Talk:South Shields

Older comments

Regional identity

I'm from South Shields and I don't like being called a sanddancer because it was originally a derogatory term. It originated from people mocking South Shields people because of the large Arab population and sandy Beaches. Some people who do not know the origin have adopted this name and are proud of it. I have edited the regional identity section to reflect the term's origin but if anyone doesn't like my edit feel free to change it back as its not all that important.

I'm a new member of this wikipedia thing and first off I would like to apologise if I've become a "vandal" or undone anyones efforts, I'm the one responcible for the attempted adding of detail to the pie Ages section in south shields history and also adding a bit about cleadon hills to the Geography section. Some of the facts I added in these parts I looked up in books and online but having read all the tutorials on how to add references I'm at a loss for how its done. No doubt I'll be excommunicated for not giving sources for my efforts. On the regional identity discussion I would state that I am a native of South Shields and would agree that we are Geordie and sand dancer. I think it comes down to accent. Accent changes every few miles, people from Sunderland pronounce certain words differently to someone from Tyneside and hense they are Mackems "wees keeys are theese keeys" etc while sand dancer is slightly different to Geordie proper, for example a Geordie from newcastle would say "Divn't de that" while a Sand Dancer would say "Dain't de that". Flip84 (Oct 2007)

I have been engaged in something of an edit war with Lawsonrob - he seems unwilling to countenance what I - as a native of Shields - and the overwhelming majority of people I know who have a view on the matter - consider to be the truth. Namely, that all Tynesiders are Geordies. I have heard people claim otherwise but frankly I think it is nonsense. However, because I have encountered the erroneous view put forward by this chap before and because he is so insistent on including it, that in itself is evidence of dispute so I have incorporated his wording in a slightly longer section. For the record, I can't see how he can claim that those born within site and smell of the Tyne somehow aren't Geordies considering (1) contemporary usage and (2) the likely origins of term "Geordie". --213.121.207.34 09:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I thought the version you revised was a compromise. Still, fair enough. As a fellow native of South Shields, I am proud to be a Sandancer and stand by the original article, but your re-writing is an acceptable balance. What I actually said was that some people claim Geordie's are from the north of the river, not that it is a definitive fact. Finally, I could hardly have vandalised this section of the article, since it was me that wrote it in the first place. Just a note though, if you are a regular user, please consider registering. I wasn't aware I'd been having an "edit war" with you as your changes appeared under at least three different IP addresses. Lawsonrob

I prefer Geordie TBH King nothing 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition: I am not a registered user just yet, but I thought an inaccuracy needed to be corrected. The term Geordie has never applied to the whole of the North East. I am from South Shields but I don't live there any more. I still live in the North East, but I now live in the Cleveland area. I think I can safely say that 100% of the indiginous population in this area do not consider themselves as Geordie, and although the accent sounds very similar and shares words from the Geordie dialect, it notably has North Yorkshire influence. 29 March 2007.

I have some friends in Shields and they are followers of Sunderland AFC, would this not put them in the 'Mackem' bracket ? - i think it would be fair to say that these people are a sizable minority and may be worthy of a mention. gazh 11:04 04 Apr 07

If I live in Mongolia and support Manchester United, does this make me a Mancunian? Lawsonrob

And for what reason does football come into this? Glenn Scott 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done Lawsonrob, very clever man. I was making a valid point and i think Football is relevant to modern classification to people in the North-east, being a geordie is not based or ethnics or race afterall. I would love someone to have an attempt at a proper definition. I for one do not see the people of Shields as Geordies and almost all the people i've spoken with about this agree. gazh 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you spoke to anyone in Shields or is this just the assumption you mackems are makeing?? Glenn Scott 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse i've spoken to people from Shields, and the results are posted above, i'm not saying they all see themselves as Mackems (the worlds elite), but some of them do - and almost everyone i've asked do not claim to be Geordie. -gazh 13:20, 3 May 2997 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I was born in Shields and have lived here all of my life. I class myself as a sandancer, however i would also class myself to some extent as a geordie as I believe that all Tynesiders are geordies just as all Wearsiders are mackems. It sould like a simple rule to me; Tyneside = Geordie, Wearside = Mackem. This would make sandancer a sort of 'subdivision' of geordie. Now please don't take offence at this, but, in my experiance the only people from shields who class themselves as mackems are Sunderland supporters. And i'm not even going to get into this stupid idea some people have that Shields is Wearside!! lol. Glenn Scott 14:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would say Shields is on Wearside, although i'd hazard a guess that as far down as your Golfcourse - could arguably be closer to the Wear, as is Boldon and Whitburn which are technically 'Tyneside', the accents in those parts arn't the same as ours though. I think it's all relative in many respects, it's easy to say this is that, and this line defines this, it doesn't mean that people are going to agree to it though. gazh 10:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Shields(till I joined RN at 19, though went back as often as I could). I lived in 4 houses in South Shields all were within a quarter of a mile of the Tyne, as a child I played on the river, during my senior school years I bunked off to work on the river when I left school I worked on the river. I'm most definately a Geordie! although I'm a Sanddancer too.

