouth ? And is this term unique to the island ? Kittyalex 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the term "grockle" is used across the South West to describe tourists. Research suggests that it originates from Torbay as late as the 1950's, when a pool attendant used the term to refer to one of his elderly clients who used to partake of an early morning dip. The word comes from a comic strip in "The Dandy" (I think) called "Danny and his Grockle", the latter being a sort of magic dragon-type creature. The term spread through "pub chat" across the south west and was used to refer to all tourists.

As far as I can tell there are many people who feel that the word was in common use before the 1950's, but there appears to be little evidence to back this up.

I might do an entry for "Grockle" if I get the time... Paul-b4 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently bought a book on place names of the Isle of Wight, and according to that, Duver is from the same route as Dover - I will add a proper reference when it and I are in the same place, as at the moment it's on the Island and I'm not! --Peeky44 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain

Did Great Britain exist in 686 AD? The term is usually used these days for the union of England, Wales and Scotland, which was formed by the Act of Union of 1707. The term Great Britain has been used as a contrast to Little Britain - the Brittany Peninsula - but not in present day common parlance. If you are using GB as the name of the island of Great Britain, can you validly state that there was a single date of conversion to Christianity? I suspect that "England" would more accurately convey the meaning intended.--King Hildebrand 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost sorry I mentioned this now. I've been browsing the Talk:Great Britain page, where far more comments and counter comments may be found. Seems to be a sore point! --King Hildebrand 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Camphill

This person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=193.113.48.9

Appears to have added a contribution about free water for residents of Camphill prison estate. Can this person contact me on garry.price@iow.gov.uk to advise where this information originated. Currently the information appears to be inaccurate. The idea of the estate being accessed by two roads that are gated is also incorrect.

If there is any information to support the assertion that water is free in Camphill I would be very pleased to receive it on behalf of the local residents.

Clr. Garry Price, Parkhurst Ward, Isle of Wight Council

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.156.220 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rebound?

Surely there is some mistake in this statement: "The Isle of Wight became an island sometime after the end of the last Ice Age, when post-glacial rebound caused the land level to sink, the Solent flooding and separating the island from the mainland. " How can rebound after removal of an ice load cause the land to sink? October 4, 2006 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs)

I'm not a geophysicist, but as I understand it the UK functions somewhat like a see-saw (thats a teeter-totter if you're American), with the motion upwards of Northern regions causing the southern regions to sink somewhat - i.e. the continental crust of the UK and Europe as a whole functions as a rigid slab. -Neo 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a geophysicist, and a little consideration demonstrates to me that the situation is far more complicated than it first appears. Some comments:

1. It is not completely clear to me what the extent of ice loading was in the British Isles during the last ice age (my apologies to those who realise we are still in an ice age, and this is just a short interregnum). This is a factor that should be considered.

2. In some locations, ground subsidence might be caused by loss of groundwater or urban area loading. Presumably this is not associated with the subsidence of the Isle of Wight and its separation from the English coast. It has been conjectured to be associated with the subsidence of Venice, the Netherlands and other regions. However, I have my doubts about these theories without doing any computations.

3. It is true that loading of the earth's crust can be observed to result in subsidence, such as on the sea floor around the Hawaiian islands, and presumably on the sea floor near Reunion as well. There is also a "rebound" some distance away from the main load which fits continuum mechanics models well. I do not know if this situation holds in the case of the Isle of Wight, or if it is much of a contributing phenomenon.

4. Changes in oceanic temperatures can affect sea levels because of expansion of sea water.

5. Sea level is also influenced by the volume of ice that is sequestered on land, such as in glaciers, in Greenland, or Antarctica.

6. Change in the volume of oceanic basins associated with glacial rebound in some areas can result in an increase in sea level throughout the basin. This includes areas that had remained ice-free and are not rebounding if the amount of water to be accommodated stays constant, increases, or does not decrease sufficiently. The areas associated with rebound might experience a net lowering of apparent sea level if the rebound was greater than the sea level rise at that location.

7. Rebound is dependent on the viscosity of the mantle and many other factors. These are not well known but can be estimated in some cases.

So in conclusion, the rebound of many areas further north (as well as in the extreme Southern Ocean) after the last ice age might be associated with the apparent rise in sea level around the Isle of Wight. However, this is not completely obvious, and it would bear some investigation before making a statement like this or even a conjecture to this effect. -User:Filll 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, but not really much to do with the Isle of Wight. Why not repackage this wisdom on a suitable page? Could be of interest I'd say. Meanwhile, just take out the ref to rebound if you don't like it. I'm sure you can think of a suitable phrase to explain the phenomenon adequately in this article; in which it is, after all, only a passing reference. Naturenet | Talk 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
A bit more investigation indicates to me that the area around the Isle of Wight was probably ice-free during the last ice-age, and therefore would be expected to experience subsidence and posibly the effects of ocean basin volume changes. I have tried to make things a bit more precise in the description but not detract from the main article's thrust. User:Filll 4 October 2006
Very nicely done! Naturenet | Talk 07:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fishbourne, Isle of Wight

The page at Fishbourne, Isle of Wight has been the subject of some ongoing, rather feeble vanity vandalism over the last few days. I've been keeping an eye on it but if anyone else fancies putting it on their watchlist it would be appreciated. Naturenet | Talk 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in England?

