Talk:Liverpool

Template:WP1.0

Scousers, Liverpudlians and Liverpolitans in lead section

I don't object to the terms "Scousers", "Liverpudlians" and "Liverpolitans" being mentioned in the lead - briefly, though I'd be equally happy if they were omitted. What I find unnecessary is that it takes several sentences to describe the terms, and the differences between them (real or alleged), with reference to what individuals have said and tabloid (rather than academic) sources have reported, probably with a dash of WP:OR thrown in. It gives entirely undue weight to the question to devote an entire paragraph of the lead - the longest paragraph - to this matter. It should be limited to a (brief) mention in the article text. This article is about the city, not what its residents want to call themselves, and the lead should reflect the overall balance of the article, not one relatively trivial point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I've removed the unnecessary material from the lead - it merely duplicated text from the main article, and gave it undue prominence in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that one or two people have suggested that the word "Liverpolitan" be redefined to refer to people from the wider city region is not sufficient justification for it to be mentioned in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User Ghmyrtle (talk) is persistently removing references to Liverpolitan in the lede. The reasons given for his edits in the edit history are that the material is unnecessary and duplicates main text. He has asked for a discussion here. Firstly, the whole point of a demonym is that it identifies residents or natives of a particular place and the name is usually derived from the name of that particular place. In the case of Liverpolitan, this can and is being used to refer to residents of both the city of Liverpool and the wider city region. Although the word has a heritage, words and their meanings do change over time. Both the Wirral Globe and Runcorn & Widnes World ran online polls in December 2016 regarding the changed and modern definiton of Liverpolitan and asked their readers whether or not they call themselves Liverpolitan. 34% of overall readers said they liked the term, 6% said the term was not relevant at the moment but could be used more in the future, 4% said they were not sure. It is granted that 57% said they did not like the term. When I included reference to Liverpolitan in the lede I did in actual fact mention that many people in the wider region do not accept or use the term and considered this sufficient enough to account for the apparent controversy. In the original version of the lede there was mention of the fact that some people do not call themselves a scouser because the term can have pejorative overtones but Ghmyrtle (talk) removed that without any discussion or consensus from other contributors and has also taken it upon himself to stifle mention of Liverpolitan. I also included a reliable source that showed Liverpolitan is actually being used in real life scenarios, the reference included was from Dave Mail - CityMetric's Liverpool City Region correspondent who provides monthly updates on the Liverpool City Region. This, in my view, was a reliable and current source. In my view Ghmyrtle (talk) is deliberately omitting references to the word for his own personal reasons. He says that one or two people have suggested that the word "Liverpolitian" can be used when in actual fact 34% of Wirral Globe and Runcorn & Widnes World readers use the term. This, in my view, is significant enough and provides sufficient justification for it to be mentioned in the lede. Yes, it may be a minority or potentially unpopular term but there is still significant enough popularity for inclusion and not a total omission. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reincluded mention of Liverpolitan until such times as Ghmyrtle (talk) can further jusitfy his reasons here for its complete omission. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If another opinion is welcome, it seems to be that that lead paragraph is overkill, seeing as it's more or less word-for-word duplicating what's in the main text, and could easily be trimmed down to two sentences. Personally, I don't like the term Liverpolitan, but if enough people are in favour of it, then obviously it should be in there as long as it's cited.Wasechun tashunka (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My text does not "completely omit" the term "Liverpolitan" from the lead, as anyone reading it can plainly see. What is does, in mentioning the term but not giving it undue weight, is to provide an accessible overview of the article text. "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article." Placing undue emphasis in the lead on the use of the term "Liverpolitan" as proposed in one local newspaper and two blogs - which are certainly not reliable sources - both duplicates text in the main article, and suggests to the reader - incorrectly - that this is a major issue that needs to be mentioned in detail in the lead of an article about a major city. It's also nonsensical - of course anyone can refer to themselves as Liverpolitan if they want to.