Very true; I'm a born and bred Sanddancer. My Dad was from Jarrow and my Mam was from Sunderland but I'm neither a Geordie or a Makkem. Geordies are self-obsessed and insecure to the point of violence. Makkems are self-loathing, bitter and hate everyone who achieves more thn them (which is everyone). South Shields is the garden spot of Tyne and Wear; we are class.

Pretty sure the term Sandancer dates much further back than Wilson, Keppel and Betty's music hall act, having seen it referenced in documents before then. I will see if I can find a citation, I suggest others do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.232.145 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yemeni Community

The article mentions race riots. Are these really relevant to the article? Surely it can only be relevant if it can be cited that the riots happened in South Shields.

• It is cited, read the article [1]

Wouldhave

we need a better section on the invention of the lifeboat here

How many?

Currently I see "It has a population of about 90,000" and then two paragraphs down, "Now it is a town of over a 100,000 people of many ethnic backgrounds."

Fastest population growth I've ever known :)

I can't find an official figure so I was unable to just fix it.

Telsa 14:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a native of the town and have tidied the entry up a bit, adding one or two brief points. The map shows Newcastle, rather than South Shields which is right on the coast. I'm not too sure what to do about this.

Bandalore 01.30, 10 June 2005

I've added some industrial history for context, plus a bit about the world wars.

Bandalore 18.11, 10 October 2005

No metion of Gypsy's Green (and it's migrant population). No metion of Mr Winterbottom either. Apart from that, fairly decent entry. Ed Fortune

Mr Winterbottom is now in. The caption of the first picture should read King Street (and Metro bridge).

Bandalore 00. 59 2 May 2006

Whoever has sung the praises of Harton Technological "Collage" could they please post a photo of said collage and the name of the artist, oh and the Lawe Top hasnt been "mint" since the Turk's Head closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.10 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

South Shields FC

I have added information about our town's premier football club. I will update this as events happen. Please feel free to improve this!

I've added about those that support South Shields FC. I know fine well not everyone from Shields is a Bandwagon Jumper. I've met a lot of S.Shields fans.

2.28.103.28 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

I added this and Lawsonrob has twice removed it. The article does not cite a single source. It needs sources. --SandyDancer 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawsonrob continues to do the same, though to be fair I suppose it is as much up to me as any other editor to come up with sources. I am going to do so and will be dumping a few links below that I hope will provide sources for content of the article.

• LOVAS survey, 1999
• MP site
• Tourist info

I've started adding sources - one to politics, three to Yemeni community section. If others would do the same it would be helpful. --SandyDancer 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Counties

I have reverted edits by Alexander Howard, as I believe that South Shields is in South Tyneside (Metropolitan Borough) and is very much within Tyne and Wear, that still exists. South Shields is not a unitary authority and hasn't been since 1974, when it became part of South Tyneside, the latter may be seen as unitary. Anybody who disagrees please revert this edit.Glenn Scott 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I concure. South Tyneside is a metropolitan borough, not a unitary authority - although the practical distinction may be small. Similarly T&W still exists as a metropolitan county, even if the county council has long gone. DrFrench 13:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{fact}} tags

There are a number of uncited claims in this article and the {{fact}} tags are constantly being removed. A couple of examples;

• Most residents of South Shields identify themselves as "Geordie", a term commonly associated with all residents of North East England. If you want to claim that a) most South Shields residents identify themselves as Geordies, or b) that the term Geordie is associated with all residents of North East England, then you must provide a reference for this.
• Some natives of the region consider it applies only to those born on Tyneside. Who considers this, you need to provide a reference stating it.
• The term is widely presumed to originate from the town's beach and its large Yemeni population. Who is presuming this? And again a reference is needed for this.