A person I met on the Isle of Wight told me the Isle of Wight is in the UK but not in the England. According to the article, this is false. Is there any truth to this or was she just kidding me? JIP | Talk 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess she was just kidding you - I must admit that I myself have got people to believe lots of false things about the Island when bored, for instance suggesting that we don't have electricity or cars, and that one needs to row across to reach it. Anyway - here are some clarifications for you:
Legally: A part of England. Any legislation applying to England will apply to the Island.
Politically: A part of England, more specifically within South East England for statistical and European Electoral purposes.
Historicaly: A part of England. Probably since the creation of the state, or at the least since the sale of the Island to the Crown in 1293.
Geologicaly: A part of the English landmass. Rock strata on the Island can be followed through to the south coast of England.
Geographical: A part of England by most descriptions. Interestingly enough though *not* by the description of a number of Islanders who will happily declare to be going to 'England' when visiting the mainland. It perhaps a manifestation similar to the tendency to say 'Europe' when one means mainland-Europe in the rest of the UK.

Hope this clears stuff up. --Neo 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article states the isle is 3 miles off the south coast of England. I changed England to (the island of) Great Britain, as The Isle of Wight is part of England. -24.149.185.189 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced Duplication

I removed the duplicated information about transportation. I simplified some of the wording. I added some statistics as well about tourism and geography. --Filll 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More work needed

There is an immense amount of work needed on the articles about the villages, towns, hamlets, famous houses, geographic features etc on the island. I have added a few, but there are many many more that are just stubs or have no article at all. For example, take a look at List of places on the Isle of Wight.--Filll 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are people working on these? Every so often I try to knock off one or two of these. The Isle of Wight is so small with just a handful of towns, villages, hamlets etc that we could easily describe all of them with at least a stub.--Filll 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. There are many articles about the Isle of Wight, like these:
plus another 65 or so here. Already quite a few more than, for example (to take another much larger county at random), this one. Anyway, if you think more are needed, be bold, create them. But I'd suggest that they need content, not just stubs. Naturenet | Talk 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well stubs for the red entries in the category. And filled out full articles for the stubs. I do not propose they all be stubs and left as stubs, certainly. But point taken.--Filll 20:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Villages and Hamlets still missing:

Alverstone Shalcombe Thorncross Whitely Bank Gurnard Merstone Five Houses Limerstone Moortown, Isle of Wight Northwood Winford--Filll 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Squirrels

The claim that it is the only place in England with a flourishing red squirrel population is rubbish - Brownsea Island also has one, and that's just down the coast in Poole Harbour.

This is from the same website that claims that the Isle of Wight was named by the Beaker Folk, despite the fact that no one knows what language that people ever spoke!!! --MacRusgail 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The IOW has a flourishing red squirrel populkation which is served by its own website run by a lady called Helen and they are around 3-4000 from a British population of around 40,000. MAybe its just me but I have seen a lot more in recent years in such places as Borthwood, Combley Great Wood, Shanklin and others.--Streona (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

accent

Describing the accent as somewhat stronger than Hampshire does not help the reader. Strength isn't a dialectal concept. "[A]n emphasis on longer vowels" is similarly nonsensical.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hour buses

It's been a while since I lived on the Isle of Wight but does it really have a 24 hour bus service to most towns? SteveTraylen 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No- I had to walk back to Sandown from Niton because the last bus went at 7.30pm and the Southern Vectis timetable does not indicate 24 hour servicesStreona 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few more buses these days. However I'm a little concerned at the extent of the detail about these services which has appeared in the Island articles, as such detail is likely to change without notice and Wikipedia is not a directory. Naturenet | Talk 13:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Naturenet. There are some people here that clearly are interested in buses, which is all well and good, but I do wonder what sort of detail (which can be transient in nature) should be in the articles. I am pushing to try to get at least 5 or 6 interesting "facts" in the articles about each community on the island, and crosslink these articles of Places on the Isle of Wight. There is still a lot of work needed, obviously; too many of these articles are stubs at best or sloppy or redlinks. Some of the contributions to these community articles are decidedly unencyclopedic in nature.--Filll 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. I'd be in favour of facts, rather than "facts". They're so much more reliable ;) Naturenet | Talk 13:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More on in What County

A very important factor to Wiki readers doing genealogy is what county was shown on birth, marriage, death, and census records at different periods of time. The civil registration system began throughout England in 1837. Before then, parish records often didnt identify the county. Since that time, "vital statistic" and census events occuring on the Isle of Wight were recorded as happening in the Isle of Wight Registration District, Hampshire County. Granting "administrative county" status in circa 1890, while providing more self-government, did not change the name of the county used to record these events, i.e. Hampshire County. It was in 1933 that these events began to be recorded as occuring in Isle of Wight County. One source is http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/REG/districts/isle%20of%20wight.html. The ceremonial county designation of 1974 seems to have had little effect on the recording of genealogical facts. East and West Cowes are entirely separate towns. Unless the boundaries of East Cowes have moved in the past few years, Osbourne House is still in the village of Whippingham, not in East Cowes. Glenn Lane (glennlane1@aol.com). 76.102.31.185 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

History

History begins before the Norman Conquest and I have added some history of the island prior to 1066. James Frankcom 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can also add some sources and references for it. I wonder whether it might also be better in the main History of the Isle of Wight page? Naturenet | Talk 17:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Time for a spring-clean

This article is stupidly long.

