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

Examples needed[edit]

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.-- (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly unsourced In popular culture section[edit]

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 (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)Reply[reply]

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: :
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 [citation needed] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I humbly request that you provide the names of those previous accounts.
We might need a third party if you were actually adding one piece of information at a time and justifying it. It's quite impossible to get a third party to analyze your mass reverts of work that I did piece by piece, and you know this. Add one piece of info and a source at a time. If it's appropriate, then of course it belongs on the page. If it's not, then it gets deleted. A third party can be called in if, on one piece of info, we disagree on whether to include it or not. I would remind you that this article's purpose is not to list every single pop culture figure that has ever had a Geordie accent, not is it here to list every work that includes the Geordie dialect in it. That would be ridiculous. If a "pop culture" section is to exist at all, it should follow the rather explicit guidelines found in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. I suggest you read that before continuing. Amsgearing (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amsgearing, I have assumed good faith.
In a flash you have removed 11+ inline citations in a matter of hours(I say + as you have just removed more content today 2 August 2018). As I have said one or two of those citations may not be good enough, however the vast majority of those citations were and are verified and are good enough. And all the inline subjects in the section were all notable going by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they all have their own pages. As highlighted above by a previous response I made.
Approximately 24 hours ago I made one edit to preserve the data, which I believe was a good faith edit that preserved data and removed the couple of lines of trivia, and I removed all the non-cicited in-lines you took down. I described the edit in a previous post above. I believe my edit had reason. For reference, here is the diff edit I made: You then reverted it and again removed all the 11 inline citations.
You are clearly repreatedly blanking a section of an article:
Amsgearing your section blanks diffs: (2 August 2018)
Section blanking can be a violation of policies.
Amsgearing, from my last post I have taken a 24 hour break in order to disengage and to think about this and to try to avoid flaming an edit war. Like I have said I am not interested in any edit war with you.
It suggests here:
Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.
Instead of removing content from an article, consider:
* Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources
* Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
* Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article
* Adding other points of views to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
* Requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
* Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
* Adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
* Repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
* Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
* Fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting
Following the guidelines, in 'Editing policy, trying to fix problems' I have tried to preserve a lot of information with inline citations that would belong in a potential finished article. And you have blanked the information.
-Following the 'Editing policy, tying to fix problems' guidelines in good faith:
-I have tried rephrasing content, but you keep removing the content.
-I have been open to repairing a dead link to a new URL, you keep removing the content.
-I have suggested the inline [citation needed] tag, and inserted a [citation needed] tags, you keep removing the content.
-I have been open to correcting any inaccuracies, however I do not think there were many.
-I have added a source, to an early deletion you had done, and you still removed 11 inline citations.
As I have explained, see an above previous post by me, I have also tried to fix this problem with you by offering a compromising provisional edit. My provisional edit removed data (data you originally removed that was not cited), the compromise also removed a couple of lines that were clearly not notable, but the compromise preserved all the cited data that could potentially be put in to a finished encyclopaedic article. You still reverted and deleted 11 inline citations. You claim notability problems, I think it is fair to reason there are no notability problems going by Wikipedia's guidelines, which I explained in a post above, you claim this section should only be a certain size. When Wikipedia, to my knowledge, has no policy on the size of a section in an article. They just grow and will eventually merge or split into new articles. Again for reference here is the edit I made: which you reverted.
This mass reverting and deletion by you, could be seen as section blanking of the article. In an effort to preserve the encyclopaedic data that could be used in a finished article, in good faith (not an edit war), I am going to revert one more time to preserve the data. If you revert to remove the 11 inline citations, I could reason your action to be section blanking. You have blanked even more today (2 August 2018) this is clearly mass section blanking...Easeswily (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad you provided all of my diffs on my edits, because in the edit summaries I clearly state the policy-based reasons for each edit. You, however, are simply doing mass reverts, and that's not acceptable, as I'm sure you know. In addition, you are clearly ignoring WP:POPCULTURE, which I asked to read, and which, if followed, would probably justify the removal of even more material from the section in question. Also, leaving threats on my talk page and filing frivolous reports of vandalism are probably not going to help you in any way, and I would personally advise against such behavior. Finally, you admitted to using sockpuppets here and then attempted to delete that admission right after. I've looked it up at WP:SOCKING and it turns out you ARE allowed to use multiple accounts (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT) but only if for one of the valid reasons listed there, and I don't think you qualify under any of those reasons. So, if you don't ID your other accounts, you're still guilty of sockpuppetry. Amsgearing (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for clarification I have not admitted using sockpuppets. I have admitted using Wikipedia on and off for years, which I am allowed to do, I did not attempt to remove this statement as the diffs show. Nothing underhand has been done here. Again in good faith I am not edit warring or fighting you... I am attempting to preserve cited data without edit warring, using guidelines set here and here Data, it looks like that you are section blanking.Easeswily (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I won't read the full conversation here but here are my 2 cents, first on sockpuppetry and secondly on the popular culture section:
  • Using multiple accounts, sequentially, to start over is discouraged but not forbidden as long as it is not made in bad faith (to avoid scrutiny or make it look like multiple editors have the same point of view), exactly for the reason Amsgearing is stating: it makes you look like you're a single purpose account or hiding something and is against the Wikipedia's "glass house" culture. If I were you, Easeswily, I would list my defunct accounts on my userpage to ease tensions and prevent that kind of suspicion when in a dispute.
  • Regarding the "In popular culture" section: as a reader, I feel the fuller version is too long and some people, whose accent is not essential, could be removed. For example, do we need to list Alan Price, Robson Green or Ross Noble?
I think you both are acting in good faith, so please try to improve the encyclopedia :) -- Luk talk 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's not acting in good faith. He admitted to using sockpuppets here and then attempted to delete that admission right after. Check Renamed user 9 or Mr KEBAB; it's likely he's the same as one or both of those blocked editors. Amsgearing (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I agree with Luk in his suggestion that Easeswily should list all of his accounts on his user page. I suspect he has a reason for not doing that, though, so I feel it's unlikely to come to pass. If he doesn't list those accounts, he's in clear violation of WP:BADSOCK; specifically, there's evidence that he's been blocked before, so the "Evasion of sanctions" section is applicable here, and this new sock account should be blocked as well. Amsgearing (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a Geordie?[edit]

