Jump to content

Talk:Gateshead

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

Jewish Community

[edit]

There is no mention of Gateshead's Jewish community, which is notable for various reasons (e.g. its large rabbinical college, occasional clashes with local population). Any ideas? JFW | T@lk 20:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put something in.

Bandalore 20.38 October 2005

Too much. I am going to try cutting this section down as it over-emphasises the Jewish constituent of this large town in a way that people from the area would find very strange. --82.45.210.111 10:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were almost immediately reverted without the person in question giving any reasons. I have therefore restored my changes. I fully accept there may be a difference of opinion on this, but in my view (a) the amount of detail in the section about the town's Jewish heritage gives a misleading picture of the town as a whole and (b) some of the information is hardly relevant anyway. If you disagree, please state your reasons here. Cheers. Paul Deeks. --82.45.210.111 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that there may be too much detail as it stands, but your first change deleted nearly all of the information, and your most recent change got rid of the Gateshead Jewry section altogether. If you want to condense the information, that is fair enough, but please don't remove large sections of text or links as it is considered vandalism. Thanks johnwalton (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind for a second mate. You agree there is "too much detail as it stands" and yet you oppose removing "large sections of text"? How can you reconcile those statements? Oh, wait a minute, you don't bother, you just throw out an accusation of vandalism. Cheers! I will try and amend again and instead of simply reverting it wholesale if you don't agree, can you either (i) try and change in a way you find reasonable or (ii) explain what your problem is here. I, like user 82.45.210.111 seems to be, am from the north east and agree this article as it is mispresents the town and is therefore in need of tidy up --213.121.207.34 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right I have made significant amendments again, similar to those made by 82.45.210.111 but hopefully more satisfactory to John Walton - I must say these do involve removing the strange and perhaps rather POV section which attempts to demonstrate the significance of the Gateshead yeshiva in terms of internal discussions of Jewish orthodoxy within the Jewish community in Britain generally - this is precisely the type of detail which is unsuited to this entry for Gateshead - perhaps it could go in the separate entry on north-east Jewry which is linked to? --213.121.207.34 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, firstly, apologies for not making myself clear in the above comment, perhaps I should have expanded further. I certainly wasn't trying to discourage bold editing, but in answer to your points, the reason I reverted the first of 82.45.210.111's edits was that I felt too much relevant information had been lost through section blanking, as well as the condensing of the first / second paragraphs. The reason I reverted the second edit was because it was a complete blanking of the Gateshead Jewry section, in conjunction with a similar blanking of the relevant section of the Newcastle upon Tyne article.
As far as the article goes, I agree that the yeshiva section probably isn't appropriate to the Gateshead page and might better be suited on a new article such as Judaism in North East England, but I'm not sure it would be any better suited in Judaism in Newcastle upon Tyne. I've reworked your edit to include some ONS stats for context, as well as re-introducing a couple of small pieces of information. As for the final paragraph which was removed:
Rabbi Bezalel Rakow (1928-2005), communal rabbi from 1964, found himself at the centre of debate between Jewish orthodoxy and the features of modernity that he perceived as threatening orthodox values. When Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his book The Dignity of Difference (2002), expressed the notion that Judaism might learn from other faiths, Rakow publicly demanded that Sacks repudiate the thesis of the book and withdraw it from circulation. Gateshead Jews have never recognised Sacks' office as having any authority over them in any case. Sacks reissued the volume, removing the passages that Rakow had found so offensive. Never before had the power and primacy of the communal rabbi of Gateshead been so starkly demonstrated.
I do think this has historical relevance and should be included in some form or another, though seen as there's a dispute over it, I haven't re-added it in any form just now.
I've also sectioned the article, which hopefully makes it clearer. johnwalton (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it madness how you have a section about christianity (the religion of 82% of people in gateshead) which is one line long whereas judaism, the religion of less than 1%, gets six lines? I don't want to upset anyone but HOWAY we are losing perspective here. If you want my two pennoth, I think the Judaism in Newcastle section should become "Judaism on Tyneside" or "Judaism in Newcastle-Gatehead" with a link from both the Newcastle and Gateshead entries and ALL the superfluous detail deleted from the main articles. Gateshead is famous for its international stadium, its metrocentre, for the baltic, for the angel of the north. Someone has come along and added this big section, bigger than the detail on any of the aforementioned things, about judaism and when I tried to remove it - because its blatantly misleading - this other fella kicked one off. I appreciate it might be true and interesting stuff, but before any edits were made it made out the just about the most important thing the reader should know about Gateshead is this detail about the Jewish population. Whitewashing the history of the town. I have said my piece and will just go away now --82.45.210.9 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely and have just made changes to the Sunderland article - a city with virtually not significant Jewish population (unlike Gateshead). Clearly this section needs to be made smaller too, but not by me, I haven't got an agenda or anything! To be fair Gateshead does have a very proud Jewish heritage that SHOULD be laid out in detail here. There is just too many words and someone should rewrite the paragraph to lay out the facts in a shorter form --SandyDancer 10:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My family have been residents of Gateshead for over 50 years and 6 generations, and there has never been an 'occasional clash' with the Jewish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.8.190 (talk • contribs)