Any comments, objections, other suggestions for the scalpel? Naturenet | Talk 12:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This main article is only 55K including references, so it is not super long. However, I agree that shorter is better.

Paring this article down to a more succinct readable accessible summary I think is a worthy goal. However, I think that the information should just be farmed out to other articles. I do not think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not paper, remember.--Filll (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so what should we do with the tables in Demographics and Climate? Naturenet | Talk 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transportation on the Isle of Wight. Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we saw that one off Naturenet | Talk 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Once more, what's to be done with the tables in Demographics and Climate? I really don't think they are appropriate in the main article and can't see another place for them. I believe they are unencyclopaedic and intend to remove them. Naturenet | Talk 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The page already has the total population, it really doesn't need to be broken down into age groups as well. I think it would be fine to get rid of them. Editor5807 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we move List of people from the Isle of Wight to People from the Isle of Wight and include the demographic table there.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For the climate information we could consider several alternatives. First, it is already easy to find in the cited reference [6], already in the article. So we could get rid of it completely. Alternatively, we could move all the geography section to a new article, and just leave a short summary here, making Geography of the Isle of Wight. There is a lot more interesting geography than we discuss in this article and that would leave room for expansion of material. Another alternative is that we could put it in another article. It might be appropriate to make Economy of the Isle of Wight a separate article, and include the climate table and discussion as part of the discussion of tourism and agriculture.--Filll (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Some good suggestions there. I hadn't noticed that the demographics were already referenced so I agree they could go. Same would apply to its inclusion in any 'People of...' article I guess - it just doesn't make good reading to me anywhere. That sort of info is the kind of thing you expect to go to the source for, not find in an encyclopaedia. But having said that, if you fancy doing the legwork Filll then I certainly won't mind.
As for climate, you know I favour deleting it on the same grounds. But again, I sort-of like the idea of 'Geography of...' for the reasons you set out. Not sure that just the climate data would be very interesting by itself, though - or indeed at all. But once more if you make the article, then I'll go along with it. Naturenet | Talk 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think its necessary to break the population into age groups. If this information stays it would look much better in the form of a population pyramid. Many articles do contain demographic information such as the population, what could make it look better would be to have the historic population of the island, starting from the first census in 1801. This has been done successfully on the this article. This could then either be put in the History of the Isle of Wight article, a new People from the Isle of Wight article, as Filll suggested, or left on the existing Isle of Wight article.

This article, currently a featured article also has demographic information, but neatly in a small table with the most recent census data. In my opinion, if the current information stays, I think it would look far better as a graph or a population pyramid as I've said, which would also make it easier to read.

Alternatively, the information could just be deleted, as no-one has said anything recently. Anyway, those are just a few ideas to think about. Editor5807talk 19:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassal Kingdom

<<The Island possesses a rich history including its own brief status as a vassal kingdom in the fifteenth century.>>

Really? I didn't know there were vassal kingdoms in England in the 1400s. Can we have more information as this is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.88.83 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the case. Henry VI (who was schizophrenic) wanted to give his childhood friend henry Beauchamp a title that would place them on an equal footing as kings and thus made him King of the Isle of Wight. However this did not in any other sense make the Isle of Wight a kingdom, and is really quite irrelevent to the Island's history, however important it might have been to henry Beauchamp. The "Lady of the Isle of Wight" Isabella de Fortibus is often referred to as Queen, with somewhat more validity. The Island previously ceased to be a Jutish kingdom in 686CE with the death of King Arwald Streona (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it anyway. I agree that this event had little directly to do with the island, but it's well-recorded, and if I remember rightly cited by some deluded Island independence campaigners even today. Naturenet | Talk 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally they -I think it was Teddy Findon, the late editor of the now defunct Sandown & Shanklin Chronicle and founder of the UDI for the IOW campaign- reckoned on IOW sovereignty as deriving from Isabella de Fortibus having been gypped by Edward Longshanks rather than from the Beauchamp malarky - which is also why there are private foreshores on the IOW since the grant to Isabella's family (the de Redvers) included foreshores but the purchase by the wily Edward did not mention it.Streona (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I thought it was something like that, thanks for the insight. One can only salute their optimism. As for the foreshores, in my experience of managing both, there are no more private foreshores over here than there are on the mainland, and ironically two of the most significant ones belong to the MOD and English Heritage -i.e. the Crown. Naturenet | Talk 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Private Beaches

I think these private beaches are listed in Rupert Besley's "Guide to IOW Beaches" (Dovecote). Generally Priory Bay is given as privately owned by the Priory Bay Hotel and the Coastaal Path deviates away from the public footpath through the woods. Even Besley say it can only be reached along the bach at low tide. I often go there and there is hardly anyone else there, so maybe this notion should be maintained.

Orchard Bay has a signboard telling everyone they cannot have radios etc., because of their rights over the beach and they obviously value their privacy- especially the previous owners who were using it to import several tons of cocaine.

Again it is damn near impossible to get to King's Quay which is almost entirely out of bounds- allegedly a "nature reserve". It used to be owned by my biology teacher, Eddie Class, and I am quite sure he just wanted to keep people out.

