Jump to content

Talk:Southshore, New Zealand

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

"socio economic status"

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Stats-and-facts-on-Christchurch/2022-Community-Profiles/2022-Community-Profile-Coastal-Ward.pdf


NOTE - Southshore is one of the least deprived areas in the wider Brighton area 153.111.229.202 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the coastal ward, not the city itself, the reference I mentioned earlier states that it is a lower-socio economic community/suburb. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before the earthquakes South Shore properties were above average for Christchurch and certainly the most expensive along the coastline, even above the newly built houses at Waimari Beach. If it has gone downhill since then it will be because the richer owners have moved out due to sea-rise worries and no insurance, leaving behind houses that are rented out to lower socio-economic tenants. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tipene O'Regan used to live here, untill his house got red-zoned (like ours). Southshore is still is a lower-socio economic community like most of east chc (incl Linwood). What is interesting about Southshore is the Māori history compared to other suburbs of chc (e.g Hillsborough)
I will restore this content if no further obligations are made. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what South Shore looks like now, I haven't been there for a long time. I do know that New Brighton looks pretty derelict. It has always been a bit run-down despite the council's efforts to upgrade it, but now it looks almost abandoned. I'm surprised people still buy property there though, with all the warning that it will be under water in 50 years time, which applies for much of the east side. The lifestyle there now seems pretty appealing to a certain group, making it a great place to live if you're renting without the worry of seeing your land and possibly only asset sinking into the ocean. Agree about Linwood, which suffers the same fate. The mall used to be a vibrant shopping area with a Farmers and other major tenants. Since the quakes it survives only as a community precinct, not a proper shopping mall. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eastgate is a dead mall - many businesses closed in recent years (incl in Brighton).
We used to live closer to Brighton until our house got red-zoned we then shifted to Papanui. I think there is interesting info about these suburbs, but I haven't really looked into it. I knew prior to editing this page there was some Maori presence in Southshore/South Brighton. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this chat is anecdotal not informational; it reads like a comments page on facebook. Read the report, note the detail on mapping of the area, and note the deprivation index for Southshore is extremely low. The report shows clearly the different areas within the coastal ward. The deprivation index is nationally used. A book published in the UK with a brief reference is not a good choice as a reference source.
Use this: https://massey.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Embed/index.html?webmap=bd6277d69e844652917bf174ee017c64&extent=164.7366,-47.4217,180,-34.200%20&zoom=true&scale=true&search=true&searchextent=true&details=true&legend=true&active_panel=legend&disable_scroll=true&theme=light
You'll see that Southshore and Merivale have the same deprivation score. If you think things have changed substantially since 2018 you will have to wait for the release of the current census data.
Eastgate is not in Southshore, and neither is Linwood, comments relating to those areas are irrelevant. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are different sources sating that it IS a low-socio economic suburb and other sources stating that is not. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/research/groups/research-groups-in-the-department-of-public-health/hirp/socioeconomic-deprivation-indexes-nzdep-and-nzidep-department-of-public-health
It is not a low socio-economic area. If you don't understand the index or statistical data then do not make assertions, and do not keep putting false information into the article. Anecdotes about Eastgate mall are not research, and do not relate to the Southshore article.