DrFrench 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

It's funny how when I dare to question a citation tag inserted by DrFrench or Fourohfour, I am accused of vandalism and the rules of Wikipedia are cited most stringently. Yet when they choose to insert such citation tags, no such explanation is offered. When these tags are inserted into South Shields, Kwik Save or Somerfield, it is usually for facts or assertions so generic that no such information would be requested elsewhere on the site, yet for daring to challenge them and reverting these tags, you are treated as an unwelcome sore on the face of Wikipedia. Strangely, when you seek to take these issues beyond the initial reversion by said parties (and others, I must say) the threats of vandalism and banishment from Wikipedia are rarely carried through.

Is this, I wonder, because they know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and that the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed by those who would hide behind an elaborate members' page and pretend that they own the place. I say NO, I say that anyone should be able to assert their opinions on this site and that it should be as legitimate to state that a citation is not required as it is to state the opposite. You may well spend half your life on Wikipedia, that's up to you - I'm not that sad and quite frankly I don't care - but please don't patronise those who work to keep this community independent and beyond the control of those who seem to live for it, usually individuals so far removed from the real world that they don't have a clue what's actually going on.

Yes, I have vandalised the sites and amendments of those so anally retentive that they seek to destroy the independence and impartiality on which Wikpedia was founded, and I make no apology for that. What I should have learned to appreciate is that they are so collectively thick it will have no effect. Some things on this site must be taken on trust as no person, living or otherwise, has the capacity to reference every single point of every article on Wikipedia. When you start asking for references on the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s, then you are quite frankly taking the piss. If someone has taken the time and effort to write about something so obscure, maybe you should think about their motives before demanding a citation! lawsonrob 22 June 2007, 01:02

Quick note about the history moved to a new page

I appreciate that it is a big portion of the page.

However I could understand this move if the page was more than say 60k, but as it is the page is only just over 32k; and I'm sure I've read somewhere that this 'used' to be the optimum size to split a wiki page. And I'm sure that this is not the discussed consensual standard anymore...

I'm against moving it at this moment.

--77.97.70.235 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Boffy you going to reply, with your reasons for moving the history to a new page? --77.97.70.235 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-relevant information

A quick reminder to the anon IP who keeps adding information about rugby clubs. Wikipedia isn't actually a knowledgebase (as you claimed here) - it's an encyclopaedia. This article is about South Shields. That doesn't mean it has to include detailed information on everything that takes place in South Shields. Listing the achievements of one rugby club is as relevant to an article on South Shields as listing how many cans of beans sold by each supermarket on a Friday afternoon. If the club is notable enough, then you can create its own article. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so we don't include information about things that aren't in South Shields just because you feel it may be 'a point of interest to a tourist'. Have a read of WP:5P to get a feel for what Wikipedia is actually about. DrFrench (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm annoyed at how you have taken out citations more than anything and thus I’m the one that is encyclopedic. Note how I did not revert the quality bit of information you took out that is similar to the link to Paris on the WPnot link you left on the history page? Where I did not revert in my last edit because it was not cited.

First off the article is about south shields it like anything that is in S/S is in the fabric of south shields, thus it is relevant when discussing south shields. You are behaving as if wood terrace is not part of South Shields for some reason.

It is a social club with history that some people in the fabric of South Shields are passionate about. It has as much right to be up there as the yemeni community piece which is also deserving.

It gives off a facility a club in south shields that is notable to the people that live there and the people who would visit.

It is hardly discussing the price of a tin of beans in a micro analysing way. I cant see any way you could do that with the club, unless you are discussing the price of pies, the price of programs or if I said something like, Westoe has roughly 100000000 blades of grass on its pitch. On anywhere but its own page which it does not have because it is not big enough yet.

Where is a micro description going on in the 94 little words that briefs it’s location and history?

It is a macro description that is cited like an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias which are cited.

And though wiki's are similar, wiki's are in a constant state of citing, compared to an Encyclopedia which is cited and published.

This means this cited bit of macro information is cited and as encyclopedic as you can get on a wiki.

And if you look at all other articles on wiki you will find many descriptions similar to it. Which are fixed into article exactly like that.

It is encyclopedic, and it has no bias, eg. No 'Shields is the bestest.' Thus it is wrote neutral and is not personal commentary like you have tried to claim in the recent past. It is only concerned recording where it is, its history and its recent history, in a neutral tone in a descriptive encyclopedic way because it has cites.