Osborne Bay is the worst example- apparently there is someone employed at Osborne House to run down to the beach to chase awat yachtsmen. The last I heard this was in case the IRA attacked them, which I suggest is utter rubbish. This is a scandal and the concept of private foreshores belongs to the 12th century, not the 21st. Streona (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kings Quay is indeed one of the most protected areas in Europe[7] as not only an SSSI but also part of the Solent SAC. Rightly so, I'd say. Osborne House don't employ any such person, although there is a private householder nearby who sometimes comes over and shoos people off. Given the very high usage of the public bit of Osborne I'm not sure this is such a bad idea. However the whole thing is under debate at the moment and who knows where it will end up. Naturenet | Talk 11:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When I visited I asked about the beach at Osborne and one of the attendants said this to me, but i expect you are right. Why is King's Quay protected ? The other site I did not mention is the rifle ranges at Newtown, Are they used anymore? Streona (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A copy of the original citation for Kings Quay (pdf). It's also protected as part of the SAC and probably a SPA and Ramsar site as well but I can't be bothered to look them up, it'll be similar stuff but more about birds.
Newtown Ranges is indeed used for various things (not just shooting) but remains a very important reserve because of the long-term undisturbed nature of the site. See here for an example (pdf again). Naturenet | Talk 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Streona (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wulfhere and Edith of Stenbury

If you check britannia.com or mediastorehouse or better yet, google the above there is a picture of a cigarette card from Churchman's , entitled "Wulfhere the Kind-Hearted" which gives the legend of Wulfhere sparing the life of "Redwald the Bold" at the pleading of "Edith of Stenbury". Does anyone know anything about this at all, because I have never heard or seen this anywhere else at all. Streona (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER- I contacted the IOW History Centre who (Roger Hewitt) found the original version to have appeared in a magazine in 1830 edited by Charles Dickens called "Bentley's Miscellany". It appears to have been a work of complete fiction.--Streona (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sommerfields (sic) ?

I have deleted "it is famous for only having shops that are sommerfields".(i.e."Somerfields")This just is not true- apart from Sandown and Ventnor maybe, but these towns are not the Isle of Wight- you could try going to Marks & Spencers, Sainsburys, Morrisons or Iceland in Newport or Tesco near Ryde or Morrisons at Lake, or the new Lidl at Shanklin etc. The paucity of chain supermarkets was true at one time- maybe 25 years ago. Streona (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Sommerfield" fan the person who keeps saying that people in Cowes are obsessed by milk ? It isn't clever and it isn't funny and I know funny. What is dirty and smelly and comes out of Cowes backwards ? -The IOW Ferry. Now that's funny.

Streona (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Poem

Is there an article on a poem of the Isle of Wight which included about Cowes you cannot milk and Needles that cannot be thread? Simply south (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No but it gets mentioned in things like Lake, Isle of Wight.Geni 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Should i create an article on this or the person who possibly started it (someone called WJ Nigh)? Simply south (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what's called 'The Seven (or five or eight or whatever) Wonders of the Isle of Wight'. It appears in various forms on many postcards, tea towels etc and has done for well over 100 years. Its origin is probably W.J. Nigh, which is and was a postcard manufacturing company based on the Island.[8]. Probably not enough material for an article there. If there was any place for it I'd suggest Culture of the Isle of Wight Naturenet | Talk 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've tried (very briefly) to create something of an article at User:Simply south/Wonders of the Isle of Wight. Stub at mo. Simply south (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the Isle of Wight bigger than Rutland at low tide?

This question has been having a bit of a revert-battle on the main page. I propose we discuss it here before we all get too cross!

There are two issues here - firstly, does the Island get physically bigger at low tide? Obviously it does, whereas Rutland does not. So given the extreme low tides which can expose many hundreds of metres of sands, at some states of the tide the Island quite likely is bigger in area than Rutland, if one were to somehow measure it instantaneously and record it. I would hope that this would be common ground in this discussion.

