Talk:Hastings

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

Untitled[edit]

Old people dont live here fool. Gangsta's do like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.29.111 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about an entry on the current rate of crime? Hastings is a dreadful place, with low education, low home ownership, and high amounts of petty violence and sexual misdemeanors... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.130.27 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for my part I don't see that the history section is currently longer than what you suggest, and anyway is certainly not excessive for an historic town article. Nor is the list of past residents excessive, and it does add interest to the article to see them here rather than in a separate entry somewhere. Overall the article is not excessively long, so does not need pruning for length. Sandpiper 08:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 km, use 5 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 km.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mysteries?[edit]

There are dozens of mysteries related to Hastings. Does anyone know which section they should go into? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the mystery, possibly History, Landmarks, Culture or Visitor attractions. Name some examples and we can suggest an appropriate place. MortimerCat (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heared once that there were haunted pubs and inns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.150.212 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably go in a mysteries section. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of Hastings[edit]

  • A-Hastings is a town on the coast of East Sussex in England; it is also the administrative centre for the Borough of the same name.
  • B-Hastings is a town and Borough on the coast of East Sussex in England.

In every source I have seen (e.g. OS maps) The borough boundries are the same as the boundries of the town (Except for including parts of the Country Park). Therefore why should it say "Is the administrative centre for the Borough of the same name" which implies that it is they are both two different things such as Ashford (borough) and Lewes (district) rather than Eastbourne or Portsmouth? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Borough status in the United Kingdom highlights that a borough is not the same thing as a town — although "town" is a dangerously ill-defined term compared with, for example, "city". But they're two different things. If they shared the same geographical space, as well as sharing the name, this would be made perfectly clear by option B, although I'd want to see the word "borough" linked in the sentence. But since they do not quite share the same geographical space (according to the above, where the park is mentioned), there is a good case for option A which broadly allows for this distinction. – Kieran T (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B is my favoured option. The article is about the Borough of Hastings. Guidelines at WP:UKTOWNS state that articles should be merged into the larger ranging article. This means sentence A is incorrect. As far as this article is concerned, Hastings is not the administrative centre, it is the borough. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can see the reasoning for option A, I believe B makes more sense to users visiting the article, and to me, Hastings refers to the borough. Winchelsea (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this debate has lasted a week I have reverted the initial sentence to the majority opinion, but the debate can continue ++ MortimerCat (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to suggest moving this page to Hastings, East Sussex, and moving the disambiguation page to Hastings. Though I realise that Hastings in England is an important historical site, Hastings in New Zealand may actually be a more prominent place (Hastings + "New Zealand" gets 2 milliong ghits, compared to Hastings + Sussex's 300,000). Hastings + Victoria turns up even more ghits, though not all of them refer to the place in Australia. Grutness...wha? 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I seem to remember some such thing being suggested previously and being soundly rejected. In historical terms there'a bsolutely no comparison between the original Hastings and the various towns in other countries that have been named after it. --rossb (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree! The Hastings in E. Sussex is a much older and more famous place (i.e. the battle, television (maybe)) and various events that go on. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  10:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We have to remember that Wikipedia is worldwide. Hastings, New Zealand is a district nearly as large as Hastings, East Sussex. Users in New Zealand will possibly be expecting to see their city if they type in Hastings. According to the policy, the question is whether Hastings, East Sussex is the primary topic. Looking at the traffic statistics and what links here, it is apparent that Hastings, East Sussex is a primary topic and therefore the article should remain as it is.
I would further comment that ghits for Hastings + Sussex is low because the Sussex Hastings is so well known, web pages do not mention the county. Hastings + Victoria ghits includes lots of Sussex pages. The main train route is Hastings to Victoria, and there are many places in Hastings containing the word Victoria. ghits hits for just Hastings comes to 24.7 million. Take away the 2 million New Zealand ghits and the 8 million Victorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hastings&action=edit&section=4ia ghits, you still are left with 14.7 million ghits which seem to be linking to the Sussex Hastings. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are false uses of statistics. (1) The traffic stats indicate people who went to Hastings but not whether they went there expecting to find the East Sussex Hastings. It's very likely that a considerable number of those page hits were from people expecting to find an article on Hastings NZ, Hastings AU, or Hastings CA. (2) Looking at "whatlinkshere" may suggest more links to Hastings than to Hastings, New Zealand, but that doesn't take a couple of things into consideration: firstly, a fair proportion of those links are intended to be for other Hastingses (1931 in New Zealand? Josh Kronfeld? List of earthquakes?), and secondly, Hastings is listed on a couple of very high use templates, one of which alone (Template:SE England) accounts for a considerable proportion of those links. (3) What makes you think that those 14.7 million remaining ghits are for Hastings East Sussex? Simply typing "Hastings" into google, the first ten hits contain seven for the NZ city, two for the Australian one, and one for an American politician whose surname is Hastings. The first hit for the Sussex Hastings is the 15th one. Typing Hastings -Zealand -Victoria -Sussex, and the first ten ghits you get contain two for Hastings, Minnesota; one for Hastings, Michigan; one for a US entertainment company called goHastings; one for Hastings College of Law (California); one for a firearms manufacturers called Hastings (based in Kansas); one for a fibreglass plant called Hastings (in Michigan); one for a Canadian racetrack; one for the American congressman; and one for Hastings Manufacturing (in Minnesota). There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that Hastings, Sussex is "so well known that web pages do not mention the county at all". In fact, of the first 100 ghits for this search, only three refer to this Hastings (all of them about the battle) - over a dozen were for yet another Hastings: Hastings, Nebraska. If anything, there's more evidence from this that Hastings means different things to different people and should be the site of a disambiguation page as a result. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My statements were based on a lot more research than the short paragraph above indicates. (1) Hastings had 14371 views, the disambiguation had 1252 views, therefore at least 13119 readers did not disambiguate. Even if we assume that the 2453 people who looked at Hastings, New Zealand (and similarly for the other Hastings articles) mistakenly went to Hastings first, thats still a lot of people who have looked at Hastings without going to any other Hastings article. (2) The other Hastings articles have similar templates so it is comparing like for like. (3) Hastings + England gets 3 million ghits, showing that Sussex is only mentioned in a tenth of the web pages.
I still believe that the East Sussex Hastings is the Primary topic, its the one most people expect when they type in Hastings. According to the policy, the article should stay as it is. However I do accept that contributions to this debate so far have had a regional bias. I think we need some opinions from outsiders before we come to a consensus. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Okay, I'll accept that, though it is more than possible that those who went to Hastings didn't find what they were looking for and assumed that there was no Wikipedia article. it is a fairly sizable margin, though. (2) The two templates on Hastings, New Zealand add only some 60 articles to the whatlinkshere for that article (in fact, for some strange reason, one of them doesn't seem to add anything to it - it links to the redirect Hastings District, but that redirect only lists one link. Not sure why, but it does). The ones on Hastings add some 180 articles to the whatlinkshere. (3) Indeed, Hastings + England does gain 3 million ghits. The first 50 include several articles on rugby players Scott and Gavin Hastings, three on Hastings School in Leeds, at least two for the Northamptonshire village of Yardley Hastings, and at least three others for people whose surname is Hastings. Even more interestingly, Hastings + England + "New Zealand" returns 500,000 hits, so one in six of those pages could be about either or both of these Hastingses. Think about it - if my search above found that most of the top articles which didn't specify Sussex, New Zealand, or Australia weren't about the one in Sussex but were on a wide range of disparate subjects, you'd expect a big range of subjects for the search you did. But even if they weren't, and we assume for one moment that every single article in your google search was for the Sussex Hastings - excluding those which has Hastings, England, and New Zealand in them (which could easily be about either), that would give a maximum of 2.8 million ghits, with Hastings, New Zealand and Hastings, Minnesota each returning over 2 million. It may be the primary Hastings, but by a pretty small margin - arguably not by enough as far as satisfying Wikipedia:Disambiguation is concerned. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We both can come up with ghit analytical theories but what we really need is some outside opinions on what Hastings means to them. Normally I would ask for help on UK Geography but that immediately breaks WP:CANVASS. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and possibly likely to lead to fairly skewed results, since one of the main Hastingses is in the UK. It's not a biggie either way, really - it just seems ambiguous, misleading, and more than a little Anglocentric to assume that if someone is heading for Hastings, that it's the East Sussex one they're looking for. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation - they deal with these sorts of things more than either of us, I'd guess, and they're more likely to have an objective view on the subject. I'll leave it there unless there's something requiring my input - and have a go at shifting some of the misdirected links pointing to Hastings in the whatlinkshere list. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, having gone through the first 300 links (and fixed some 20-30 that were incorrectly to the wrong Hastings), I am now convinced that the best way for the article on a town to get loads of Wikipedia internal links is for that town to hold a regular chess tournament. Seems close to 20% of the links to Hastings are from articles on chess players! Grutness...wha? 12:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the lot - and just for the record, the number of links relating to each Hastings now: East Sussex, 838; Minnesota, 523; Nebraska, 340; New Zealand, 273; Michigan 91; all others <90. Nebraska's Hastings was the surprising one. Grutness...wha? 06:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Coming here from WP:WPDAB, mostly just skimming the above discussions) I don't live in the UK, the US or New Zealand, but the only thing I can think of when I hear "Hastings" is Battle of Hastings in England. I didn't know it was in Sussex though, so I agree that there is reason to believe that GHITS are biased against what's likely the primary meaning. Moving the dab page here is the second-best choice. – sgeureka t•c 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please reach a consciousness on this pretty soon? This debaste seemed to kill of my proposal here FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  13:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Consensus was reached nearly two weeks ago! Grutness...wha? 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image:Uk_outline_map.png[edit]