Also you mention creating a new page, for 94 words this I find strange.

It is kind of like ripping an embryo out and asking it to fend for itself.

There is not enough information to create a new page. And no doubt if you created a new page with that cited 94words, you would get someone with a POV as strong as yours pulling it down, before it would get the chance to grow over time. It is too little to incubate in an article of its own. And thus because it is in South Shields it should stay here until it grows to be able to hold its own in the big wide world that is wiki with its editors.

Look at the size of the history section comaperd to this section, and you are trying to cut out 94words that are cited with quality templates.

You are showing complete double standards in the article. --77.97.68.63 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, if you stop the personal commentary, you'll find people here are easier to work with. Again, with all due respect, I don't think you've quite grasped what Wikipedia is about. Accusing people and using emotive language ("It is kind of like ripping an embryo out") doesn't help. It annoys people and polarises opinion. Comment on content, not the contributor. Remember, just because something is true (even if you have a citation), doesn't mean it qualifies to be included. Just because something else is wrong in the article isn't an excuse to compound the problem. So the fact that your contribution is only 94 words isn't the point - it's the relevance (or lack of it). This article is about South Shields, not Westoe Rugby Club. So what is relevant to an article on South Shields - well the history, the Yememi community (it's something distinctive to the town). To say that the club exists and has existed for a long time. Yes that's relevant for this article. To describe that club's 2005 cup run? No, that's not relevant to this article.

So by all means have a calm discussion here about the issue - but do remember what Wikipedia is and what this article is about. DrFrench (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop being a wiki lawyer. You’ll more than likely fall into two camps. Someone who vaguely points to a page and claims expert authority, which is what you’ve done; Someone who points to a specific part of a page and claims authority from a POV interpretation. Anyway, I’m saying you have took down citations within the fabric of the article, and that is the discussion.

I have not gave one ounce of personal commentary, which is a slur. I use a wiki by being encyclopedic using citations. Where is the personal commentary wrote by someone in: “Westoe RFC is the towns longest established Rugby team. Originally formed in 1875, the team has been on the same ground Wood terrace since the formation. They were formed when Charlie Green and his friends crossed the River Tyne after winning a match against Tynemouth, a prominent local rugby club at the time. In 2005 Westoe RFC had a Intermediate Cup run and got to Twickenham the national stadium were they got beat by Morley RFC from Yorkshire." Are you suggesting I or whoever wrote that is Charlie Green? Charlie Green who was so years of age in 1875? Lets keep it real eh? And what are you talking about emotional with embryo?

Where is that sentence involved in a context that is emotional. I used it as a metaphor to describe what you are doing with 94 words. Hence you are not letting it incubate and grow. Please show me the context, not a buzz word, the context were we were talking about abortion or what ever it is you are assigning in some different argument you have pulled out of no where. Please do. Please show me the context, the background that I have went anywhere off course. Example show me where I went off course from discussing Westoe RFC and South Shields, and starting giving my say on abortion one way or the other. As there is no context to go with you use of the buzz word. Then you say in your different argument, ‘polarizes opinion’ yet I again have not discussed abortion, only used a metaphor to describe how you are not letting the 94word cited piece about something in the fabric of South Shields grow so it can become an article one day. I did not use it in any political talk that has nothing to do with the fact you are stopping a piece from growing. Though I understand from your POV you might conveniently think that embryo is an emotional buzz word. But still I think we can all see and agree that a reader will see the context, and see we have actually not even discussed in any context abortion in this Westoe RFC discussion, were if I’m right there is no womans team. Lets keep it to the issue instead of dragging out an argument that has nothing to do with the article. What has abortion got to do with South Shields’s, Westoe RFC?

Lets get back onto the discussion. You, are taking down cites you say are not relevant or personal commentary: you are taking down cites, you think you decide what is the fabric of South Shields and what can be put in a time line, you have double standards, 1. as this piece has as much right as the Yemeni piece, and 2. your 94 words excuse for putting it in a new article, when the history page takes up half the page. You are creating an extra argument about abortion when there is none, or connecting with abortion to turn a word I used in my incubation description into a buzz word. And inturn you are actually accusing me of not focusing on the content, so says you who takes down cited material with regards to something that is in S/S and turns a metaphor to focus on a word where there is no context to support the buzz word you used. So removing the red herring bit, I can see a nugget that keeps to the latest argument, you say:

"This article is about South Shields, not Westoe Rugby Club. So what is relevant to an article on South Shields - well the history, the Yememi community (it's something distinctive to the town). To say that the club exists and has existed for a long time. Yes that's relevant for this article. To describe that club's 2005 cup run? No, that's not relevant to this article. So by all means have a calm discussion here about the issue - but do remember what Wikipedia is and what this article is about."