However the second and more controversial issue is whether the county of the Isle of Wight is at any time bigger than the county of Rutland. This is not the same question. In England, there are a number of different ways of measuring land (see [9]) but county administrative boundaries are measured from the 'Extent of the Realm' which in this case equals Mean Low Water[10][11] [12] [13] except where some specific alteration has been made, for example to build a pier or include a sea-fort. This boundary does not move and is not affected by the tide. There's a good reason for this - imagine you wanted to submit a planning application for a pontoon on a shoreline. Do you submit it to the local planning authority (when the tide's out of course), or to the MFA (when the tide's in)? Obviously a daft situation, and so the boundary is definite, and you know which authority is responsible (usually). The acknowledged imperfections in this system are one of the reasons for the present Marine Bill to be proposed, when this arrangement may be revised. But at present it stands. So the boundary is fixed by statute and custom, just as the boundary of Rutland is fixed, and with only slightly less arbitrariness. The Island's formally defined area is smaller than Rutland's, and therefore the county is smaller at all times. Naturenet | Talk 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the sea forts, on the OS map, two come under the Isle of Wight and the other two under Hampshire, thus the maritime boundary of the Island extends midway between No Mans Land and Horse Sand Forts and the Brambles Bank is ours by right of conquest by IOW cricket teams. I am not sure about the Nab Tower. I think we should take it before it gets hit by another banana boat. -Streona (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that the Rutland wikipedia site gives Rutland's area as 147 sq.m. and says that the IOW is smaller "(high tide)".-Streona (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that I have provided a reference for the statement and therefore there is no need to remove the information (as such I have reverted to put the material back in). If you are still convinced about it not being the case, then include an referenced appendum to the counter-claim e.g.
"although Rutland is smaller than the IoW when the latter is at low tide, administrative boundaries are measured from the 'Extent of the Realm' which in this case equals Mean Low Water, and therefore technically the IoW is the smallest county at all times."
Repeatedly removing information that has been broadcast on a well-known and well-regarded television show, especially after it has been sourced just seems a little bizarre, especially as it is quite an interesting little snippet regardless of the technicalities of administrative boundaries. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not convinced about it being the case and, even if it were, I'm not convinced that the information belongs on this page in this position. I'm more than willing to agree that there's some debate to be had here - it's far from clear. The suggestion about a counter-statement is sensible. But I don't think the opening paragraphs of this major article are the place to pick such nits. Simply referencing a statement does not make it either notable or correct, although it goes a long way towards it. In this case references can be found which support diverse points of view. The reference to QI is entertaining but can't be regarded as definitive. The second reference - to an online estate agent - is not that authoritative. By contrast references supporting the 'Extent of the Realm' position come from the government's Office of National Statistics and the Ordnance Survey. For my part - and obviously this is purely personal and not meant to imply any authority - I worked for the local planning authority for some time and and now work managing council-managed beaches and coastline on the Island. So I have some practical and very detailed experience of determining these exact boundaries on the ground/water/clifftop. Because of the mutable nature of these boundaries, depending on what purpose one is measuring them for, in my view the comparison is at best not meaningful, and at worst plain wrong.
And thanks to Number57 for coming to discuss the issue - it's appreciated and I'm sure we can reach a consensus here. But it was disappointing that s/he chose to revert the information before the discussion has taken place. Oh, and s/he deserves congrats on a very cool sig. Naturenet | Talk 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the info being moved to another part of the article. The "Physical geography and wildlife" section may be best for this - I can see why it might not be best placed in the intro and I can also see your arguments against it being the case. However, as it has been featured in QI, I would expect it to appear here, as there are probably plenty of people out there who might come on here after seeing that. Apologies for reverting again, but I tend to get quite annoyed with sourced material being removed - certainly in the area where I work most (Israel-related) this is an issue. Also, thanks for your kind words about my signature - a letter from every alphabet used in the EBU in case you were wondering. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

QI is not a reliable source. I had this discussion as to the origin of Meccano "Box Standard" and "Box Deluxe" being the origin of Bog Standard and Dogs Bollocks and QI were clearly wrong. Allan Davies also claims that the IOW has not changed since the 1950s, which is nonsense.--Streona (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Davies line was clearly a joke, but in terms of QI itself it has a tendency to adopt idiosyncratic definitions where these will provide a basis for an interesting question - the examples I can think of all come from Astronomy, but they happily adopted their own definition of 'planet' before the IAU decided upon it, and declared there were 8 planets in the solar system (why not equally adopt Carl Sagan's defintion of the solar system as consisting of 'four planets [the gas and ice giants] and the debris [everything else]') and that Earth had first 2, and then 5 (?) moons (to quote the Cruithne article 'However, it does not orbit the Earth and is not a moon'), when by pretty much any description, it has 1 (known) moon.
I also believe that QI has on occasions relied on facts taken from Wikipedia, which would mean that if we were to accept these as authoritative, then it would lead to a cyclical series of refences which would eventually cause the city of New York to explode in a ball of flame. [citation needed] --Neil (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(lol). So, views on QI aside, what do people think of this assertion remaining on the front page - or anywhere? Would anyone other than me and #57 have any views one way or another? Naturenet | Talk 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I'm happy for it to be moved to the geography section. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is possibly a place for it in a wider discussion about the size of the Island, although in saying that it is the smallest county, presumably ceremonial county, we are convieniently ignoring the fact that technically [[Bristol], and the City of London are counties, and indeed are smaller. --Neil (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said the Rutland wiki seems to be in consensus that the IOW is smaller (high tide) so in terms of land area-fine.--Streona (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of England

There has been an ongoing edit war over whther the IOW is England or the UK. The IOW is part of England, which is divided into two parts- the Island and the Mainland. People from the Mainland are often apt to say things like "Look I can see England", but people from the Island will say "Look, I can see the Mainland". In the Island Games, where small islands about Britain compete in athletics, the IOW Team have on various occasions displayed their flag as the English St. George's Flag. This is going too far in my opinion as IOW County Flags are available on ebay for £4.99 from worldofflags and others. The IOW has always identified itself as part of England and the sort of people who think otherwise are generally the ones who have it confused with the Isle of Man. --Streona (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mis-categorising it, if you refer to only the debate over the term in the opening sentence.
  • The Isle of Wight is clearly a part of England, but does that mean we need to call it an English island? I think not. Calling it an 'English' Island seems to me somewhat petty nationalistic sentiment - 'No, it's English - not British!'.
  • However conversely I have no problem with saying it is 'off the coast of England' - which do me doesn't necessarily imply it isn't a part of England; we might comparably say that Anglesea is an island off the coast of Wales, Jura is an island off the coast of Scotland, or Sardinia is an island off the coast of Italy. I don't like 'off the coast of Great Britain' as it's a term which confuses people (see British Isles (terminology)), and England is more specific.
But that's just my two pence. --Neil (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You may feel that down to B this is irrelevant...