pronunciation

[edit]

Is the name of the town pronounced Gates-head or Gate-shed, or something else?

Gates-head or Gates-heed. The pronunciation is slightly different in Geordie (what isn't! :) ) and hard to describe as I'm not a language scholar but Gy-ate-sud is close (said quite quickly, the dashes are to separate parts of the word not to signify pauses). IainP (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is still interested, the pronunciation is Gāts'hĕd' (Gaates-head). But as IainP says, its different depending on what level of Geordie accent it's spoken in, Gāts'hēd' (Gaates-heed). johnwalton (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead = Camelot?

[edit]

I have never heard of this idea though I suposse every part of Great Britain claims part of the Arthurian legend but Gateshead?? Penrithguy 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very quick Google on this and could find nothing at all linking the two IainP (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Historians can't even agree on the evidence for a historical Arthur, so there is going to be little consensus amongst them as to the location of Camelot. Therefore I am going to remove the sentence regarding Camelot. It may be that this is a local legend, in which case an inclusion could be made by someone with the appropriate knowledge. --zider_red 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

residents

[edit]

Does anyone have any idea of how accurate the report is that David Bowie, George Forman and Nelson Mandela lived in Gateshead? I dont really think this is correct

the George Foreman and Bowie references are accurate, but as far as I can tell Nelson Mandela has lived in South Africa all his life.

Any information on when/where/why they lived in such a place as Gateshead? (not that it isnt great)


I would have thought that these references are to brief visits rather than residence. The big Gateshead hotel overlooking the river (forgotten the name!) is popular with visitors to Newcastle. David Bowie has certainly performed in Newcastle, and Nelson Mandela is a freeman of that city, and was no doubt there for the ceremony. I don't know about George.

Bandalore 18.46 5 May 2006

The hotel your meaning is the Hilton right?

Demographics

[edit]

Any chance of some info regarding population, density, age and ethnic make-up etc.? 86.0.203.120 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwell Park

[edit]

There is also no mention of Saltwell Park. Everyone sees Gateshead as dark and dingy place, need to brighten the place up. How about adding a Parks/Outdoor places section? Could add watergate park, chopwell wood, derwent country park.

Ingaz 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, feel free to add one. Bob talk 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this article supposed to be about the TOWN of Gateshead and NOT the Borough of Gateshead? They are two different things, which is why they have two different articles. Why is the population, that is listed in the info box, actually the population of the borough of Gateshead and not the town or central borough. This needs to be made clearer. I would be against including places such as Chopwell woods on this article, as that is in the Chopwell/High Spen area and should therefore be mentioned in their own articles. Try not to use this article on Gateshead what what can be said can be brought into a towns/villages/suburbs own article (Ryton, Rowlands Gill, Whickham etc.) and mentioned in the borough's article. From a proud resident of Crawcrook (that I will never consider part of "Gateshead").


I've added a little bit about Saltwell Park.


