Jump to content

Talk:Isle of Dogs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology

[edit]

Does anyone know the etymology of the Isle of Dogs? - David Stewart 11:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is indeed a vexed question! There are those that maintain that it got its name from the King's kennels, which, it is claimed, were handy for the royal palace at Greenwich. Unfortunately this explanation is belied by the fact that there never were any kennels on the Island. Others say that the flotsam washed up by the entrance to Poplar Gut became a regular source of food for local canines. Certainly the first reference is generally recognised as referring to the corner of the Island by Empire Wharf in a document referring to concerns that the Spanish Armada might sail up the Thames. The hope was they would be stopped before they got a chance to pillage Greenwich.

However the term I favour is that it refers to the number of dog tacks required to circumnavigate the Island. In days gone by, ships would stock up with victuals and other supplies in Deptford or Wapping before setting off on a long voyage. However sailing around the Island always proved difficult because no matter which quarter offered a fair wind, the ship would soon be sailing into the wind. Passengers would then journey to Blackwall to embark there after the boat had rounded the Island, and thus save themselves some time on board boat. Blackwall Stairs has been the kicking-off point of a number of expeditions, including that of the Virginia Invaders.

Wrong - Henry VIII had a palace there, the Palace of Placentia. -- ChrisO 10:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct ChrisO - my mistake!Lion King 15:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone tell me what the "dog tacks" are that are mentioned in the second paragraph above?
An editor has just added complete b*ll*cks about the name. Since there is a Jacobean play entitled The Isle of Dogs, and the docks were not built until the 19th century, can we do something a bit more credible?
I had heard that it was named the Isle of Doges (a la Venice), for the number of watermen that lived there, but also that it was called the Isle of Dogs for the wild dogs that roamed the marshes - since I have no certainty about this, I'm not going to change it ... for the moment! The previous version was little better, as there was no point landing cargoes there (before the docks), as there was only one road across the marsh to the ancient ferry (at Ferry Lane). Kbthompson 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The last bullet item is written as if King Henry was mentioned previously which doesn't seem to be the case: "A later king, Henry VIII also kept deer in Greenwich Park. Again it is thought that his hunting dogs might have been kept in derelict farm buildings on the Island." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.58 (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A rather obvious guess would be that it is a corruption of Isle of Docks. I’m surprised this possible etymology has not been proposed. — Chameleon 04:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name long precedes the building of the first docks on the 'island'. Pterre (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins?

[edit]

Can anybody verify the statements about Batman Begins? I know that some of it was filmed on Canary Wharf, but to the best of my knowledge Wayne Tower was the Chicago Board of Trade building.

The scene with Bruce Wayne coming out of a building with a woman on each arm and then lying down in the water feature was filmed at Plateau restaurant in Canary Wharf. Bottom of page 6 here [1] Ikonos45 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

In The Media pruning?

[edit]

The In The Media section is turning into a huge mess of text with no real purpose. It's longer than the main article. Perhaps it could be pruned? --Dtcdthingy 03:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I was bold and shortened that section drastically. We don't need to know every single detail about each scene featuring the Isle of Dogs. This is an article about the island, not the film industry. There are so many other topics barely mentioned that are much more important (landmarks, housing, education, transport, economy, inhabitants). --84.227.51.123 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - can we just not link to this? [1]Ikonos45 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Island vs Peninsula

[edit]

I've removed the references to "peninsula" as that description is reserved for bits of land jutting out to sea. I believe the area was only a true island prior to its development, when the Thames was in flood and took a "shortcut" across the top of the top where Canary Wharf is now, rather than flowing around the ox-bow. In any case, the "Island" is not an island anymore - as not even the man-made shipping canals link the East and West sides of the Thames anymore. Just to clarify, there's no bridge on the West side anymore - only a pumping station next to the Cascades apartment block that circulates water between the dock and the Thames. Socrates2008 (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that the dock entrance had been filled in. I think the reason the article got sprinkled with references to peninsula is by extension from the nearby Greenwich peninsula. That also does not fit the geographic epithet, but appears to be the official name for the area formerly covered by the gas works. As far I am aware, the Poplar meadows did not flood after drainage works in the middle ages (see BritHistory online article). The area that flooded was the area either side of Ferry Road (essentially the road that leads past Asda, cut off by the building of the docks). This again was subjected to extensive works from the middle ages onwards. Kbthompson (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often, if ever, is this referent ever referred to as simply "Dog" or "Dogs", without the modifier "Isle of.."? I ask because I'm thinking of removing it from the page Dog (disambiguation), but I wouldn't want to do that if there were any chance that a person might search for it by simply typing "d-o-g" or "d-o-g-s". Is there a rational expectation that no one would ever do that and therefore be helped by the fact that "Isle of Dogs" appears on that disambigation page?