A As someone born and bred on the Island, I think I am in a fairly good position (as many others contributing to this page may also be) to say that The Isle of Wight is definitely a county of England. Hierarchically, this means Wight < England < United Kingdom.

If you don't accept that logic, look at it this way: The Isle of Wight is definitely part of the United Kingdom.

"The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales." - See United Kingdom.

As the Island is part of the UK, it must therefore be part of one of these constituent countries. Unless you propose lumping us in with Wales or an even more far-flung part of the UK, which I suggest would be lunacy, the only sensible conclusion is that the IW is a county of England, part of the UK. What can be said is that the IW has not been part of Great Britain for several thousand years, since the Needles Headland broke off from Swanage.

B As far as what we call this part of England is concerned: if it is part of England and an island, that by definition makes it an English island... "An island off the coast of England" is definitely wrong as you are creating a recursive statement - the Isle of Wight also has a coast, which is part of England. If you follow this to its natural conclusion, you reach "The Isle of Wight is an island off the coast of England" in the IW article, leading to an argument for "Great Britain is an island off the coast of England"...

What would be correct is "An island off the coast of Great Britain" - but is this really appropriate or necessary? Why use 8 words when 3 will do? --Peeky44 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct in theory, however that's not how language is used in practice, for instance consider quotations from the following wikipedia articles:
  • Madagascar - Madagascar... is an island nation in the Indian Ocean off the southeastern coast of Africa.
  • Newfoundland — is a large island 15 km off the east coast of North America.
  • Anglesey is a predominantly Welsh speaking island off the northwest coast of Wales.

(However to be fair a few articles do get it right - Great Britain and Tierra del Fuego for instance.)

And it is perfectly true that it is an 'English island', but I'm not sure how useful it is to say so - that is to say notice that none of the above say 'is an [African/Canadian/Welsh] island' --Neil (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "Great Britain is a large group of islands off the coast of the Isle of Wight" ? (lol) --Streona (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Haille Selassie & Other Grockles

"Haile Selassie 1891 -1975 Emperor of Ethiopia (Abyssinia) : Holidayed in Ventnor in 1938 staying at the Beach Hotel on the Esplanade, he spent most of his time walking but took time out to take tea with Henry de Vere Stacpoole in Bonchurch also visiting Wootton and Osborne - The Museum holds a photograph of the Emperor clambering out of a boat on to Ventnor beach." -from Ventnor Heritage website.

Is someone coming on holiday notable enough to merit a reference ? There seems to be a lot of this in IOW history books. If somebody did something notable whilst visiting- like write a famous poem or book- fair enough, but having tea with some local toff seems too trivial. When I am famous can I have a plaque in the Little Chef on the A303 saying I stopped off for coffee once ? --Streona (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If ever you become as famous as Haile Selassie, I'll subscribe to a plaque for you. Meanwhile, I think there's a kind of hierarchy of notability, with a relationship between how famous/notable you are and how close your connection to the Island is. So, very famous people holidaying here - such as the emperor, or Marx, or Dickens - are certainly notable; whereas less famous people actually living here will count; and mildly notable people being born here are also worth mentioning. Naturenet | Talk 08:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Morning, Naturenet. Thank you, I am touched. So should Haile Selassie go in then ? The same Ventnor Heritage website also lists a dozen other famous tourists, such as Gandhi, Marx, Dickens etc. So its going to be a long list. Plus almost every member of the royal family and every pop star at the Festival and Bestival--Streona (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to devise a rule and stick to it, feel free, and accept the inevitable anomalies this will cause. On the other hand, I'd suggest you exercise your editorial discretion and judge each case on its merits. And I'd add another two criteria to my previous list: length of stay, and whether or not they did something notable whilst here. Example: Charles Darwin started the "abstract" which became the Origin of Species at the Kings Head Hotel (now Bar) in Sandown in mid-July 1858. Now that's notable, even if he'd only been on the Island one afternoon doing it. Naturenet | Talk 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not really in favour of producing such a list, but on trying to resolve a minor edit war in which Neil doubted that Haile Selassie had ever been to Ventnor. I think he has, but so what? However I think that your suggestion for inclusion (or conversely reversion) is constructive.

Darwin started the Origin of the species on the back of an envelope in the King's Bar is a bit of a gift to the creationists, though. I understood the "King's Head" referred to a rock of that name, though I have never been really aware of where it is. Off Culver somewhere I think--Streona (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not really a war - that implies more than a single revert at least!
I was basically following my default vandalism/useful content filter; and sadly it failed to tick any of the boxes, being unsourced (although I've been following this debate and see that a source is above), badly written (broken wiki-link, no capital letters), and seemed, IMHO unlikely (although I must admit that my knowledge of famous Ethiopians is not what it could be ;-) ). Equally it was added by an anonymous IP which is often a danger sign.
I would probably have slapped on a [citation needed] tag if it had been well written, or at least brought it to the talk page for discussion. If it had been badly written but sources I'd have attempted to improve the English. If it had seemed likely to me (and useful content) I'd have probably tried to find a source and improve the English.
[BTW - apologies if it was you who added the fact and whose English language knowledge I have just been offending, although given that you have an account, and seem to understand what a capital letter is, I suspect not].
On the matter of people who might have stayed on the Island, I think a less is more approach is best. Probably a good number of famous people have taken family holidays here in their youth, but we certainly shouldn't list them all. I think user:Naturenet's general principle here have merit, but I would probably apply them quite strictly, e.g. the Darwin example would fail the Neil Isle of Wight notability test, but pass for Sandown. --Neil (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies.Not only do we not have a war, but I think we are all in consensus. I did not put the original on because I do not think it does pass the notability criteria (and I can spell).--Streona (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lord Gort