The final sentence suggested in the lead - "In spite of these contrasting and overlapping identities, many people from within the greater Liverpool area still choose not to consider themselves part of the greater city, many choosing to espouse more parochial identites such as a 'Sandgrounder', a person from Southport." - is unreferenced, possibly original research, barely relevant at all and certainly not appropriate for the lead section of this article.

As Wasechun tashunka says, the detailed discussion included by Richie wright1980 is overkill, and it's clearly contrary to guidance on the content of lead sections of articles. It should be withdrawn. If you, Richie wright1980, are not prepared to withdraw your wording, and if no other editors comment here, we should go to WP:THIRDOPINION, and I have little doubt how that would end. In the mean time, I will finish reading the excellent book Scouse: a social and cultural history by Tony Crowley - here - which includes extensive discussion of not only the term "scouser" but other terms such as "Liverpolitan", and, in due course, add reliably sourced content to relevant articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

PS (again): Crowley (p.150) states that "'Liverpolitan' was used as a slightly formal term throughout the nineteenth century, and was possibly formed by analogy with 'metropolitan'.... [There was extensive] use of the term throughout Chandler's monumental mid-twentieth century history of Liverpool [published in 1957]..." So, it is not a new term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle (talk), you said earlier that you do not object to Liverpolitan being mentioned in the lead but you find it unnecessary for it to take several sentences to describe the different terms. I have now taken the initiative and slimmed down the Liverpolitan reference to just one sentence. Thank you for your contribution on this.

On another point, regarding Liverpolitan as a term for city region inhabitants, you say that references have been made to what individuals have said and what tabloid sources have reported. You also say that I have used one local newspaper and two blogs which you say are not reliable sources. I must correct you on this again. The sources used are Runcorn & Widnes World and Wirral Globe - both of which are local newspaper sites that belong to Newsquest's audited local newspaper network. Newsquest specialises in local newspaper brands and is committed to bringing a voice to the regions - the references used do not constitute tabloid journalism in the way that you have insinuated. The articles referenced do not include a sensational crime story, gossip or rumours about the private lives of celebrities or sports stars, neither do they include junk food news or astrology. In other words, the Liverpolitan story is not a tabloid story - it is a contemporary news piece concerning changing regional identity with an invitation for newspaper readership input in the form of an online poll.

Furthermore, the CityMetric reference is neither a tabloid source nor a blog. CityMetric belongs to The New Statesman - a British political and cultural magazine at the forefront of journalism since 1913. The site has an emphasis on urbanism and includes everything from data journalism, listicles and 5,000 word essays on the relationship between the urban form and economic history – it is disingenuous for you to refer to it as either tabloid or a blog. It is neither.

The specific reference (as I have mentioned before) was authored by Dave Mail, CityMetric's Liverpool City Region correspondent who provides monthly updates from the Liverpool City Region. The article is published under the Politics/Devolution path. CityMetric's articles are published by a range of architects, planners, academics and students, as well as professional journalists. Its parent magazine, the New Statesman, has over 100 years' experience of being at the forefront of political debate with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and the CityMetric site itself professes to be editorially independent and not politically aligned or affiliated, although they do admit to publishing the occasional author opinion piece.

Under wiki rules on Identifying reliable sources, the reference I have used would more than likely come under an example of the published opinion of a reliable author. But it must be stressed that I have properly sourced this reference for its context using common sense and editorial judgement and I have not used my own opinion anywhere in the article. This is in accordance with the wiki rules you have quoted. Furthermore, wiki rules state that editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The way in which I used my source can be said to have been used as a statement attributed to a particular author, but according to Wikipedia this is reliable given that the identity of the author is clearly stated in the sourced article - and in addition - it is the stated opinion of a specialist author and recognized expert on matters pertaining to the Liverpool City Region. The context in which I have used it does not necessarily imply that the Liverpolitan definition is a fact – it is merely a reference to the published opinion and viewpoint of an expert in the specialised field being discussed. This is acceptable under Wikipedia rules.

