Talk:Gravesend

Opening heading

What constituency is this in - seems to be missing? Justinc 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Its in the Gravesham constituency. --LiamE 10:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Romans did not call their road Watling Street - the name came later Peter Shearan 13:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems a touch pedantic to me. If you are going to go down that road (pardon the pun) the Romans didn't call London London or Kent Kent. Oh and Watling Street went well past London. It was "thier" road in that they built it even if they used a different name. --LiamE 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is shown here as the coat of arms of Kent instead of the one you can find on the Kent Wiki? That looks like a mistake. Tristitia (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dartford peer review

The Dartford article has recently had an overhaul, and as follow-up has been nominated for peer review. Since editors to this article are likely to know something about Dartford as well, any edits you can make to the Dartford article or comments on the the peer review itself would be very useful. Thanks in advance! Jdcooper 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Errors in sections 1.4 and 1.5

The "Pocahontas" section on this page is good in spirit, but sloppy in specifics. See the Pocahontas main entry for better facts. This spills into the earlier section on "St. George's church". Here are some of the problem points.

- Many American Indians visited Europe and England before Pocahontas. The Spaniards had been colonizing America for more than a century by then. Squanto was kidnapped and taken to England by George Weymouth in 1605.

- John Smith was not captured by a "raiding party" that "descended on the hapless settlers". Pocahontas was not present when he was captured. She did not save him from death by "tomahawk". Close, though. He was captured; she apparently saved him from death by stone club, at a ceremony held in the Powhatan capitol of Weromocomoco.

- "...his daughter was falsely informed that Smith had died": "his" is a dangling reference intended for chief Powhatan. Don't worry about that too much, because this false information had been given out in 1609. Pocahontas was captured in 1613.

- The idea that the shock of meeting John Smith broke her heart, leading to her death, is quite romantic. It is as unsupported as the more common explanations that she died of smallpox, plague, or tuberculosis. She sickened, she died; the people in the room with her didn't understand it any better than that. John Rolfe did record her last words though: "All must die. 'Tis enough that the child liveth."

- She died in Gravesend, after she was taken off the ship.

I think that, since this article is about Gravesend, there should probably be more detail about exactly what she did in Gravesend. For instance, she spoke her last words there. She was by then Lady Rebecca Rolfe. Her funeral took place on March 21, 1616 in the parish of Saint George's, Gravesend. Her husband's name was misrecorded in the register. She was buried in the chancel, but the church burned down in 1727, and was rebuilt in 1731. When that happened, as I understand it, the bones of all those buried under the old floor were gathered together, and reburied together in the churchyard. Which bones belong to Pocahontas? No-one knows. An attempt was made some time ago to identify which skull was hers; it failed. There is, however, a handsome statue of her in the churchyard cemetery, unveiled in 1958 by the governor of Virginia.

St. George's church: This also affects the section on "St. George's church". The problem isn't that the parish records were lost in the fire, I'm not sure that they were. The problem is that the old church was lost in the fire. The parish records read, "1616 March 21, Rebecca Wrolfe, Wyffe of Thos. Wrolfe Gent. a Virginia lady borne; was buried in ye chancell. Entered by Rev. Nicholas Frankwell". She is no longer buried where those records indicate, however. Due to the fire and the subsequent rebuilding, all the bones under the old church were removed to a common grave in the churchyard. So we do know where she is buried, we just don't know which bones are hers.

• Be Bold --LiamE 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  

I'd like to applaud LaimE's corrections above. After having read the Gravesend article I went to the Discussion page here intending to correct the statement that Pocahontas was "the first Native American to visit England, and Europe" etc....LiamE is absolutely correct, there were others before her. Chief Manteo and Wancese from North Carolina (of the "Lost Colony" fame) also preceded her I believe, to say nothing of those from Spanish explorations....The article should be changed to "one of the earliest to visit England" or some such...Engr105th 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the credit, but in truth my contibution was "Be bold" to the previous unsigned entry. --LiamE 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A rewrite of this article ...