In the wiki article it states that John Vereker, Lord Gort commander 0f the BEF at Dunkirk was born in London and grew up on the IOW and County Durham. However I found websites that give all three as place of birth - the IOW reference is that he was born at the Vereker family home at East Cowes Castle. Can anyone resolve definitively what exactly is his connection with the Island?--Streona (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Isle of Wight International Jazz Festival

A bit of a debate in progress on the article over there - or rather it would be helpful if there was one. See article talk page. If anyone with an interest fancies having a look I'd appreciate it. Naturenet | Talk 19:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

This has been talked about for ages, but I have removed the demographics section from the article, as the general consensus on this talk page seems to be to get rid of it as its uncyclopedic. Although if anyone objects please comment. Editor5807speak 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, well done. Naturenet | Talk 21:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Isle of Wight vs. Category:Islands of England

Category:Isle of Wight is itself a category within Category:Islands of England. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ventnor blog link - to include or not?

In accordance with WP:ELNO it has been suggested that the link to Ventnor Blog should be deleted. I'm not sure it should so I thought a bit of discussion might help before any action is taken. The guidelines clearly recommend avoiding blog links, and Ventnor Blog is clearly self-described as a blog. So to retain the link we must be convinced that an exception is appropriate. I believe that it is. The guidelines discourage links to personal or ephemeral pages which might not be notable. Ventnor Blog, despite its name, is not a personal website, but a source of information for the Island, with a number of contributors, usually written in a news style rather than a personal one. It is regularly updated and has been going for some years. The fact that it uses blog software to present this information - and retains a name suggesting that it is a blog - does not in itself for me over-ride the relevance of this link. Naturenet | Talk 12:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ventnorblog is a newsmedium in itself.--Streona (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tidying up the measurements?

I noticed that some measurements put Imperial first while others put metric first. It would be nice to have it consistent. I myself would prefer to put the metrics first but what do others think? There are three possibilities:

  • Leave it alone.
  • Put metrics first consistently.
  • Put Imperial first consistently.

I would be prepared to make it metric first, but only if others agreed. Opinions, please. Michael Glass (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Media References

These are getting a bit trivial. I think there is a similar issue with the issue over notable grockles. It seems that Islanders are becoming pathetically grateful if anyone should condescend to mention the Island and this I find rather demeaning. e.g. "In the first Harry Potter Aunt Marge has fallen ill after eating a funny whelk on her holiday on the Isle of Wight" If we are being that pedantic, can anyone tell me where you can buy whelks on the IOW ? Of course I suppose she might have "picked her own". --Streona (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was half-planning to revert that last edit as being non-notable. I will do so now, as I'm happy I'm not the only one! --Peeky44 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from mainspace page

Concerning local words - when I taught briefly on the Isle of Wight in 1967, I noted that the word 'out' could also be used as a verb - not in its modern form meaning to reveal someone's true preferences eg 'The Tory minister was outed by the press'. On the IoW, it was used more literally as in 'the candle was outed when the wind blew'.
John Scriven, University of Portsmouth School of Educational Studies.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilTarrant (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Colloquially known as "The Island" by its residents"

isn't every small island known locally as this? the same as people in mainland uk (for eg.) refer to 'the country'. insignificant. removing it for now until someone can come up with a better reason to keep it. ~ Bungalowbill 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Writers and yachstsman often call it "Wight" or "The Wight" but inhabitants do not and this is why the distinction is significant Streona 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As a yachtsman, living 4 x miles across the Solent near Langley, a mile up the road from Lepe Beach, I can ssure you, that all the yachties I know, refer to it, as 'the island' without exception. That said, looking at http://www.pemberley.com/images/landt/maps/persuasion/IsleofWight.html it seems that in the 1800s, sailors did indeed refer to 'Wight' and it is of course, a very familar term to anyone listening to the shipping forecast on R4. Ragebe (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but the question is what do its residents call it? It is unlikely that anyone who is not a resident or former resident would call it "the Island" , with the notable exception of Thomas Hardy--Streona (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the Isle of Wight in Hampshire

I've just reverted an edit by User:78.144.61.0 saying that the Isle of Wight is still in Hampshire. Trouble with this kind of statement is that there are now at least three conflicting definitions of what makes up a county, and you really need to say which one you are using.

Certainly the IoW is an administrative county in its own right, and therefore cannot be part of the administrative county of Hampshire. From the rest of the article it also appears that the IoW is a ceremonial county in its own right, and that means it cannot be part of the ceremonial county of Hampshire.