Leave the statement out, you cannot support it. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The area has always been a reasonably affluent one. Best to avoid saying otherwise without clear evidence that Southshore is now low socio-economic. Also best to use statistical data with care. Student and CCC analysis of statistics is not ideal either and should also be used with care. A proper independent secondary source is better if available. To user:153.111.229.202, your tone doesn't help your case, nor the Council's if you are using its IP address. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roger here. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what you mean by student data. The CCC report is directly from government collected data. I think the researchers / academics at Massey and Otago universities might disagree with your assertion - a secondary source with a brief mention, from an academic in the UK, and published in the UK is not a good source. Primary sources are the place to go. Note both links above are to data from govt.nz
Unsure why using a shared IP address provided by a public library is a problem. Where are you from Roger 8 Roger? If by tone you mean asking you to stay on topic and not conflating Linwood and Eastgate Mall with Southshore, then I suggest you refrain from making off topic comments which are judgemental in tone. If the talk on this talk page had stayed on topic there would have been no need to point out the irrelevant and anecdotal nature of the comments. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say student data. If you don't understand the problems arising from an IP using a shared email address on Wikipedia then ask someone who does. The subject was the decile level of Southshore and whether it had gone down post-quake which is directly related to the same issues affecting most of the east side. A couple of posts, read in context, that mention Linwood and Eastgate, or the appalling neglected state of New Brighton, is therefore not off topic. By tone I mean tone - look it up. I never said the secondary source in question was a good source to use here. Statistical data is primary. Its direct interpreted use here can often amount to personal opinion so we must do what I said: "handle with care", not "don't use it". A government, any government, is not an independent or necessarily reliable publisher so, once again, "handle with care". It's quite normal for anonymous new entrants hiding behind a shared IP to enter the fray all guns blazing. They either disappear or less often reconsider their approach and settle down to making a useful contribution alongside other editors. I hope you take the latter approach. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote : "Student...analysis"
The subject of this talk topic was the mistaken assertion that Southshore was a "low socio economic area", not the wider area; the comments were off-topic.
There is no problem with using a shared IP address : "anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia" and "Anonymous editing is embraced and welcomed."
"Wikipedia exists to create a neutral, high quality encyclopedia" : it is not neutral to move off-topic to comments such as this: "I'm surprised people still buy property there though, with all the warning that it will be under water in 50 years time, which applies for much of the east side. The lifestyle there now seems pretty appealing to a certain group, making it a great place to live if you're renting" or "because the richer owners have moved out due to sea-rise worries and no insurance, leaving behind houses that are rented out to lower socio-economic tenants." These are judgemental and are personal opinions, not facts. This discussion should stay on the topic of improving the article on Southshore.
It is inappropriate to resort to personal attacks : "anonymous new entrants hiding behind a shared IP" and you shouldn't make assumptions about editors experience.
Again: Anonymous editing is embraced and welcomed. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good-bye. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "Southshore is one of the least deprived areas in the wider Brighton area."
My interpretation of the linked source is that:
  1. Southshore is a decile 4 moderately deprived area, putting it mid-range of socioeconomic areas in Christchurch overall.
  2. Coastal Ward is overall more deprived than the average in Christchurch (as per the final graph on page 5).
Given the apparent contentiousness of the topic, I propose we leave out the claim that the residents are of lower socio-economic status. Instead, we could mention that Southshore is a decile-4 moderately deprived area, and scores about average on the city-wide deprivation index. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows Southshore as a decile 3 to 4 area, and all you need to do, if you feel it is relevant, is put that in, noting that 10 represents the most deprived area. I think you should stay away from this in general, unless you are going to go through all the Christchurch suburb articles and establish their socioeconomic range. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References and interpretation