After a bit of toing and froing the first para of the lead is hopefully both accurate and readable, and tolerable to most people. Obviously Wikipedia is about following the reliable sources, but on this occasion I can't find sources that support my own experience of what a Geordie is. I come from the fringes of Geordieland, and to me a Geordie is someone who speaks Geordie and more importantly self-identifies as a Geordie. There are parts of Northumberland and Durham where nearly everyone is a Geordie, and other parts where practically no-one is. It would be fascinating if an academic did some research and produced a "Geordie map"! Tammbeck (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newcastle supporters[edit]

"The word "Geordie" can refer to a supporter of Newcastle United.[13]" - The article referenced says: "It was hard to judge Newcastle when they played City because they were reduced to ten men and then spent the game on the back foot. St James’ Park will be packed with screaming Geordie fans and I think West Ham, who weren’t really tested by Cardiff last week, will lose this one." So yes - sure you can refer to Newcastle fans as Geordies: after all, most of them are, and it's a reasonable thing for a footy journalist to say, but it's a bit of a stretch to use this as the basis for implying that Newcastle fans are known as Geordies. They are much more likely to be referred to as the Magpies, or some variation on "the toon". Dominic Cronin (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the band Geordie from the Geordie-speaking area?[edit]

There is an article Geordie (band). Are the band members considered to be Geordie speakers? If so, would it be worth mentioning in the article? Pete unseth (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A battling language[edit]

Geordie is a continuation and development of the language spoken by Anglo-Saxon settlers, initially employed by the ancient Brythons to fight the Pictish invaders after the end of Roman rule in Britain in the 5th century. Is it me, or it seems to read that the language spoken by AS was initially employed by the AB to battle the Picts? Should it not read, "who initially were employed" etc etc.? --Manfariel (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]