Bandalore 08:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and images

[edit]

Hello Gateshead editors,

Just a note that the article would not only benefit from the WP:UKCITIES standard, but also by having a "static image" within the infobox. There are many great photographs of many great Gateshead landmarks in the article, why not put one in the infobox? Examples of this are at Runcorn, Stalybridge, Stretford, Oldham, Wheathampstead, Porlock and many many more. Hope that helps, -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor comment about the image of "terraced houses". The row depicted is not actually terraced houses as such, it shows a row of what are known as "Tyneside Flats". You will note that between each set of windows are two doors. One leads into the bottom flat, the other opens up onto a staircase that goes to the upper flat. Terraced houses as such consist of self contained houses joined by common walls. Tyneside flats have more in common with apartment blocks or tenement blocks, albeit with only two stories. --MichaelGG (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Indoor Market

[edit]

I would like this article to have something regarding Gateshead Indoor Market. It was a staple of Gateshead Town Centre for 29 years, before it closed on the 11th of this month. I have no idea where in the article it would be suitable though.

Perhaps Gateshead Town Centre's decline could be mentioned as well. (Approximately 3/4's of the places retailers have closed in the last 2 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead TOWN

[edit]

A comment was made a while back (further up the talk page), and I would like to bring it up again. This article is about the TOWN of Gateshead. NOT the borough, why does it list the population of Gateshead borough (190,000) and not the town of Gateshead. Also, places such as the Metro Centre are not in the town, they are in the borough. Surely the population figures should only be for the postcodes NE8-NE11? SJI - 23 January 2008

Agreed. Other places in England tackle this well. See Salford/City of Salford as an example. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Doctor Johnson

[edit]

The supposed quote from Dr Johnson is an old chestnut that always seems to find its way into anything written about Gateshead - what the Aussies call 'crying stinking fish'. There's no evidence for it, so I've removed it. In any case Johnson wasn't travelling with Boswell; he met him in Edinburgh, after spending about a week in Newcastle.

Priestley was completely ignorant about Tyneside where he arrived in a rainy November, with a heavy cold. Bear this in mind.

See my site www.myersnorth.co.uk

I've also re-written the Tourism scrap, which was inaccurate.


Bandalore (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead?

[edit]

Not that I wish to labour the point here, but, as has been pointed out for years (or so this page indicates), quite a bit of this article actually relates to parts of what is now the 'MB of Gateshead', rather than the town of 'Gateshead'. Just from the history section; Joseph Swan lived in Low Fell, which was part of Gateshead Fell, not Gateshead and the Norman battle referred to was also on Gateshead Fell (according to F Manders authoritative account), not Gateshead. Then in the geography section there are mentions of the QE Hopsital (Sheriff Hill, not really 'Gateshead'), Team Valley (not really Gateshead either), Windy Nook (and again) and the idea that Pelaw is sometimes considered part of Gateshead is unreferenced (for good reason: it is pretty much nonsense!).

This happens a lot in the article and I'm loath to start a flaming war by taking these things out, but they do really need to be addressed. If they can be supported, then great, but if not, some proper editing is required.Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gatesheadfamily 2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers Required

[edit]

Since my last message (above) this article still contains a raft of material relating not to the town of Gateshead at all but rather to the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead. As no-one seems willing to correct this, and numerous other issues with what is an important NE England article, I am going to make considerable changes to the article once I go down to Gateshead Central Library to do a little research. Does anyone else want to volunteer to lend a hand- this is going to be a big old task and it would be better done collaboratively I think. Anyone interested please ping my talk page... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead Boundaries- Request for Consensus

[edit]

This article relates mostly to the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and I plan to start making major edits to it, but would like to see if I can get a consensus first on where the town of Gateshead starts and ends, because areas such as Felling, Deckham, Dunston etc are not and have never been part of the town of Gateshead.

I think the area in and around today's Gateshead Town Centre is about right and so propose to use the Gateshead Council ward of Bridges as the terms of reference for this article. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and, if so, I am very much open to others. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead: Is now a city

[edit]

Gateshead is now a city. It has been given the title of city despite its lack of a cathedral. Hence the description town of Gateshead is false!! 130.88.168.183 (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence that the Queen as granted it city status? Keith D (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

£250,000+ raised for mugging victim

[edit]

Now, I know this will raise alarm in some quarters. However, I think the significant coverage of the following incident is worth including the incident in Wikipedia, because:

  • it has been widely reported throughout the UK (&, I don't doubt, worldwide) in all media, and
  • it's ultimately a 'feel good' story, & one of which Gateshead & UK residents & the public beyond the UK (with 1 or 2 possible exceptions) can be very proud, in view of the overwhelmingly generous public response, started in Gateshead & helped throughout the world.

