Talk:No Man's Land Fort

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

CopyVio[edit]

John Bray is copying this information from his website www.forts.org.uk

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fort_Charlotte

Similar[edit]

Is No Mans Land Fort really simular to StHelens? (StHelens is so much smaller) Combat 10:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'Land' from Fort's Name[edit]

The official name of the fort appears to be 'No Man's Fort', not 'No Man's Land Fort'. The owner of the fort's website lists it as so, as does most articles online. There are a few notable exceptions that list it incorrectly, though it would appear that this name has been written as the assumptive full name or in error, rather than the true name. Could I please suggest that we change this? Mikejgilmour (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Certainly both names have been used, but I'd want to see really solid (and Palmerstonian) sources to support just one before renaming it either way. Surely such are available - probably in Hansard. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1902 half-inch Bartholomew Nomans Land Fort
1947 OS 1:25,000 No Man's Land Fort

So I'm in favour of keeping "Land" and noting the other as a variant, possibly incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful references. It is certainly true that the current preferred name used by the occupiers is No Man's. But up until they opened the present structure, it was known by both names, sometimes interchangeably. I would not go so far as to say that either name was wrong. Evidence: Google Trends from 2004-date shows both terms equal until the opening of the hotel on 25 April 2015, when No Man's becomes far higher and remains so - perhaps not surprising as the new venture is being actively marketed. Its own website even uses both terms I have noticed, although I suspect the use of No Man's Land is not intentional.

Hunting through Hansard I find the following reference from 1867 (Mr James O'Beirne, Member for Cashel (9 August 1867). "FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 285.]". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 189. United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. cc1285-90.):

'There were to be three iron batteries — one at the Plymouth breakwater two at Portsmouth, on the "Horse Sand" and "No Man's Land."'

There are two other early Hansard references in 1862 and 1863, both similarly refer to the location of the fort, rather than the fort itself. One calls the place No-Man's Land and the other No-man's-land.

Subsequent to this there are further references in Hansard in 1967, when the the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967 (alas no online version that I can find) was made to dispose of the forts. Throughout the discussions about this order the fort itself was called No Man's Land Fort.

It seems to me that on the balance of probabilities, the earlier name of the fort when it was made and used was No Man's Land Fort, named after the shoal on which it was built. Clearly the alternative shorter name was also used at times throughout its history, and since 2015 the name No Man's Fort has been and remains the name of the hotel in the old fort. For these reasons I do not support any change. I might take some of this background and put it in the page at some point.

Naturenet | Talk 15:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]