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.Chrisrus (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of information?

[edit]

Following section is unverified and contains a great number of exaggerations and grave inaccuracies. Can this section be marked for citation required to indicate that there is nothing in the article that suggests that these claims are supported?

"===Industry=== The Docks brought with them many associated industries, such as flour and sugar processing, and also ship building. On January 31, 1858, the largest ship of that time, the SS Great Eastern designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, was launched from the yard of Messrs Scott, Russell & Co, of Millwall. The 211 metres (692 ft) length was too big for the river, and the ship had to be launched sideways. Due to the technical difficulties of the launch, this was the last big ship to be built on the Island, and the industry fell into a decline. The ship was doomed from the beginning, apparently when it was launched sideways it became stuck in the mud and remained there for three days. It also set up a massive wave that travelled across the river and a number of people that were watching on the opposite bank were hit by the wave and dragged into the Thames where they drowned. When it was taken out of service the remains of three ship builders were found in the hold and the bad luck of the ship was blamed on the loss of the men. "

Coincidence worth noting?

[edit]

The etymology for the term "Isle of Dogs" may be uncertain, but an unrelated sourced statement on the article for Canary Wharf (which, I don't need to remind you, is located on the Isle of Dogs) indicates a clear origin for the name of the business district. According to the source, Canary Wharf was named under the request of Fruit Lines Limited, which chose the name due to their shipping activities with Canary Island. Anyone cares to take a guess at the etymology of Canary Island? You guessed it: Island of Dogs, from latin "Insula Canaria". A coincidence worth mentioning either here or on the article for Canary Wharf?
Obviously, if it were to be added, wording should be chosen carefully in order to make it clear that the names of both the Isle of Dogs and Canary Wharf have developed independently from each other, considering how, although the etymology of the Isle of Dogs is uncertain, it certainly predates the creation of Canary Wharf by decades. --ZeframCochrane (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of the Isle of Dogs

[edit]

The Isle of Dogs became famous all over the world in 1970 (and I remember its name since that time) when it proclaimed itself indipendent and a Republic to protest against British Government, which neglected it. I remember there were no schools and no buses for local kids. It's strange this is not mentioned in this article