Hello!

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Uk_outline_map.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:British_Isles_United_Kingdom.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

Given how little we know about early Anglo-Saxon England, the idea that the place name can be traced to an individual settler known to be 5th century and Jutish seems pretty implausible. I very much doubt that there is a reliable modern source for this, but before I rewrite this section using authoritative sources, can anyone say where this comes from? --Pfold (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now rewritten. Once interesting looking source I came across which may be worth looking at if someone can find a copy:
  • Combes, Pamela; Lyne, Malcolm. Hastings, Haestingaceaster and Haestingaport : a question of identity. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 133 (1995), 213-24. ISSN 01438204.
I've also removed the reference lower down the page to the Danes giving the town its name. This cannot possibly be correct because the hastingas tribe is attested before the Danish attacks on Kent. --Pfold (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Section[edit]

I feel the economy section should be updated or removed. As a 20-year resident of Hastings, I am of the opinion that a section that talks solely about fishing (and cites a fishing source) is not representative of the Hastings' economy, and is often totally irrelevant.

For instance: "Near the Royal Victoria Hotel there is the "Conquerors Stone" where William of Normandy was supposed to have eaten his first breakfast in England.[18][19]"

Under the economy section? ^ plain uninformative, and irrelevant!

While I think the section on the net shops is interesting, particularly the bit about building tall and thin to pay less tax is quirky and interesting nothing else within the paragraph is of 'economic interest'.

I suggest removing the paragraph in its entirety. I understand that it is difficult to find sources for how the Hastings' economy currently is, but a section, even without sourcing, and a "[citation needed]", would be better in my opinion then leaving this section in.

In all honesty I think the demographics section hits the nail on the head with Hastings, its explained why it's behind against national statistics and the economic challenges it faces. I therefore propose removing the economy section in its entirety?

Gavin AD (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Winchelsea 11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a historical perspective Hastings economy had a lot to do with the sea, so fair enough to talk about this. From a modern perspective Hastings economy now depends mostly on other things. But what are they? I would take a wild guess the largest single source of revenue to the town is state benefits or governments payments of one sort or another. It has some mixed light industry, probably mostly a legacy of the period when it was an overspill town for population being removed from London in the 60's and 70's and the town grew significantly. So while it may seem silly to call fishing the towns major industry now, what is bigger? Tourism perhaps?Sandpiper (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this not be the landing page for searches on Hastings[edit]

I would like to suggest that the page currently titled "Hastings (disambiguation)" is a more appropriate landing page for searches on the name Hastings. It needs some editing but is more likely to satisfy the general enquirer. Assuming there is consensus on this proposal, what is the best way to implement?