Finally, I do feel that you have mis-represented the view of Wasechun tashunka (talk) and have used it to justify your hasty call for the complete withdrawal of said material. This is again disingenuous of you. Wasechun tashunka (talk) clearly states that he has no objection to the Liverpolitan reference provided it is properly cited, despite his personal dislike for the term, and he has further stated that it could be trimmed down to two sentences. I have now done this and trimmed it down to one sentence. This no longer gives undue weight to this matter nor does it imply that this is a major issue that needs to be mentioned in detail. I hope I have now cleared this up for you.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The new version is an improvement, but still gives undue weight to the comments about the term "Liverpolitan" made by recent commentators. See also WP:RECENTISM. The final sentence of the introduction is unnecessary and should be removed, with the word "Liverpolitan" added into the previous sentence as in my version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The reference has now been further reduced in its depth of detail, quantity of text and prominence of placement. With all due respect, I have explained my reasons in great depth above why this reference should be included and this is far as I am willing to go to meet your demands. Your last comment did not respond in any great detail as to why the Liverpolitan reference, in your view, still does not meet wikipedia rules. All you have done is provide brief links to wikipedia rules with your own conclusion that it should be removed. Be careful you are not using these rules to shut down article neutrality which requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and indeed recentism, which Wikipedia clearly states is useful in terms of presenting rapidly developing and recent events which can be improved in real time. As Wiki states, as the bigger picture on recent events emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated, but at this early stage I would argue that you are being far too hasty to call for the complete withdrawal of the second half of the sentence. This is perhaps for over-personal reasons and not for impartial ones. May I remind you that Wikipedia rules are designed for best practice and should always be applied using reason and common sense. If this is still not to your staisfaction, you are more than welcome to flag this matter for WP:THIRDOPINION, but I would ask that you please provide a link to any relevant discussions on this so other contributors may put forward alternative suggestions as opposed to your own. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks for trimming it further. However, the lead is supposed to summarise the article, and the text that you are still seeking to include gives references about the recent use of the term, as suggested by a few recent commentators, undue weight. It is not a "rapidly developing and recent event". In the overall context of an article about Liverpool - including its history, geography, culture, industries, etc. etc. - it is a minor and relatively trivial point to which your text gives undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say here apart from the fact that the Liverpool City Region, its Metro Mayor who came into power in May this year, and the emerging sense of local self determination and identity is, in my view, a rapidly developing and recent event. This is precisely why you have been quick to reference historical defintions of words such as those used by Tony Crowley. You wouldn't have fallen back on potentially historical or outdated defintions had you not have been aware of recent events. As I have said, you are free to flag this matter for WP:THIRDOPINION but I feel that your comments here require nothing of merit and do not warrant any further discussion from me. Thankyou again for your good faith comments. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the point further unless other editors want to chip in. However, there is no need to retain the citations in the introduction so long as they are included in the main text - they can be removed per WP:WHENNOTCITE - "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So you have gone from your opening comment about having no objection to the brief mention of demonym terms in the lead to now being in favour of the complete removal of the terms from the lede. I quote you from above: "My text does not "completely omit" the term "Liverpolitan" from the lead, as anyone reading it can plainly see. What is does, in mentioning the term but not giving it undue weight, is to provide an accessible overview of the article text."

