Talk:East Grinstead

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

Arbitrary section header[edit]

Shouldn't you put somthing about the murder of Richard Watson on here? (Anyone know where He lived?)

isn't this the place that has a huge number of cults based around it? -- Tarquin 16:57 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

re: cults[edit]

I live near east grinstead, but i dont really know the facts - but yes, there are a lot of cults and religious groups in and around east grinstead. Supposedly loads of ley lines cross in east grinstead. The situation even nessessitated a documentary called 'why east grinstead?'. Like I said, I dont know enough or clearly and factually enough to contribute this stuff, it would be great if someone more knowledgable on this matter could though. (Ernestspires)

Scientology in East Grinstead-- There is a strong history of scientology in East Grinstead as it's where the founder L. Ron Hubbard resided and scientology really took off. See the scientology.org webpage for more information. I'm surprised the wikipedia article on scientology doesnt mention East Grinstead, as it seems to be the home of scientology. Scientology is probably too mainstream to be described as a cult, although it is described as one and it very much seems like one. (Bill) 2 Sept 2005


Edited based on [1] Zeimusu | Talk page 08:08, 2005 September 5 (UTC)


Scientology practically runs East Grinstead and it's very worrying as they ARE a cult. The town council has strong links with the cult which is a terrifying prospect.

East Grinstead is no longer the home of Scientology and has not been since the 1970s I believe. I would not refer the Scientology as a cult but as a young religion. The Scientologists in the East Grinstead community are a great lot. They never cause trouble and only add to the culture of the area.

I wouldnt agree with EITHER of the above statements. I lived in East Grinstead from 1966 to 1990 and my parents have lived there for 40 years. Scientology does not run East Grinstead. Where are your facts?

The town does have links with the cult or whatever you want to call it, but in my experience thats because lots of people who come to East Grinstead to be taught/indroctrinated/ (whatever your feeling) like the town and end up staying because of that and not neccesarily Scientology. Scientology does have a lot of money (or other peoples money!) and have attempted in the past to "give it away" to the town or various organisations. Sometimes its been accepted at face value, other times its been refused simply because of its connection.

As for the Scientology community being a "great lot" Do you mean the ones actually "doing their thing" at Saint Hill Manor, the people living in EG who have given up Scientology or what?

It would be balanced to say there are many people who have lived in EG for a long time who are deeply suspicous of the whole organisation (a mildly insulting slang word used locally is "Scieno") People dont have to cause trouble to be unwanted or a nusance!

The book shop selling L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics stuff and his other Sci Fi was the only shop in that part of town in the late 80s that required roller shutters at night. If the Scientologists moved out tomorrow i cannot see how there would be any major impact on the town, apart from the obvious lack of funding to those clubs etc that are financed in town.

NOT witches[edit]

And another thing..... Whoever wrote this whole article hasnt done their research very well. The 3 graves memorials in St Swithuns arent for witches but 3 Protestant martrys who were burnt at the stake in the High Street. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waspexile (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tone of the redevelopment section[edit]

I've tagged the Redevelopment section with the tone banner because I think there's a few issues that need to be worked out. I don't know much about the specifics of the redevelopment, I'm more concerned about how it is presented in this article. Terms like "badly designed" and "more attractive" aren't very encyclopaedic and seem a bit POV unless attributed to a source, and the sources that are used are quite vague. I'm going to assume good faith and trust that all the information is accurate, it just needs to be rewritten a touch. There are a few sources on Google news about this topic from the E.G. Courier so a good well sourced section should be possible. (I haven't read the items in their entirety as they're pay per view and at £3 that's £2.60 more than the paper itself.) ●Bill (talk|contribs) 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be based on Council press releases promoting their Town Centre scheme with a brief reference to the rival 'Martells' scheme. It is very strange that there is no mention of the East Grinstead Area Action Plan and Core Strategy that propose a massive increase in housebuilding - 5,500-6.500 homes, although there is a reference to a bypass which is part of the Area Action Plan. The Area Action Plan is a far bigger issue and has led to vigorous local debate including a referendum where 97% opposed the council's proposals and a Petition which drew 10,000 signatures. The Council received a record 6800 objections in 2007 to their AAP draft - 99% opposition. What is the Wikipedia stance on dealing with something like this? The current section really is not representative of what is going on in terms of redevelopment/development of the town - it gives a very lop-sided view. Perhaps the reference to development might be made briefer and more general, with a separate article that deals with some more detail? I am not familiar enough with the editorial etiquette to know if this would represent an acceptable solution MaisonGladys (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit before but if you have better local knowledge feel free to rewrite the section with a neutral point of view and giving references.--Charles (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology[edit]