My response: I'm very calm I think I know the discussion. Anyway Westoe RFC is South Shields, and if you don’t describe things in South Shields then the article would actually have no 'content' in it. Westoe Rugby club is a social club, a community, it is in the fabric of South Shields just like the Yemeni community and the mosque. It is content in the article. So as it is in the fabric of the community and is a service in the community it is in the fabric of the article about South Shields. Regarding the cup run, yes it is relevant because it is a historical event equivalent to that club as to the time when Ali visited S/S in 1977 on the historical time line. Of similar importance to year abc in a xyz article etc. The 2005 bit is very important to the club community which competes in competitions and was made to compete; it is an event. This means a cup run is an event in the fabric of South Shields, saying it is a community in S/S. Just like the 1875 beginning of the club, the clubs first visit to Twickenham 130year later is important. I can see no reason to exclude any material here.--77.97.69.61 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look. Above you claimed "I have not gave one ounce of personal commentary, which is a slur". However earlier on you said "You are showing complete double standards in the article". That's personal commentary.

As for the abortion thing. I have no idea what you are going on about. You were the one who used the phrase "It is kind of like ripping an embryo out and asking it to fend for itself." That's emotive language.

Now back to the topic. You said " The 2005 bit is very important to the club community". Yes indeed, it probably is important to the rugby club - and it deserves to be covered in an article about the rugby club. But this article isn't about the rugby club - it's about South Shields. And quite frankly it's really not important to the 'story' of South Shields. DrFrench (talk)

Your discussion does not stand up.--77.97.69.61 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So please explain why - in your opinion - Westoe rugby club's cup run of 2005 is important to the the 'story' of South Shields? The onus is on you to justify its inclusion. This is the place to discuss it and reach a consensus. Simply adding it back repeatedly is merely disruptve. DrFrench (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm not discussing with you now, we have discussed enough. I can't add anything more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.69.61 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) --77.97.69.61 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the templates and other rugby club pages as examples I've created the Westoe_RFC page.--Tyneferry (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for a time while the content problem is being resolved. This material should not be re-add until an agreement can be reached on what should be in this article. May be a separate article is the way forward but, if that is the case, it would need to meet the appropriate notability guidelines. Please work together to agree what should be present in this article. Keith D (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Vide infrahahaha

"'Urfa' is suggested to be a simple corruption of 'Vide Infra', the Aramaic name for the Roman stronghold.<ref>{{Cite web | last = | first = | title = Arbeia Fort and Settlement | year = 2005 | date = 2005-03-07 |accessdate=2007-10-24 | url = http://www.roman-britain.org/places/arbeia.htm}}</ref>" Vide Infra simply means "see below", and is used in that sense in the linked website; the linked website does not seem to mention an Aramaic name for Roman Arbeia, much less make such a "suggestion".--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

World dictionary of foreign expressions. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. 1999. ISBN 0865164231, 9780865164239. Vide infra [i]abbr.[/i] V.I. or v.i. v. [L.vide see (1); infra below, beneath (2): See below.] Used in books to refer the reader to a subsequent passage or item. See vide post. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Edward I

How come in the 19th century section is there constant wikilinks to King Edward I of England who was a monarch in the 13th and 14th centuries? Penrithguy (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Colmans Fish and Chip Restaurant

I have put Colmans Fish and Chip Restaurant up for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colmans Fish and Chip Restaurant. The suggestion there is that the article be incorporated into South Shields. Having looked at the section for Economy I don't think it sits very well with the heavy industry that is currently there. Can anyone think of a better way of doing it? Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

19th Century

This section is now a vague, rambling, repetitious piece incorporating information from elsewhere in the entry. In places it is simply incoherent. How did this come about? It needs to be sorted out quickly.

Bandalore (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've eliminated all the verbiage and trust that the section is now readable and makes sense

Bandalore (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yemeni Camel Worriers called Lennon?

Really? Must visit, when is this event? 78.105.158.36 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Peoples Mission.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)