You appear to have now done a complete about-face in that you now want Liverpolitan completely removed from the lede yet you no longer wish to refer the matter for WP:THIRDOPINION. You did not respond to any of my reasons that it does not constitute undue weight so your new position is to call for the reference to be removed for different reasons whilst dropping your desire for WP:THIRDOPINION. This insistance appears to be for over personal reasons so I urge you not to make any further edits until such times, and only until such times, as there can be a full and frank discussion from a range of contributors here. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Again, you completely misunderstand. My last message did not suggest that you change the text. It suggested that you remove the references because, where text in the lead summarises text in the main article, the citations - the <ref></ref> text - should go in the main article text - it is not necessary to duplicate them in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are in favour of the retention of "although Liverpolitan may also be used for residents of the wider Liverpool City Region" in the main lede of the article?? Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of it, because I think my version of the text - moving the mention of "Liverpolitan" to the previous sentence, as an aside - is better. But as you seem extremely determined to maintain your own wording, I'm not pushing the point further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the references (citations) from the lead paragraph as they were already duplicated in the Demonymity section (transferring the Collins Dictionary reference, which was not), as per WP:LEADCITE. The wording remains from Richie wright1980's last edit. I believe consensus has been reached at this point? By the way, it's she! :) Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

My view remains that the current wording should be improved as I suggested, but unless and until other editors (probably, editors who have not so far contributed to the discussion) agree with me, I will not pursue the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle FWIW. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I have tagged multiple claims in that section as citation needed. A newspaper poll, in which at most a couple of hundred people voted, in which over half say they don't approve of the term, and a letter on CityMetric do not in anyway approach proving that the term Liverpolitan is increasingly being used. Also applies to the claim about emerging identity. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

On my extensive "to do" list is the need to incorporate information, in this article and others, from the book Scouse: a social and cultural history by Tony Crowley, which appears to be a reliable and authoritative source covering the development of the idiom of scouse, its terminology, etc. etc.. I will advance it up my "to do" list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

With the popular usage of the term Liverpolitan still not actually properly being referenced (it appears to be confined solely to CityMetric and Urban Dictionary), I've removed it from the body and the lead. If it's to be readded, someone needs something more than a poll from the Wirral Globe to back that up. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The word Scouser is generally referred to as a working class Liverpolitan, as is a Cockney in London. This should be made clear. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to see it being commonly used, I've certainly never heard it used for the working class. I always thought Cockney is used for people from the East End.LicenceToCrenellate (talk)

Out of date re: Metro-mayor

No mention of Steve Rotheram, the metro-mayor. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

irrelevant passage in 3rd para

This is in the 3rd paragraph: "matches between the two being known as the Merseyside derby." This is irrelevant to an intro and should not be in the intro. 90.209.21.142 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there was an error on whether Liverpool is located in Merseyside or Cheshire.

It should’ve been part of Cheshire in the article, but why did you put is as part of Merseyside instead? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE change ALL instances of ‘Merseyside’ in this article to ‘Cheshire’. --203.81.71.17 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Liverpool has historically always been part of Lancashire, not Cheshire. (Incidentally, the name 'Mersey' itself means "boundary river"). Since the 1970s the city has been part of Merseyside, as have some areas like the Wirral historically in Cheshire - but Liverpool itself was always previously in Lancashire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

loop the — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:943E:8100:8462:7861:1F8:7CAA (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

Current Lord Mayor of Liverpool is Christine Banks - in section Government next to citation 83 it states Frank Prendergast, but in the side bar Government box is has Malcolm Kennedy.

The new Chief Executive is Tony Reeves who replaced Ged Fitzgerald (same side bar box) 82.10.197.23 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Koncorde (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019:

Whilst l found the article on the City of Liverpool very interesting and in the main accurate. I was however shocked and dismayed to see that amongst Liverpool`s rich and exceptional sporting achievements that the Phenomenal achievements of Liverpool`s world-renowned Martial arts greats and Dojo`s was sadly omitted (Red Triangle Club K.U.G.B. being but one of many which have produced some of the legends of British / World martial arts ).which is a shame and overlooks one of Liverpool`s most exceptional and outstanding areas of sporting excellence. l trust this will be noted and rectified as it will no doubt reinforce the undeniable truth that Liverpool and its population are indeed a unique and exceptional UK entity

under closer examination

/world 82.46.179.238 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)