So, who'd like to add a paragraph to the Gateshead article? I'm sure hundreds of WP editors would support the addition (with some dissenters). The facts:

Alan Bates is a 67-year-old disabled pensioner. He was thrown to the ground from his wheelchair, outside his house, then robbed of his pocket contents. The fall broke Alan's collar-bone. Alan was born with growth impediment (he weighs little, & is a mere 4' 6" tall) & sight-impairment.

Local beautician Katie Cutler, from Greenside, Gateshead, decided to set up the ‘Alan Barnes Fund’ page on the Go Fund Me website. She intended to raise £500 to show Alan that real people cared, but in fact raised more than £250,000, with donations from Gateshead & indeed around the world.

His name is Alan Barnes, not Bates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.16.131 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References:

Trafford09 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gateshead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gateshead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead County Borough Citation

[edit]

A request for mediation...

Primary issues
  1. I have inserted a citation from a well sourced probative document, the source comes from the Tyne & Wear historical archives at nationalarchives.gov.uk. Samuel J Walker, keeps reverting and removing the information.

I keep reinserting as I have inserted a citation for a clear non ambiguous premise. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=752241797&oldid=752185534 I have suggested to Samuel J Walker if he wants to get a third opinion, just say so on the Gateshead talk page rather than edit war. To be fair to Samuel J Walker he has also been respectful with regards to editing.

Here is my (Barkleave09) case for keeping the edit: Without sounding disrespectful to anyone, it is fairly straight forward. Here is my simple straight forward case from myself for a third party reader:

  • The premise: Part of the Gateshead County Borough until 1974 when it become part of the Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council,[1]

The citation that backs up the premise is very clear, probative, authoritive:

  • Title of the cited document: Gateshead County Borough
  • Quote from the document: In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with...
  • Quote from the document: to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).
  • The source of the citation: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/f55bf2c6-3190-4ba0-b5cd-100c8c6e856f
  • The probative authority of the citation: nationalarchives.gov.uk, Tyne & Wear Archives.
  • the citation in a template: "Gateshead County Borough". nationalarchives.gov.uk. Tyne and Wear Archives. Retrieved 23 November 2016. In 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act Gateshead County Borough merged with... to form Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (see MD/GA).

Issue:

  • My argument: the premise is clear, the premise and citation match is factual and truthful, the context is clear, the citation comes from historical documents, official documents. I cannot see any reason to pull the edit down, or obscure. Though I am willing to let a third party settle this in order to stop any edit fighting and to be respectful.
  • My argument against Samuel J Walker edit revert is this: The information he reverts to is not cited. It is also ambiguous. But more importantly it has replaced a factually sourced edit that references a premise that is validated by a citation from a reliable historical document from a reliable archive, this imo makes his edit of the article regressive.

Barkleave09 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues
  • My argument: I don't dispute the accuracy of the edit Barkleave09 has made, my dispute is the location of it. The information I added is from here, and my main argument is consistency. From the pages I have seen of town/cities which have been moved out of counties, their lead usually reads "historically in Lancashire/Durham/Warwickshire" etc, with a section in the government section about any other status as county boroughs/corporates. As I explained, I did not remove the citation added, just moved it to a location I found more fitting in-line with other pages. The example I gave on Barkleave's talk page was Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, which includes "historically in County Durham" in its lead and later mentions its status as a county borough in the Government section. Samuel J Walker (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential compromise: I've just had a brainwave. I looked at the Newcastle-upon-Tyne page which says "the city is historically part of Northumberland but became a county corporate in 1400". What I suggest is amending the lead of this page to include "Historically in County Durham (with reference), the town became part of the GMB in 1835..." It may be a bit long-winded for a lead, but it would save the potential toing and froing over this, since we both have correct information. Suggestions? Samuel J Walker (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gateshead. 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: 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) 14:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically

[edit]

(moved from User talk:Inops, since it's discussion on the article's contents) --Inops (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inops, It is only a small matter but it was reached as a consensus earlier this year that historical should not be used in the lede. Anyway my argument then was: 1. that the term historical can be applied to any event in history that has any document to prove it occurred. And if there are more than one historical even then for the sake of neutrality the term should not be prefixed to an event or era over other historical documented events in a lede. Example: Xyz is historically Victorian...; Xyz is historically Edwardian... In a metaphorical article about the history of a place called Xyz, which era gets the billing prefix historical in a lede, the Victorian era? or the Edwardian era? 2. I lastly also argued Historic and Historical do not share meaning or uses; they are different.