... is definitely called for! It does not follow the recommended WikiPedia layout here for writing about settlements. OK there is a good deal about the history of the place, but precious little else. The geography of the town is needed; and there is little about the Gravesend of 2008 - how does it operate (economy, education); what are its features - eg the large Sikh population, and its new Gurdwara, gets no mention at all! The final section "Other notes of interest" are just a hotchpotch of facts, often still historical. And there are far too many citations needed for "facts": I have lived here for over twenty years and the statement about the Romany connection has never been "very well known" as far as I am aware; in any case where is this site mentioned? Even a seemingly innocuous statement such as "all evidence" of the West Street station having "disappeared" isn't entirely correct, since a skeleton remains of the platform awning!

I shall begin on a rewrite, following the recommended layout. Peter Shearan (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

rewrite now completed as far as I can at the moment:

Airfield I have removed all mention of the airfield, and created (using largely the original text from here) a specific article on it. It then fits in with other such articles, and is in any case little to do with the Gravesend of today.

Non-Gravesend places I have cut out mentions of other places - there was stuff about Higham and Northfleet, which belongs with their own articles We just have to be sure that what is included is simply Gravesend, and not Gravesham.

Railways The station/Gravesend West Line, which have their own articles, has been reduced.

Windmill Hill has its own article - compare with the entry here, which is virtually the same; except that conservation areas are mentioned in the article, not here.

Pocahontas, again has its own article. section considerably reduced, but there may well be a better and more concise way of saying it here; I removed the statue to the Landmarks paragraph.

Sport I KNOW there is more sport to be added, but I am not a sportsman by any means.

Gravesend and the Thames section might be rewritten; its a bit too much history, not enough today. Tugs operate from here. Town Pier is a landmark

It's up to others now! Peter Shearan (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Shame there has been so little feedback.ClemRutter (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics section

I'm very concerned about the newly added "Politics" section of the article. It references right-wing extremism and possible discord with ethnic minorities in Gravesend, but it offers no citations of the same. Further, no discussion of the MP or MEP for the area, it's past voting results, past campaigns, or anything that is typically associated with politics is included in this section. For these reasons, I have added the "cite needed" and NPOV tags. --Friejose (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be an unencyclopedic rant, that it inaccurate in its claims. If the ipeditor has any details that he wishes to raise I suggest he takes it up personally with Mike Fuller, the Chief Constable of Kent, who would take such allegations very seriously. Until then, I have removed it. ClemRutter (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Long Reach

Extending Long Reach to Gravesend is quite a stretch. Long Reach is a stretch of the Thames River. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Galloway (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather in 2011

BBC Radio News Tue 28 2011, 00:30: Reported the highest temp in the UK- 33.1C (Strood made 32.8 on my thermometer). --ClemRutter (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sport