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/march-1st-1970-isle-of-dogs-declares-independence/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishir2706 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has just been removed, repeatedly, by Rambling Rambler
  1. "Reverting to remove disruptive editing/vandalism"
  2. "Removing WP:UNDUE and non-RS backed content about some guy declaring independence as a stunt."
  3. "Find reliable sources for it then. A random wordpress and a local newspaper whose reliability hasn't been established is not appropriate sourcing for this level of inclusion"
  4. "No, but the blogspot article mostly supporting this and a random local paper of unknown repute certainly are."
  5. "Removing WP:UNDUE and non-RS backed content about some guy declaring independence as a stunt."
Their claim is clearly that the UDI was not notable (WP:N doesn't apply here, it's not an article on that topic). They also claim that the Daily Telegraph doesn't meet WP:RS for this. Now if Ted Johns gets an obit in the Telegraph, not generally a sympathetic paper to such things, then that was clearly on the basis of this UDI pretty much alone. That would seem to pass the UNDUE test. Ian Bone happens to publish via Wordpress (which is not a bar in itself against any of our sourcing policies) and he's a competent and well-known journalist (quite possibly also as mad as a box of frogs) who takes far more of a personally-aligned political stance to Ted Johns. But "No left-wing anarchist can ever meet WP:RS" still isn't policy either.
The article has now been admin-locked to support these removals, which runs against WP:STATUSQUO. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well first of all I never claimed the Telegraph wasn't a reliable source. However a self-published blog and a random local newspaper of unknown repute certainly are not reliable sources. And yes, there's a pretty basic policy bar on self-published sources so it's surprising to see a nearly 160,000 edit account suggest otherwise. As a result dedicating what was, when I started editing today, multiple paragraphs on the claimed actions of a single individual based solely off of single obituary in an article where that person is not the subject of the article is a basic example of undue prominence.
You repeatedly reverted any reduction in the coverage I made, including when I maintained an appropriate level of reference to this individual based on multiple reliable sources, so didn't demonstrate any interest in following Wikipedia guidelines but instead appeared to only be interested in maintaining the inappropriate content for no reason bar personal preference. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • first of all I never claimed the Telegraph wasn't a reliable source.
Your edit was to remove "non-RS backed content". Which is to ignore that there was the Telegraph source there (which you also removed). You also presumably claim the East London Advertiser isn't RS as it's a "random local paper". On what basis? This is a local issue, of interest to local people. The ELA is an imprint of the Eastern Counties Newspapers Group, who are a pretty substantial publisher of a whole stable of local newspapers, and with a rather better reputation than Reach group! Ian Bone is Ian Bone; he's unique. But he's also one of the most probing historians of the UK left.
You repeatedly reverted any reduction in the coverage I made,
No, I did not. You removed multiple occurences of this coverage. I'm fine with that, one of them's enough, we don't need to repeat it. But we should still include it, and we have the sources to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't deliberately selectively quote my edit summaries if you want me to bother responding further.
I removed two non-RS sources. A self-published blog and yes what I do call a "random local paper" because that's what it is. Without that all that remained was a singular obituary, which is therefore very much as it stood UNDUE in terms of the mentioning of this individual in relation to an article covering the entire history of a geographic area. For example I wouldn't expect say the article on Chipping Norton to include mention of every time an individual undertook an attention-grabbing stunt that was featured in the "Chipping Norton Gazette".
And yes, you did revert any reduction in coverage I made. Even when I actually managed to find an additional RS detailing the event took place and therefore included a justifiable level of inclusion in an attempt to satisfy you, you still just reverted again to restore the inappropriate sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also trying to argue Ian Bone is a "probing historian" feels about as believable as me describing Nadine Dorries in the same manner. He is a political activist within the anarchist movement in the UK, so citing his own blog as a reliable source on anything is the exact sort of reason the policy against self-publication exists in the first place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I wouldn't have intentionally removed the Grauniad source. I think we had an edit conflict at the end, when I was linking Ian Bone. By the time I saw what had happened, the article had been locked. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would've alerted you to the conflict, you still bludgeoned ahead. Also it's weird you say you wouldn't have "intentionally removed" a Guardian source while using a derisory nickname for it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "justifiable level of inclusion" was so scant "with one local councillor, Ted Johns, briefly declaring the area's indepedence to draw attention to the issue." that it conveyed no information and was more confusing than anything. What does "declared independence" mean? That's an unusual event, readers have no established context to compare it to. At least the original version did explain what happened in enough detail to comprehend what went on. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "declared independence" mean?
Seriously, are you now pretending that the sentence "the Isle of Dogs' economic problems led to mass unemployment among the former dockyard workers and caused serious social deprivation, with one local councillor, Ted Johns, briefly declaring the area's indepedence to draw attention to the issue" isn't a fair level of inclusion about a singular event in the entire recorded history of a region?
The original version was a badly sourced and completely UNDUE level of prominence about a singular incident that read more about turning the subsection into a sneaky article about Ted Johns than actually about the history of the area post-1970s. This is an article about the Isle of Dogs, if you want an article about the magnificence of Ted Johns go and make your own article on the subject if you can find the level of reliable sources to warrant it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am claiming. Seriously.
The problem is that it's then so brief that it doesn't explain anything. How long did it last? Was this a council chamber flounce? Or burning barricades and Passports to Pimlico? What ended it? We don't need Bone's tales of schoolkids with catapults, that would be stretching sourcing requirements. But we do need something more than an empty statement "somebody did something". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not require that level of detail for such an isolated event in the centuries long history of the Isles of Dogs, especially given it was a performative media stunt. The item of note for the article are the economic problems on the Isle of Dogs before its subsequent redevelopment, it is not Ted Johns. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It runs right in line with WP:WRONGVERSION. Discuss, don't edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Size?

[edit]

What is the size of this chunk of land? T-bonham (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Isle of Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isle of Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]