Talk:White Cliffs of Dover

Older: display/ND Way
The picture displays to the extreme left, under the sidebar, for me. Hyacinth 21:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Steinsky, you are right, the "White Cliffs" are indeed at the end of the "North Downs Way". Apologies are in order. Dieter Simon 23:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Np, :) Joe D (t) 23:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Birds of Prey
I have deleted reference to birds of prey nesting here as the bird mentioned is a Schedule 1 protected species and the nest has been robbed before. It is therefore best not to advertise their presence.--twitter 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, don't you feel that in doing that and posting the explaination that you have advertized it better yourself by specifically saying that it is protected and that aparently the nests are located such that they can be robbed? I'm not saying that this should go back in, however, I would not think that the people who commit that type of crime get the idea from this type of source. IE if you want to do something like that I would imagine that there are better and more reliable sources of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.95.10 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Albion
Perhaps there should be something on how the white cliffs led to the island of Great Britain being known to the romans as Albion (the white island). Then in general seperate into sections the parts about the geological history and cultural history.


 * Well, go ahead if you have sources you can cite to that effect. It is important that you substantiate your point, otherwise it will be reverted for lack of cited facts. Dieter Simon 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Around seventy million years ago Britain was submerged by a shallow sea. The sea bottom was made of a white mud formed from the fragments of coccoliths - the skeletons of tiny algae which floated in the surface waters of the sea. This mud was later to become the chalk. It is thought that the chalk was deposited very slowly, probably only half a millimeter a year - equivalent to about 180 coccoliths piled one on top of another. In spite of this, up to 500 metres of chalk were deposited in places. The coccoliths are too small to be seen without a powerful microscope but if you look carefully you will find fossils of some of the larger inhabitants of the chalk sea such as sponges, shells, ammonites and urchins.

Seven Sisters
I thought I'd cross-post here a question I've just asked over at Talk:Seven Sisters, Sussex as to why the Seven Sisters are sometimes used instead of the real White Cliffs of Dover in some historical movies etc. Is it because, as I saw somewhere, that the area around Dover is burdened with anachronistic developments? If someone could verify this somehow (a photo might demonstrate the point, if it is the development thing), it probably ought to go into the Culture section of this article too. - IMSoP 10:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Shouldn't this article be called White Cliffs of Dover, with a capital C? Andrew (My talk) 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yes of course Peter Shearan (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the gap?
It says - "the cliffs spread east and west from the town of Dover", but no reason for that is mentioned. Like the Seven Sisters, the cliffs are the sea-eroded remains of the chalk Downs, and the valleys represent the valleys on its edge.This one has the River Dour cutting through it Peter Shearan (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Climbing
There should be a mention of climbing on the cliffs. Reference the Climbers' Club guide to southern sandstone, which includes a section on climbing on the chalk cliffs of Kent and Sussex, among them Dover.Brilliantine (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Question of Writing the Monumental Given
Sorry for disturbing first. Why do you write the name of this article not as monumental as a friend of mine (who does not have regular internet) does feel it - like "White Cliffs of Dover" she is asking me.

In short: Why is it not written "White Cliffs of Dover"?

ps: I'll hope to check in later and give her and me your answer. Thank you. And yes, we are only talking school english:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.36.164 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

White cliffs of Dover → White Cliffs of Dover — The proposed move reflects the correct capitalisation of this proper name - the existing 'White cliffs of Dover' looks ugly. A quick check on various websites eg National Trust will confirm this. I see it also appears at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/w/White_cliffs_of_Dover.htm with numerous examples within the text of inappropriate capitalisation. —Geopersona (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support White Cliffs of Dover is a name, not a description. The sources support the move. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support good catch. Ratagonia (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The cliffs of Dover is not a proper place name and should not be capitalized when used in a sentence. It's similar to saying "the streets of London". --NormanEinstein (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not its not. "White Cliffs of Dover" is the proper name, as demonstrated by the National Trust ("White Cliffs of Dover, South-East Kent"). 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support agree it should be treated as a proper name per National Trust etc. DBaK (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support certainly a geographical term. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a metonym and therefore is proper rather than common. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Is sufficiently established to be a proper noun. And while we're quoting song titles, a bit like the Black Hills of Dakota. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Symbolic value of Britain?
Are they symblolic of Britain, or England? "where invasions have historically threatened and against which the cliffs form a symbolic guard.". 1066, the Spanish Armada etc., weren't all these invasions of England, not the UK? Moooooocow (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
I've removed a few of the more egregious bits of trivia from the section about the cliffs in popular culture. However, I still think most of the references are pretty fleeting and of questionable significance: unless anyone comes up with any particular reason to keep a particular reference, I'm going to remove all the songs etc. which merely mention the cliffs ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * no objections, so I've been bold ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture" - again
The entire section was just removed as irrelevant. I disagree. The cliffs' iconic status as reflected in the tons of mentions of them is part of the story. Maybe it could usefully be rewritten as continuous prose, emphasizing things like the song and reflecting Shakespeare scholars' assessment of the importance of the occurrence in King Lear - but the list was already pruned (see above section) and I believe this is one of the article topics where it's appropriate to have such a section. Thoughts? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Chopped the section. It was unsourced except for one possible valid ref, the you-tube link was absurd. Fell free to re-add portions with valid WP:RS support and a rationale for why the individual bits are relevant to the cliffs. The section should not be used as a means of promotion. Vsmith (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So now we have no mention of their importance in popular culture at all? That seems rather a step backwards. I think the continuous prose idea has merit. Lists tend to encourage new entries, whereas well-written sentences require someone to spend a few minutes thinking about what they're writing. - IMSoP (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free. I tend to agree, this is a topic that richly deserves to have such a section. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A well sourced prose section covering the notable and historic references would be welcome. The rather misplaced unsourced tidbit re: the bluebirds in the Ecology section could be included. And I agree, the list structure tends to invite quick links to one's fav song/movie/TV episode/video game ... promotion. Whereas good ref'd prose would be less appealing to those folks. Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Louis Blériot
Would you people who have worked so hard on this article consider it appropriate (or merely trivia) to mention Blériot's landing on the cliffs and the memorial to it? Awien (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for everyone, but I think a brief mention in the appropriate place could be a good addition. I'd probably use it as an example of the cliffs being so close to France. Eric   Corbett  14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What an interesting article; it's nothing short of a miracle that he survived all of his experimental flights. For my taste it deserves a goodly amount of mention. The first airplane/monoplane in the history of the world flew over the open sea and landed on these cliffs.  That's something worth knowing. I learned a lot by reading that article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I found this part just almost unbelievable: "Flying at approximately 45 mph (72 km/h) and an altitude of about 250 ft (76 m), he set off across the Channel." For comparison, "the Eiffel Tower is 324 metres (1,063 ft) tall, about the same height as an 81-storey building." Small wonder they needed to find a low point in the cliffs for a landing! Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, those early aviators certainly were a bunch of daredevils. As for a reference I can't find at the moment, but if memory serves: even passenger aircraft in the early days were so unreliable that it was proposed that a landing strip should be constructed all the way along the route between London and Paris for emergency landings. Never happened, but ... Awien (talk) 20:35, 2 May UTC)