Given it's historic/cultural importance, would it be worth adding to the sport section that there has been a rowing club in the town since 1878? - this is not only the oldest sports club in the town but also one of the oldest rowing clubs on the tidal Thames. Over the years some of the areas more famous individuals have been involved in the club, from 7th Earl of Darnley to world championship rowers. I would add myself, but despite being common knowledge among Gravesendians and the rowing community, the only place I've ever seen this written is the club's website which might be too much like original research? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.20.115 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the article currently states the rowing regattas in the town have seen recent growth due to Dartford Sea Scouts ownership of a boathouse - the only boathouse in Gravesend even remotely associated with the regatta is Gravesend Rowing Club, though the rowers here do not actually compete but sometimes host skiff crews etc. I have therefore removed the reference to the Dartford club, and added a reference to Gravesend Rowing Club. 95.144.33.95 (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Gravesend, Kent → Gravesend – There are four other Gravesends with Wikipedia pages. The only other serious contender is Gravesend, Brooklyn, which has less than half the population and is merely a suburb of a larger area, as opposed to a town and community in its own right. A Google Hits for "Gravesend Kent" returns about 246,000 hits, while "Gravesend Brooklyn" returns 86,900. A neutral search, aside from the WP page, does not bring up the Brooklyn version until halfway down page 2. I think that's enough to make a case for WP:COMMONNAME to apply. The existing Gravesend article would move to Gravesend (disambiguation). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom - It's really a no brainer - "Gravesend" brings up everything for Kent and It's by far the most popular search term for here So I say per COMMONNAME It should be moved. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many instances on the first page of results for the New York neighboorhood, including the Wikipedia page as the second one. The Google results are biased for your location. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah I've just realized My Google result location is set as Rochester hence the related results, Nothing biased simply Google's pathetic location thing, Anyway Striked the above to reflect this. Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I did my search on a clean PC and specifically set .com - and the fact I got the Brooklyn neighbourhood at all indicates it seems neutral and unbiased. Perhaps someone in a neutral country eg: Australia could try it out. There was the WP page as the second (not first!) hit, but that's typical of any search result - then the next hit is the library halfway down page 2. The amount of overall hits, where you specify the location, is harder to argue. To give practical examples, here is a website about the Gravesend library. It's under a Brooklyn based website. Here, meanwhile, is a list of libraries in the English Gravesend. It's under a Gravesham based URL. Not Kent, not England. This leads me to suspect there is a stronger association between the NY Gravesend and Brooklyn, than the English Gravesend and any other term, and therefore, the latter term would be the more likely one for a straight "Gravesend" search, as people would automatically tend towards "Gravesend Brooklyn" in the former case. For what it's worth, I can make the same argument in reverse and suggest that Rochester, New York is more prominent as a place in its own right than Rochester, Kent, whose proximity to Chatham, Kent and Gillingham, Kent leads me to jokingly describe it as the "London Borough of Medway". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support As pointed out, most other meanings seem pretty obscure, the only other contender is the NY district. However the English Gravesend, as well as being 3 times the population, has historic and cultural associations going beyond its actual size, as an important location on the Thames estuary on the approach to London. PatGallacher (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Again- there is development in the pipeline that will make it more prominent. Crossrail extension- new Ebbsfleet housing estate (Garden City!)- a little global warming - Gravesend Broadness - Thames third crossing. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per usage. Gravesend, Kent got 9,500 pageviews in March of this year, while Gravesend, Brooklyn got 2,300 views in the same time frame. The other articles (Hertfordshire, New South Wales, and the film), combined for around 450 views. So the Gravesend in Kent clearly has more views than the other uses combined by a fair margin (over three to one). Dohn joe (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Gravesend. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120205042930/http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=960 to http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=960
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609182520/http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/media/pdf/o/1/Gravesham_BoroughKeyStats2007.pdf to http://www.gravesham.gov.uk/media/pdf/o/1/Gravesham_BoroughKeyStats2007.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121114045457/http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/image_galleries/weekly_gallery_gravesend_town_pier.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/Kent/content/image_galleries/weekly_gallery_gravesend_town_pier.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150601223935/http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app;jsessionid=42B1A593DDC42A8CDBA968EB4B8932AF?service=external/SearchResults&sp=I%3AGravesend+%28Kent%29++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%3A%3A to http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app;jsessionid=42B1A593DDC42A8CDBA968EB4B8932AF?service=external/SearchResults&sp=I%3AGravesend+%28Kent%29++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++%3A%3A
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141217192207/http://www.gravesendcc.co.uk/ to http://www.gravesendcc.co.uk/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141217193823/http://www.woodville.co.uk/blakegallery.php to http://www.woodville.co.uk/blakegallery.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The unofficial Gravesend tourism site promoting local businesses is not encyclopedic and I have removed it. There are three church sites that I believe are breaches of wp:elno, including point 13. These links might fit better as citations to the main article. I have left the church links in place to avouid an empty section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well ofcourse "it's promoting" .... it's a bloody tourisim site!, As this Tourism website and the churches are relevant to the article I've reinstated them, Links should only be added that are relevance and in this case the Met Office wasn't which is why I removed it, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gravesend. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305042341/http://www.piers.org.uk/pierpages/NPSgravesendtown.html to http://www.piers.org.uk/pierpages/NPSgravesendtown.html

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) 19:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gravesend. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309052404/http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1482531&sort=4&search=all&criteria=temple%20cornwall&rational=q&recordsperpage=10&p=1&move=n&nor=13&recfc=0 to http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1482531&sort=4&search=all&criteria=temple%20cornwall&rational=q&recordsperpage=10&p=1&move=n&nor=13&recfc=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223707/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/p/Temperature_Record_-_10_August_2003.pdf to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/p/Temperature_Record_-_10_August_2003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225084107/http://rnli.org/Pages/default.aspx to http://rnli.org/Pages/default.aspx

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) 04:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)