Regarding the Gateshead article you could prefix the term historical to all the historical events in the lede. So which one gets it? Using the lede as you have put it, following the logic, but changing the words slightly: You could edit: Formerly in County Durham, in 1835, historically the town became part of Gateshead County Borough.[2] After the Local Government Act 1972, in 1974 Gateshead became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County.[2] The above edit, which prefixes historically to the Gateshead county Bourough era, gives undue billing to the Gateshead County Borough era over other eras, and so on. (Btw, the edit above would be as equally as valid as your edit.) It would certainly be ok to use the term historical in a lede if there was only one era and so on, but in here you have many historical eras.

As I have stated this is only a small matter and this is probably just semantics and we are probably not that far apart in meaning. But here is also what I'm referencing here to highlight that historical also does not mean historic. Authority Oxford Dictionary, Reference: Difference between Historic and Historical: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical Btw I appreciate your input, and opinion... Barkleave09 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a point if "historically" wasn't pipe linked to Historic counties of England. The issue is complex -- the government recognised in 2013 that the historic counties continue to exist in some fashion, so "formerly" is actually incorrect. For sake of brevity and not drawing these issues into every single location article, there's long been a site-wide consensus on the use of "Historically in" or "Historically part of..." as the best way to deal with this. --Inops (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Inops If you look at my previous edits, you can clearly see, in good faith, there was an agreed consensus...
The term historic and historically are different. To back this up again by reference I have provided a link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical This previous source from Oxforddictionaries.com shows historic and historical have different uses... With respect all that is required to prefix the term 'historical' to something is a historical document. I believe we have these options for an edit for the lede (Btw I believe there is a problem with the neutrality of the lede; However I believe you can prefix the term to whatever you want in the article, provided you have historical documents to reference...):
Lede option 1: Historically in County Durham, in 1835 historically the town became part of Gateshead County Borough.[2] After the Local Government Act 1972, historically 1974 Gateshead became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County.[2]
Plus of option 1: it is neutral no era gets a billing, or glitterballed, all eras get prefixed. Minuses: this makes a repeated redundant use of the prefix. I personally think this option is not good enough.
Lede option 2: Formerly in County Durham, in 1835 the town became part of Gateshead County Borough.[2] After the Local Government Act 1972, in 1974 Gateshead became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County.[2]
Plus of option 2: It is neutral, no era gets a prefix billing with the term. Minuses: It is not perfect but I believe this is the best option. You might disagree from your POV?
Lede option 3: a) historically in County Durham, in 1835 the town became part of Gateshead County Borough.[2] After the Local Government Act 1972, in 1974 Gateshead became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County.[2]; or b) Formerly in County Durham, in 1835 historically the town became part of Gateshead County Borough.[2] After the Local Government Act 1972, in 1974 Gateshead became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead and Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County.[2]; or c) ... and so on.
Plus of option 3 Imo there is none. Minuses of option 3: This could lead to potential edit wars over semantics.
I believe my edit is neutral and is semantically correct here. I also understand you believe you may be correct. Out of good faith I will edit one more time on the article. Out of good faith, in return, if you disagree explain below here, and I will get a third opinion and address them to this discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inops#Historically on this talk page. This will save both our time. I will accept the third opinion. My regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleave09 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Abingdon-on-Thames, Sunderland, Manchester, Liverpool, etc... they use the term "historically" to refer to a city's historic county. I don't accept your premise that there's anything wrong with this -- or anything about Gateshead specifically that means it can't be treated in the usual way. But, an alternative that's sometimes used is "Lying within the historic boundaries of *insert County*, the...", which clears up your problem with "historically". --Inops (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you link the "consensus" you're talking about? I can't find it either here or in your edits. --Inops (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


3rd person

[edit]

I and Inops would rather a 3rd person would end this in good faith. Earlier this year a concensus was agreed between about the term 'historically' and it was agreed it should not be used because it gave undue weight or billing to one era out of the three eras described in the Gateshead lead.