Why is this included in the Religious Institutions? I'm not here to debate Scientology, but bearing in mind it is legally not regarded a religion by the UK government, it should not be grouped with actual religions. Feel free to have its own section in the article, just not there. As a resisdent of East Grinstead I do not like this appearing at all on our page, a black mark on East Grinstead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.145.155 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religions are what people believe in, however wacky, not what the authorities approve of. What is a religion and what is a cult is largely a personal point of view. Many people would consider some of the other organisations on the list just as strange. Wikipedia deals in fact, not popularity or prejudice, and Scientology is clearly part of the town, like it or not.--Charles (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point raised is not whether or not Scientology is a presence in the town or not - clearly it is - but whether it is appropriate under a heading Religious Institutions. This is clearly hotly disputed and many argue that it is in fact a cult. If Wikipedia is to deal in facts surely it cannot arbitrarily just call it a religion without qualification? MaisonGladys (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the section title should be changed to Cults. They all look pretty odd to me.--Charles (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the 'Religous Institutions' section splitting it into mainstream - 'Religous Organisations' and non mainstream - 'Cults and other Belief Systems'. In doing this I have followed the defintions that exist in Wikipedia for each in the main entrys. MaisonGladys (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio notes[edit]

I very much doubt that the section in the article has been copied from the website. It's more likely the other way around and the website copied the material from Wikipedia. The wikipedia article contained the text before the date on the website. The webpage says that the content was posted on the 5th of June, 2007, this is the page on the 2nd of June, 2007. Looking back at the history of the section, it appears to have grown naturally over time, not a large chunk being added in one go. [2]. Bill (talk|contribs) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks like wikipedia was the source for http://www.east-grinstead.co.uk/general/religion/ Removed copyvio tagJeepday (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sports & Social clubs[edit]

I have added a reference and link to the municpal 'King's Centre' leisure facilities that sit on King Georges Field. Also I split the sports and other social clubs list and listed both sub-groups alphabetically - which I hope will help clarity. 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC) MaisonGladys (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why East Grinstead Hockey Club and East Grinstead Lacrosse Club are listed yet the other sports clubs in the town are not ? There are football, rugby, cricket and athletics clubs. Either all or none should be listed - otherwise it's simply marketing or censorship which is wrong. Thealbion (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to my volleyball club, East Grinstead Kings volleyball club, it was removed, as the above said why only lacrosse and hockey? Please can you add us to the list please? or remove Hockey, Lacrosse and Football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.233.79 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements state that ideally the civil parish should be the catch-all article, avoiding single line articles on every village and landmark within the parish.

Therefore, I suggest that villages within the parish with a one or two sentence article, ie Saint Hill Green to be merged and redirected to this parish article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E.G. in literature?[edit]

Surely a story needs to be set in E. Grinstead before it is worth mentioning here. If characters based in London are said to come from E. Grinstead (Slave to Fashion), or pass through it briefly, then the reader is not actually going to learn much about E. Grinstead by reading those books. Recent Runes (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East Grinstead. 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 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Grinstead. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East Grinstead. 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) 04:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East Grinstead. 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) 11:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Grinstead&oldid=1196313812"