Talk:Seaford, East Sussex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject UK geography      (Rated Start-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. WikiProject Cities     (Rated Start-Class) This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. Sussex WikiProject (Rated Start-Class) Sussex Portal This article is within the scope of the Sussex WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Sussex in South East England. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance for Sussex-related articles. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Transport Section Added 2 Image 3 population 4 "wrecking" activities by local residents 5 Education 6 view from Seaford Head image

[edit] Transport Section Added

I've added a transport section if anyone can add anything to this section please do! Silverstorm20 (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I have just replaced the main image. The new one appears to have been taken just after grading work had been undertaken on the beach. You can see bulldozer tracks in the foreground. Izzy

[edit] population

Population 22,000? That's a little lower than the other figures I've heard. the one I most often hear is around the region of 35,000.

Go to the East Sussex County Council website, Town and Parish populations [ESCC]. That gives a total 2006 population for Seaford of 23,350 (males 10,953 and females 12,397). I guess that the preponderance of females indicates the number of retired people living in the town. Women generally live longer than men. Izzy

[edit] "wrecking" activities by local residents

Richard. There are now two references to the nefarious activities of Seaford residents in the 1400s and 1500s. The practice of luring sailing ships aground by placing false harbour lights on the beach and cliffs has been widely commented on in local histories. There is also some reference to the practice at the Martello Tower Museum. I suspect that the story is exaggerated, but something of the sort must have happened. Anyway, it is a nice little story. Izzy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Izzy –

Unfortunately all that these references demonstrate is that the story about wrecking at Seaford is widely repeated in modern times. However, they don't tell us anything about what actually happened at the time – they are hearsay, and they are centuries later. What we need is a reliable source from the time or soon after, or at least a published, reliable history which describes a primary source (which would have to be a court case, an eye-witness statement or similar). Even contemporary sources need to be shown not to be hearsay or predjudiced – what we are doing is making a verifiable encyclopedia, not gossiping... Where do the modern sources get it from? If it was a reliable history, fine, but for all we know it was Joe Grundy winding up the tourists in the pub. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.) Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard. I have now reported the wrecking as a "local legend". There must be some grain of truth in the story - even if nothing more than that. Izzy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

"Seaford is also home to a well known independent school (Newlands Prepatory and Manor) which includes a widely recognised specialist unit for pupils with specific learning difficulties.[1]" does not sound neutral and is bordering on advertising.Silverstorm20 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Newlands School is well known and does contain a special needs unit. The only possible lack of neutrality may lie in the term "widely recognised". So, I have taken that term out. Does that seem OK? Izzy (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine Izzy :) it just sounded promotional from the way i read it this morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstorm20 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] view from Seaford Head image

Does anyone mind if I replace the present image (created and inserted by James Gardner) with the following one taken from Geograph? :

This one seems to say a little more. Izzy (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit fuzzy, and the distance is a bit hazy, but the content is much better, so yes, I think it illustrates the article better. I've probably got some from a similar position (our old house is just off to the right somewhere...), but they'll be scans of slides, so the quality will be too poor. Get up there Izzy on a clear day and take a better one... --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Richard. The above image looks as if it was taken on a summer afternoon by which time a haze had got up. James' image looks as if it was taken early in the morning when visibility was still clear. I will replace the image in the article, but James should feel free to put his image back if he so wishes. I might try going down there early one day to take a picture of my own. Izzy (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)