I'm guessing that the anonymous editor was probably talking about the historic county of Hampshire. But a guess isn't good enough for WP, especially as using historic counties can be a rather contentious subject on WP. Hence the revert. If somebody can cite a good source for the IoW still being in the historic county of Hampshire, I've no objection to including this in the article. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No the Island is not in Hampshire. The only connection is that the police are united with the Hampshire Constabulary and the Army. Streona (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Also the Fire Service is Hampshire and IOW. I'm not sure of the case with ambulances. As not been to the Island for a few years, and never thought to look80.195.38.188 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

76.102.31.185 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential incoming edit war! See User talk:Ragebe and these diffs. Can Ragebe please comment on the text proposed. Naturenet, as you're the one who labelled this text as POV, perhaps you'd like to suggest why that is the case... --Peeky44 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Peeky44 for this helpful awareness-raising exercise. I apologise for not fully explaining why I reverted the edit in question. I'll now try to set out my reasoning. Ragebe is asserting that the Isle of Wight is and remains a part of Hampshire because prior to the 1974 reorganisation it was, and because the Association of British Counties does not recognise the validity of the various local government reorganisations that have happened. I considered whether the edit was a POV assertion or not. I also considered whether it was original research. In fact there is a case to be made for both, but I decided on balance that the issue was POV. I have two reasons for this. The first is that the source material is poor. There are many, many sources which assert that the Isle of Wight is not presently a part of Hampshire. Disregarding historical arguments, there are very few that specifically make the opposite assertion. The ABC website is the only one of which I am aware. The second is based on the status of the ABC. Leaving aside whether or not this is a notable and reliable source, this is a self-described campaigning organisation which "seeks to fully re-establish the use of the Counties as the standard popular geographical reference frame of Britain and to further encourage their use"[14] Whilst nobody would question their right to so campaign, campaigning for a result is a very different thing from asserting that a fact is true. By merely saying that the IW is a part of Hampshire that does not make it so. And if it is already the case, what is the need for a campaigning organisation? The very fact that ABC believe a campaign is needed implies to me that (a) their case is not proven and (b) their assertion must at this time be POV. Naturenet | Talk 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not wishing to scare Ragebe off from commenting by too many assertations contrary to his addition, but currently the articles does not state that the Isle of Wight is *not* a part of Hampshire - merely that it is an independent administrative and ceremonial county, which are indisputably true. Any status with respect to historic counties is too detailed to be placed into the introduction of the article, and a description about the nature of counties is definately going too far. --Neil (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all the kind comments, I don't feel too frightened. Naturenet makes some good points and I'd agree with some of them but there are ample examples of shared Hants&IOW sources. Start with the official Hampshire web site perhaps? Second hit on Google after WP.

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/localpages/wight/isleofwight.htm Whilst the chequered history of boundary changes make for contention (I was born in Bournemouth, Hants for example) there is a good case for the island being a part of Hampshire, even if only on historic grounds, versus, boundary changes for political ends. There are lots of people who were born in Bournemouth, prior to the 1974 boundary move, who still consider the town to be a part of Hampshire - West Hants Tennis Club is a good example [[15]] - and my grandfather, born in Parkhurst in 1904 but moved to mainland in thge 1920s, also always considered himself to be born in Hampshire. I can't argue with the political boundaries and relevant councils but to state the island is not in Hants, is POV as much as saying it is. Ragebe (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Island was in Hampshire.It is no longer. TYhe only reference to to Hampshire that you are likely to see are the police force. I was born in the Isle of Wight in 1958 and I certainly do NOT consider myself to have been born in Hampshire and never have done. Nor does anybody else.--Streona (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"I certainly do NOT consider myself to have been born in Hampshire and never have done. Nor does anybody else." Oh well, that's fine then Streona. Nothing like a sweeping generalisation to make things fact eh? Good of you to speak to 100,000 island residents to garner their views too. As I said previously, there are plenty of examples linking the IoW with Hants, just look at a simple google search

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=isle+of+wight+part+of+hampshire&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a Your POV is a very insular one. There are lots of people in Cornwall, who see themselves more as one with Breton and would like secession from GB but it's not happened yet. Ragebe (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is becoming controversial. I have not spoken to everyone but I can say that I never met one person born on the IOW who thinks of themselves from Hampshire. For all I know there are people born in Hampshire who think they are from the IOW. The IOW has a County Council and so has Hampshire plus some unitary authorites like Southampton. As I have mentioned they share the same Police Authority but beyond that you seem to be implying that some people "feel" that it is part of Hampshire. It is hardly up to me to disprove this unless you can find anyone who does "feel" this way. Perhaps you do and maybe parts or all of Hampshire think they are part of the Isle of Wight and good for them, but I suggest the Isle of Wight is quite well defined by the sea.--Streona (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, lets not get into a huge debate about this. As the article mentions the Isle of Wight has historically been a part of Hampshire, but by most modern definitions (Ceremonial Counties, Postal Counties, Administrative Counties and Lieutenancy areas - the exception being the historical counties used in County Cricket, etc.) it is no longer a part of that county. However, a lot of people, particularly those educated before the county reforms of 1974 when the situation was less clearly defined, believe or understand the Island to be 'in' Hampshire. This is reflected in various usages, for instance google maps will accept 'Bembridge, Hampshire', or 'Bembridge, Isle of Wight'.
Looking at the opening paragraphs we could perhaps be less definite than we are now, although that does threaten to drown us in Weasel words and over-definition (e.g. there is no need to debate the difference between administrative, postal, ceremonial and historical counties). I'll have a quick play with the opening in a few minutes, and try to resolve some of the issues. --Neil (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isle_of_Wight/Archive_1&oldid=1136827966"