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=811898857&oldid=811777171 My outlined reasoning: My outlined reasoning is (and was earlier in the year when an earlier consensus was reached): I believe the term prefixed to one of the three eras presented in the lede amounts to a neutrality problem as it gives undue billing, undue weight, and puffery, to an era that gets billed the prefix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery I reason the term 'historical' used in the context of the Gateshead lede is clearly weaselling and puffery and clearly a misleading semantical misuse of the term historical. It is a clearly a term that can only be used if there was only 'one era' presented in the lead, Gateshead has 'three presented historical eras' in the lede; Therefore for the sake of the articles presented neutrallity, this also means no one era in the lede should be given undue weight and be prefixed with the term historically. I also believe prefixing every era with the term historical, for a sake of neutrality, is also flawed as it results in redundancy of the term historically. Therefore using the term historically for the sake of neutrality, on all three eras in the lede would result in redundancy with regards to the term historically. Therefore the only neutral use of the term is to not use it in the lede in order to respect neutrality. I also believe the editor 'Inops' is using the term historically interchangeably with the term historic as part of his reasoning, in order to bill an era. The terms historic and historically are different. Referencing English dictionaries.com the terms Historic and Historical have different uses. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/historic-or-historical One last thing, I also understand wikipedia is about consensus and I have no issues in what ever way you go. However I do believe if you go with Inops, the term historical should have a weasel template, as it uses the term historically incorrectly in a non neutral context and so on. Barkleave09 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inops edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateshead&type=revision&diff=811903447&oldid=811898857 Inops's outlined reasoning: See Abingdon-on-Thames, Sunderland, Manchester, Liverpool, etc... they use the term "historically" to refer to a city's historic county. I don't accept your premise that there's anything wrong with this -- or anything about Gateshead specifically that means it can't be treated in the usual way. But, an alternative that's sometimes used is "Lying within the historic boundaries of *insert County*, the...", which clears up your problem with "historically". --Inops (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Also can you link the "consensus" you're talking about? I can't find it either here or in your edits. --Inops (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkleave09 (talk • contribs)
Where is the consensus that is claimed for this? Keith D (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Keith D, a consensus was reached on the final few lines on a discussion on my talk page, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barkleave09#RE:_Gateshead_.28part_2.29 Barkleave09 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I do not think that you can claim general consensus for this as there was only one other editor involved in that discussion. Keith D (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a long discussion it was established via consensus, and agreed that for the sake of neutrality the term historical should not be used...Barkleave09 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request :
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Gateshead and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

In my opinion usage of historically as done by inops is fair and desirable for the article. I think the concern for neutrality as expressed by Barkleave09 is little over the top. Neutrality is not violated, neither is undue weight given by that usage. G (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) p[reply]

Thank you for your opinion and good faith G. From my pov the other events in the lead are also 'historical,' as they have 'historical' documentation, this looks like puffery. It may look fair or desirable (just like it may look fair, desirable and equally valid if something else got the prefix), but with respect, the question is, is it neutral? Do you think you have answered the question on neutrality? Example, for the sake of neutrality, which era gets the historical prefix? Giving one era a prefix historically here looks like puffery. They are all historical documents, they cant all have the prefix as that would be redundant? There is no cited reference to prefix one with the term over another. Like I said I will go with whatever is said here, however I do believe it needs a puffery term template, or another template.Barkleave09 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gateshead. 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: 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) 21:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5G test site?

[edit]

This town comes up as a test site for 5G technology, i.e. some people have trouble with that. This is an important topic to deny or confirm. 5G issues are a global matter and if there are tests and test results there, please let the world know. Greetings from Australia. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:F8D9:A473:A12E:6044 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

No coverage of education providers in Gateshead? Helmardine (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gateshead&oldid=1207233352"