Reference: Norris article

The Norris Press article [2005] explicitly states that the tsunami risk has made "no difference to people's desire to buy" from "Northshore to Southshore". Very unclear how this article could be interpreted in completely the opposite way. Do not make statements that are not backed up by the reference material.

The Norris article is interpreted as ""the suburb being less popularised in recent years with other home buyers appealing to further inland suburbs such as Shirley and Burwood"


This statement: "In recent years after the earthquakes, there has been descending change of population and popularity of the suburb." This statement is referenced to a 2006 publication (local history group). Seems unlikely a 2006 publication talked about the 2010/2011 earthquakes, and any changes following.

"Low socio economic status": this keeps being added in several places, despite the 2022 Coastal ward report showing Southshore as among the least deprived areas in the wider ward (3 to 4 on the social deprivation ranking).


153.111.229.202 (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plz stop messing with us, the statement was covered in a diffrent reference. (I think) this article is one of the "best" articles relating to suburbs in Christchurch... the sources are acceptable and more reliable then most online sources. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are errors and references don't match some of the statements. The article needs work. Address the issues not the messenger. You posted earlier that it was an "edit war"; corrections are not an edit war, and ensuring that there are references to support statements is normal practice on articles. Interpreting reference sources should be accurate; the Norris article said something completely different from what was written in the article. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one example, I forgot to add the other reference I read a few days earlier. This template will be removed soon since it isn't valid here nor is it contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have returned the needs citations as going on your past work ALL citations will need to be double-checked. On a basic check I corrected 4 basic errors, none of which were supported by the works you had cited. To be fair, one of the assertions didn't have a citation at all. As I said in the edit screen you have self nominated this article for good article status. It needs significant checking, as it has already presented a false narrative in a number of areas. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a GAN-style spot-check of inline citations and have not revealed any major problems. Therefore I am removing the template.
NB: There was one citation that did support the text, but I have removed because it was a weak reference for a non-controversial fact. Plus there was already a reference for the fact. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: alexeyevitch had already removed the template, which was perhaps a bit premature but valid considering that there are no major problems with sources. Especially so now that I have verified the sources in a spot-check. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is established later in the article. As per WP:LEAD the lead does not need to be referenced, because the facts are established in the sources later in the article.

Additionally, "maybe" would read better as "may be". David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts don't appear to established in the article, until this is a well referenced and well written article the lead should remain brief. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, those facts were fairly well established. To remove any doubt, I have sprinkled in some more inline citations to the paragraph on coastal hazards. I will also restore the mention of these hazards in the leads. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of the text would be useful. For example, properties were red stickered, not red zoned. All coastal areas in New Zealand are prone either to any of tsunamis, floods or sea rise (not necaessarily all three) so is there any point mentioning what seems to be a generalisation of no particular note. It might be more accurate to delve into that topic in the article with specific reference to Southshore. Although having much in common, all east side suburbs have their own peculiarities regarding natural hazard risk, meaning any references should preferably be about Southshore itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Comfort (1995) MA thesis I am referencing in that paragraph is specifically about coastal hazards in Southshore. Apparently Southshore has some specific vulnerabilities (more-so than much of NZ) because it is a sand-spit backed by an estuary. If you would like to expand this topic please go ahead, a PDF of the thesis is linked, and it is quite thorough. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick fact-check Roger, you said For example, properties were red stickered, not red zoned. but according to sources a portion of the suburb was in-fact red-zoned, along the western side of the spit facing the estuary. Here is a source from The Press that shows this. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look although I make no promises to make changes - time restrictions. Although I'm sure it's accurate, I'm not sure MA theses are ideal RSSs. I have used doctoral theses as a reference before but always paired them with more traditionally published works. However, many theses are published in reputable journals which for me makes them fine to use. I usually put useful academic theses that have only been put on to a university website into the wp:External links section. However, I might be being over cautious in that regard. Some of the best information I have found on a topic comes from students' theses. About this article, Transport is not Transportation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the MA thesis alone is not ideal. Due to the concerns raised about reliable referencing by the IP editor, I've also acquired copies of the offline sources used elsewhere in the article. They may add some additional support to the coastal hazards coverage.
I'll also be doing a thorough source check and adding additional inline citations. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book I showed you in-person has some content relating to coastal hazards, this could be used in the article. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answering above - sorry I'm not coordinated. That Press article isn't a proper source for this. The issue is not of fact but of sloppy English, which that journalist has used. The land is what is zoned, not the buildings on it. Either the house was red-stickered or the house is now in a red zone. If some people say casually say 'My house has been red zoned, it certainly isn't encyclopedic level English. I also can't recall ever hearing the term used that way, but seeing this Press article, I have now. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, the house sticker stuck on the front door was in three colours, which related to its supposed suitability to live in, determination of which included structural soundness. One sticker was red - meaning not to be occupied. It was different from the land zoning. Anyone living in Chch then will be very familiar with the stickers. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer/GAN review

FYI I don’t think I’m going to get enough time to do a proper GAN review. Instead I’ll try to find time to do some copyediting and additional sources.

Also a note, “The Estuary” by Sarah Penney is probably not very reliable. She apparently had a reputation for being pretty poor at writing academic histories. Additionally this specific book was self-published posthumously with basically no editorial oversight. It is probably fine to cite it but if other sources can be used, we should prefer them. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southshore,_New_Zealand&oldid=1230165592"