Talk:Geordie

Talk:Geordie/Archive 1 Talk:Geordie/Archive 2 Talk:Geordie/Archive 3 Talk:Geordie/Archive 4 Talk:Geordie/Archive 5

Smoggies

Calling a Smoggie a Geordie is an insult.79.77.207.102 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep.92.21.39.78 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

?92.21.37.253 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) 02:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geordie. 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/20100322212013/http://www.soundcomparisons.com/Eng/Direct/Englishes/SglLgTynesideTrad.htm to http://www.soundcomparisons.com/Eng/Direct/Englishes/SglLgTynesideTrad.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716004838/http://howaythelads.com/introduction/geordieland/geordies/ to http://howaythelads.com/introduction/geordieland/geordies

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) 06:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples needed

Especially where the vowels are enumerated in transcription, it would be very desirable to have examples of English words in standard spelling containing them; otherwise a lot remains unclear.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mostly unsourced In popular culture section

Let's be clear: Wikipedia is not the place for listing every single person who has a Geordie accent. Most of these are trivial. Some (like Sting and Mark Knopfler, for example) are well-known world-wide and there's ample sourcing, meaning it's significant enough to include. However, one mention on itv.com (not considered a reliable secondary source, last I checked) is not enough sourcing to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia that's meant to give a worldwide view of the topic. So those get removed. Sorry. Amsgearing (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing, thank you for going to the talk page like I suggested.

This is a long discussion about edits, you've done a big edit, you have removed I think, 11 citations.

The subject: 'Geordies in popular culture...' Setting the goal posts up: You are claiming, trivia, notability and lack of sources when you are deleting?

Lets look at the definition of trivia... You are claiming 'trivia.' Doing a google search we will find the definition of trivia is: details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value.

Using that definition above, therefore, we need to find things that are not of little importance to the subject of 'popular culture.' So what is popular culture? Doing another google search we see that it is culture based on the tastes of ordinary people rather than an educated elite...

So we can see we are looking for pieces of information with importance and value to the culture and tastes to many social strata of society.

As you can also see, with respect to you, our own strata in society does not give us the power to control what is or what is not 'popular culture to other social strata...'

From my POV I also do not watch the XFactor or Geordie Shore. I detest Geordie Shore. It is not cited so I will not be putting it back up. If someone else wants to put it up with a cite, be my guest and if they put it up again without a cite and someone take it down, it is their problem for not citing it. But when it come to things that are verifiable and cited it is a different matter. Eleven cites were taken down by yourself at my last count. Granted some may not be good enough, but it looks like you chucked good cites out too. The Xfactor, or Geordie Shore may or may not be to your tastes, too, but they can also be popular culture to some strata of society that is higher than mine or lower than yours :). You removing this information, IF they are cited, is, from my reasoning, suspiciously like a POV hit edit. Btw, again, like yourself, I could not care if you take them down when they are not cited, or they are poorly sourced... However if you are taking them down, when they are sourced, then I reason, and I believe my reason is very strong, this looks like a POV prejudice.

You also mention notability. Lets also look at notability:

What Wikipedia says on notability in subject matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence :

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

Lets Look at the notability of your deletions as a whole: I would argue that the xFactor, Geordie Shore which I do not even like, various people, or books you have claimed are not notable, and so on, have on the contrary, actually received significant coverage or independent recognition over a long period of time and are therefore very notable going by the wiki guidelines and definitions. LittleMix, for instance, has been around for 5+years and are still being reported on in national newspapers, still selling tickets, Joe Mcelderry has been around longer is still in business, Cheryl has been around for a long time. Ant and Dec have been around for years. The Jocks and the Geordies have their own wiki page and ran from 1975 to 1990 in a notable publication in popular culture. The Viz has been around for years and won numerous noted awards in popular culture and is still going, a lot of people still turn their noses up to the Viz. It also has a Wikipedia page, therefore Wikipedia also regards the viz as a notable publication or it would be deleted going on the above guidelines. The film Goal is notable and has a wiki page and still gets played on our TV's years later and people still pay to watch it on places like YouTube or Netflix. Auf Wiedersehen Pet is clearly notable in Geordie popular culture. Voted one of the top TV programs of the last centaury. It has 3 Geordies as central players. Produced and directed by Roddam and La Frenais... Who are very highly rated and thought of in their own industry. It has its own wiki page and doesn't even need a cite, but again if you were to look for one on google you'd find plenty. Mike Nevile is clearly notable with regards to popular culture, he was a newscaster who for years who had a routine with George House built around Dobson's Larn Yersel Geordie. Inspector Lewis has his own wiki page, and the series has ran for years and reruns on UK Gold to this day, it is notable. It has its own popular culture with a certain clientele. Sarah Millican is a comedian who has been doing stand up for over 5 years and has her own wiki page. Though she is not cited here the absence of a source on the article does not highlight she is not notable, if you do a google search you'd find plenty of citations for her. The Catherine Tate Show was an award winning serious that some strata of society liked, and had a character called Geordie Georgie. Robson Green is an actor who has been acting for at least a couple of decades and Ross Noble is another stand-up who is also notable for years with his own wiki page. The songs by Mark Knophler are all notable, he has been playing all these songs at concerts for years. People pay to see Knophler play sailing to Philidelphia, a cite you took down which quoted his lyrics. The Plague Dogs is a top selling book that was made into a film. It is very notable. It is very authoritive. You pulled down the citation from The Plague Dogs. The book has a glossary with Geordie terms. Adams even thanked the authority of Scott Dobson for his help on the way the Tod speaks. You claimed the authority Dobson was not referenced, but if you search the link on google books, in the preface to the book Adams thanks Mr and Mrs Dobson for their help on the subject matter. Your statement on Dobson was incorrect.

If anyone ever states these people and things above are not notable, I think it is very reasonable, by using Wikipedia guidelines and definitions on what is notable, to state you are incorrect.

I have put a near to a dead cite with someone or something that has notability(example Mike Nevile), and it would be easy by using a google search, to get citations showing notability. I'd suggest waiting for a while to see if someone cites the inline at a later date before removing.

What I agree with you on about deleting...

On your side I can see where you have pulled a topic line or two about people being upset because people did not like Cheryl Coles accent in some news event that probably lasted days. This is something that is clearly a short term interest and going by wiki guidelines on notability it needs to be removed. The American series Castle had one episode with a Geordie in it and has not been thought of again. An obvious remove, it has no notability going by the wiki guidelines.

I also agree with you to delete something by an edit, if it has not got a citation, even if it is notable. An editor does not have the burden of proof for a previous editor. You could therefore reason: The Viz could be deleted, I'm Alan Partridge thing could be deleted; Goal could be deleted; Geordie Shore could be deleted.

Finally, I have made a good faith edit as a compromise, which deletes the above and also add cites-needed tags to some sources that are say dead links. I hope you accept it. This is not an edit war. If you do not like this edit, then before you edit again, I'd suggest you get a third opinion and point them to this topic on the talk page and I will, with good faith, take part in a discussion, with yourself and a 3rd party. Thank you.Easeswily (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't need a third party to see that you've set up this account as a single-purpose account, or that you're already very familiar with Wikipedia policy and procedure and so it's very unlikely that you've just started editing Wikipedia yesterday. I'd suggest you come clean and reveal what other accounts you're using. Meanwhile, your book that you've written above does not, in any part of it, address why non-notable trivia that is sourced to dubious references should continue to be included, and as such, I'm removing it. When you re-add material, I'd appreciate it if you re-add it piece by piece with an explanation for why each piece is notable - which is what I did when I removed each bit. Your massive revert of all my edits is impossible to follow, but I suspect that's the point. Please stop editing until you've addressed these issues. Amsgearing (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing wiki for on and off for a long time, I have had numerous accounts. I have never claimed I am a new user. Again in good faith I suggest you get someone to 3rd party this.Easeswily (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)