SBmeier (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)SBmeier[reply]

I refer you to the closed discussion above. Talk:Hastings#Disambiguation? Putney Bridge (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pier and broken links[edit]

Hey, I have added information about the pier (a little information, just saying it's burnt down), and also removed some broken links (red). Should I replace these, or is it okay to remove unneeded, broken links? Deanybabeh (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bathing Pool[edit]

This is described as 'Olympic sized', but it was in fact considerably larger than an olympic swimming pool for which the standard is 50 metres, whereas the Hastings pool measured 330 feet by 90 feet or about 100 metres by 27.5 metres. However I don't have a citable source for this. Anyone else have one? treesmill (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Haestingas[edit]

I have inserted a couple of paragraphs under 'Early History' regarding the period when the Hastings area was a separate kingdom under the Haestingas tribe. I felt that Hastings having once been a recognised sub-kingdom in its own right was of sufficient interest to be referenced here. However, I am an interested amateur, not an expert, so feel free to criticise, comment or alter! Butcherscross (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans?[edit]

Is or isn't Hastings twinned with New Orleans? I notice various users have added the city in the Twins list but subsequent users have reversed it. The "Welcome to Hastings" sign on the A21 clearly states "Twinned With New Orleans" but the Council's website & the Hastings Association of Twin Towns website make no mention of such a twinning. If it's not true, do we know why the road sign, which is presumably maintained by the Council, makes such a claim? Butcherscross (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seeda[edit]

Is there any evidence that seeda actually accomplished anything? Yes, I know it published and planned a lot, but did it it materially alter anything? Surely a much more important event was the expansion of the town after ww2 as part of the London overspill development. This enlarged the town considerably and brought in industry. All you could say of probably the last 30 years is that development of Hastings has ceased since this scheme came to an end. Industrial development has gone into reverse. Seeda proposed joint develoment of the Hastings-bexhill conurbation but any progress on this has been refused by Bexhill. Seeda thus has been rather pointless. Sandpiper (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

Whats with the big table about ethnicity? Does anyone care? It says the place is 97% white but goes on to itemise a load of categories of around 100 people. Is this here because it has become a standard to include such a table rather than because it is useful information? Sandpiper (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how demographics aren't 'useful information'. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for a thumping great table either. A prose section descibing the population as mainly white with a few of various other categories would be more in wikipedia style.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of phrase "Saxon castle"[edit]

The article currently reads:

"William caused a castle to be built at Hastings probably using the earthworks of the existing Saxon castle."

I would question the use of the word 'castle' for the Saxon structure. In British terms, 'Castle' describes a specific type of structure which was introduced by the Normans, and, unlike a fort, combined residential, domestic, military and administrative functions in its use. The Saxons did not have 'castles' as such. Would anybody object if I changed the final words of the sentence to read 'Saxon fort'? Butcherscross (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market town status?[edit]

Is there a legal or long established basis for Hstings being in Category:Market towns in East Sussex? There is no mention of a Royal Charter for a market in the town. Thanks. p.r.newman (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in the events section[edit]

I am a member of the Hastings Borough Bonfire Society. The picture you have is of Section 5 (an off shoot of the Bonfire Society but a group in their own right) They have their own facebook page as do the Bonfire society. It is also now known that the Bonfire event surpasses how many people attend our event each year. We have visiting societies from all across Sussex and usually around 30,000 (more if its a nice evening) watch our tourchlit procession and fireworks. Conturary to popular belief the Council do not pay or run the Bonfire night event, this is all done by our members by fundraising (by our very dedicated committee and volunteers) throught the year leading up to October. There are many pictures and facts on our own bonfire pages - HBBS.

Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.55.24 (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silverhill 'Village' ?[edit]

"Ore, Silverhill and Hollington were once villages that have since become part of the Hastings conurbation area during rapid growth"

What grounds are there for listing Silverhill as a former village? Historically Silverhill - like Bohemia (whose residents sometimes misclassify it as a 'village')- was never more than a farm, Silverhill Farm, which gradually got built over during the 19th century, as Hastings expanded.

The early 19th century saw a grand, out-of-town hotel, the Tivoli Hotel (on the site of the current BP petrol station) and a row of houses, Silverhill Terrace, developed to serve the hotel, but otherwise there was never anything here that could be described as a 'village'. Nothing in Silverhill other than one former farm building, predates the mid-19th Century expansion of Hastings/St Leonards. Butcherscross (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hastings. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

local glory is not encyclopedic. improve this article if you want to.[edit]

@Roger 8 Roger:, I'd submit that the slight amount of local vainglory was more than overbalanced by the additional information you removed with it, and was probably justifiable anyway. Both the battle and the Cinque Ports did lend some historical luster to the place; it was a health and pleasure resort before the railway -Lamb may not have liked it, but, if memory serves, he visited it before Rocket was even built; there might even be something to the claim of largest surfboat fishery. In short, I think reverting your recent change is an improvement; the article was better before it. Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff:, * mention of the battle was left in, but the article is about the town not the battle (that was not on the site of Hastings anyway) * ditto, mention of cinque ports was left in (just made more succinct) * I am sure it was a pleasure resort before the past. Mention that fact but do so with a reliable reference, otherwise that is your POV/OR. The onus is now on you to provide a citation.* Ditto the beach fishing. My amendments are better for no other reason than they follow WP basic rules of editing, whereas yours do not. I want this article improved and would be happy if that happened. Throwing in lots of primary resources, ie personal opinions, does not achieve that.

@Roger 8 Roger:, I'm not the one changing the article, you know. You are. I simply reverted it to a form which it had held for...well, it's been a while, hasn't it? If you are sure something is true, I'd think the correct approach is to either find a cite, or mark it cn, or, perhaps even let it be, especially if it appears both true and uncontroversial. As I mentioned, Charles Lamb describes it as place one is supposed to like for a holiday, but he cannot, before widespread passenger rail. Finding a cite showing the The Stade has the largest beach launched fleet in Britain isn't difficult, and is almost certainly accurate. (Whether that's true for Europe as a whole is another kettle of fish.) Anmccaff (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I have reworded part of the article that was not written as well as could have been, either verbose, not neutral, or simply not good style. Some parts I removed because I questioned their truth and because they had no citation (A basic right that all editors should use. Eg, the claim about being the largest beach harbour in Europe. You have now just said it is the largest in Britain but might or might not be for Europe (confirming a source is needed). I have questioned the claim about Hastings being a holiday retreat pre-railway. Again, now prove it please. The onus is on you now to provide citations to verify these claims if you want them restored. WP:ONUS. This is all basic wp policy.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hastings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hastings. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Events[edit]

The events listing section has become rather disjointed dueto multiple events being added on an ad-hoc basis. I will revisit this over the next day or so to tidy it up a bit.--Roypenfold (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education statistics[edit]

I've just reverted two new edits to the "Economy" section that modified data on higher education in Hastings. One was clearly absurd. The other involved an unsourced change to an unsourced figure. The figures have been tagged as unsourced since 2011, and I'm aware that I'm simply reverting one unsourced figure to another. I haven't found any current statistics from a brief google. Can anybody help? Thanks. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-de-Nivelle: Try https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E07000062 . This is an ONS site that produces reports on a local level. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings Borough Council[edit]

Since no article exists at Borough of Hastings as the boundaries are long-standing and similar (apart from Hastings Country Park) an article should probably exist on the council per WP:UKDISTRICTS like Eastbourne Borough Council unless an article on the district is created. Also note that Hastings District is about the NZ district and Hastings District Council is about the NZ council. The 1st should probably be moved as this one is also called "Hastings District"[1][2] but the latter is probably OK. I have drafted an article behind the redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hastings&oldid=1207585143"