Bombardments
There is absolutely nothing here about Nazi German artillery bombardments from the French side over to the tops of the White Cliffs, and beyond. (London was too far away.) There is absolutely nothing about Adolf Hitler's taking a trip to Calais in 1940, and then using has large binoculars to look across the English Channel at the White Cliffs. Photographs of that event are available!24.121.195.165 (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

New climate change section
I feel very bad to need to make so many changes in this section because it is clear that the editor put work into it and for a first edit did fairly well. But it does need pretty extensive editing. I hate to be the only one doing the editing it needs. Does anyone else have any comments? Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This new section is mostly about erosion rather than climate change. I suggest that the section be moved to the geology section (which already has some erosion information) under a new "Erosion" heading. I give the new editor credit for the section because it was not easy to address, for example the first ref used says don't worry the cliffs will still be here for thousands of years and a later one used says something quite different. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Shifted the section up under Geology and modified the header. Vsmith (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Vsmith and others, I wonder what we should do about another conflict of info from different sources. A WashPo article states that the yearly erosion is at a rate of 8.7 inches to just over a foot and the park website says 1 cm a year.   I find it hard to believe that they are eroding at as much as a foot a year.  Just from the photos that we have here one can see that we have not lost say about 50 feet since WWII.  In fact, one hardly sees any change at all.   What do you think?  Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I found the study and those numbers are correct  Well, just more depressing news I guess.  No more bats at my farm home here in Maine, hardly any songbirds compared to what there used to be, hardly any bugs and butterflys/moths either. The fish in the ocean off the coast of Maine are almost gone and the lobsters are not reproducing properly likely due to the warming oceans, and on and on. And we elect a president with great and unmatched wisdom who pulls us out of the Climate Agreement.  Is there no end to how long we think we can fuck up this planet and get away with it?  Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Feeling that this section could still use additional editing I reached out to editor Girth Summit who has a geology background. He made some suggestions on his talk page which he said I could post here:


 * The sourcing isn't great. They're using newspaper reports about studies rather than going direct to the studies - for example, the Washington Post article they've cited actually contains a link to the PNAS paper - we should be citing that directly, it would be much more reliable for the subject matter. I'd also lose the ref bomb at the end of the second paragraph.
 * The text is self-contradictory - the first paragraph ascribes the increase in the rate of erosion to the construction of seawalls and groynes, and increased severity of storms; the second paragraph says it's due to ocean acidification; the third paragraph introduces the idea that it's due to sea level rise.
 * It's also pretty vague in places - eg: ...eroding ten times faster than they did before. - what does 'before' mean in this context? Presumably the rate of erosion has varied greatly over their history. Why are coccolithophore shells described as unusual in having calcium carbonate shells?
 * It's full of editorialising and overblown language, like 'iconic cliffs', 'If the management of the beaches continues to be done poorly', 'The only way this can be solved.... Overall, it's teetering on the brink of becoming persuasive rather than informative writing.
 * There are other niggly things I would quibble with - 'decrease' is an awkward word to use for pH (since a lower number actually indicates an increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions), I'd probably reword this to just talk about the acidification of seawater, which we could then link to. I don't think we should be measuring land in numbers of football pitches - pretty standard journalistically, but hectares, square metres or whatever would be more encyclopedic. Convert templates would be useful for the measurements - I expect that the original research on the rates of erosion would actually use mm or cm per year, which we should be giving as the main units and converting into inches (for US readers :P).

If there are no objections I plan to re-do the section in a few days. Does anyone else have any additional suggestions? Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluebirds
The article currently states that the bluebird mentioned in the song (There'll Be Bluebirds Over) The White Cliffs of Dover refers to swallows and house martins which migrate across the cliffs. Can anyone provide a source to this? According to the song article, the bluebird comes from the American bluebird as the composer was an American and did not realise they didn't occur in England. AustinRedd007 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that you have added a tag to one of the parks.  Some good, experienced editors have worked on this article and did not feel that there is not only any doubt that the park exists but it is linked for further and referenced information as well.  Hundreds of people have read this section and no one else had a problem with it. Why do you see a problem?  There is no reason that someone should come along and delete this section after the tag gets old.   Sectionworker (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)