User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Easties (people)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people)

This debate was moved from User_talk:JoanneB#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWesties_.28people.29

The resurrected text from Easties (people) is published here: User:Richardshusr/Easties (people) --WikiCats 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for the work you did closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easties (people). The other article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people) has also been listed for deletion. It would be hoped that for the sake of uniformity that you would also close this discussion. Failing that I would be pleased if you would comment in this discussion. The articles are equivalent and could be said to be opposing articles. I have been editing Westies for several months and the problem is the large amount of unverified contributions to attracts. It is a magnet for people who wish to vilify others based solely on where they live. Thanks. --WikiCats 08:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you your work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westies (people). Your decision was keep. Could you please explain the reason for your decision? --WikiCats 09:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have several articles that are magnets like that, and that alone should never be a reason for deleting an article. I don't agree with you on those being 'equivalent' articles: the main difference is that the Westies article actually has some sources and while it isn't one of our best articles, based on what I can see (with the policy I quoted in closing the other one) and based on the discussion, I don't see a reason for deleting this one. --Joanne B 10:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joanne. Thank you for your explanation. People from Sydney’s east began referring to people from the Greater West as “westies”. In retaliation they started calling those from the Eastern suburbs “easties”. The Easties and Westies articles were created within a month of one each other. Both are essentially derogeratory and representative of the social battle that exists in Sydney. They are opposing points of view in a class war.

The guidelines say that we must present all points of view. They describe how to deal with class bias issues here: “Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.”

We have a situation where the Wikipedia describes social vilification towards people from one area but blocks the response to that vilification. This is a serious matter.

However you may justify it, you have deleted one point of view whilst keeping the other. How do you propose to correct your error? --WikiCats 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I closed a discussion about an article (Easties), based on very explicit policy:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions.

I strongly believe that, right now, an article about the Easties cannot exist without breaching those policies. It's too new as a term to have been described (not just used!) in reliable sources. I'm not saying that such an article will never exist in the future: deleting an article at a certain time does not imply that we will never have an article about that topic in the future. My deletion was not a judgement about the term itself, just about the fact whether it had been described by enough sources to write a decent Wikipedia article, so that it would not be original research. Those sources were not available at the start of the AfD, nor were they added during, nor was I able to find them myself.

The other article (Westies) does have some decent sources, and consists of more verifiable statements, rather than the bunch of prejudices that the other article consisted of. It seems to me that one term has been in use for quite a bit longer than the other, and thus has a wider use and its use has been described. Is that unfair? No, because Wikipedia, by design, will always be a bit 'slow' when it comes to neogolisms and terms that are used specific cultures. It should be, because only then decent articles can be written. That's the goal of Wikipedia, not the facilitation of 'getting even'.

Does this make me responsible for this 'bias'? I don't think so, so I do not think that there's an error that I need to correct. If you disgree, there's always Deletion Review. --Joanne B 14:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains, one point of view has been deleted from the encyclopedia. It's not up to me to fix your mistakes. --WikiCats 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no mistake as far as I can see. Articles themselves must be verifiable, points of views that can be verified are for inlcusion. Should any verifiable data about Easties emerge it can either go in the Westies article with a redirect or if there's enough make a reasonable stub. --Alf ^melmac 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCats, I refuse to believe that I have made a mistake, just because you tell me I have. I've quite elaborately explained above why I feel I have not made a mistake, so for me, this is the end of this story. Again, feel free to take it elsewhere, I would not mind explaining my point again at Deletion Review, an RfC, or wherever else you want to take this. Oh, and naturally: if you write a decent article about 'Easties', with proper sources, I will be the last person to stand in your way. --Joanne B 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal that Neutral point of view can be avoided by other guidelines is ludicrous. We have a situation where an opposing point of view in the Sydney class battle has been deleted. I am from Sydney and I can tell you that I am personally outraged that this condition exists in the Wikiopedia. If you felt that Easties was not sustainable then you needed to delete Westies to maintain NPOV. An examination of the AfDs reveals that I fought hard against this situation occurring. It’s either both points of view or neither. You can not walk away from the situation that you created. It is an admins. role to protect the integrity of Wikipedia not put it at risk. I again stress that it is not my duty to sort out this mess. --WikiCats 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were personally very involved, and I'm sorry that you're so frustrated. However, you see it as a mess, I don't, that's the difference. NPOV is a very important principle, yes, I acknowledge that fully. But that does not mean that we can have articles about every topic, even if we do have one about something that you see as an opposing topic. The integrity of this encyclopedia strongly depends on the fact that we're not making things up here, and we can show to the world that we don't, because we base ourselves on reliable sources. If we loose that principle, no matter how neutral we are, we're just another website, and our credibility goes down the drains. One article had enough sources and was verifiable, the other wasn't. That has nothing to do with NPOV. This decision was about the content of the first article: it was rubbish, and I believe you agreed with that. The second article wasn't, as some people managed to find some decent sources for that. You literally asked me to close the second AfD, yet you don't respect my opinion and decision after doing so. That's your every right, but I've explained myself and I will not take any other action in this regard. I stand for my principles and priorities, I strongly believe that they're aligned with Wikipedia's principles and priorities, and I will not give them up because you disagree. --Joanne B 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put an oar in here? I've been tracking this discussion via my watchlist. I think that this discussion has gotten stuck in a "I'm right / No you're not" rut. Unfortunately, I'm late to a party that I'm hosting so I don't have time to really look at this at the level of detail that it deserves.

My quick analysis is that there SHOULD be an article called Easties (people) but I don't have the time to look at the old article and fully understand why it was deleted. It seems that some of the sources for the Westies (people) article also mention the Eastie stereotype so it seems that a sourced article could be written about Easties.

Can I ask both of you to give it a rest (go to the Esperanza cafe and get a cup of chai or Taize or whatever) and then let's look at it from a "how do we write an acceptable article about Easties" perspective. I will try to look at it within the next couple of days. (full weekend with the family takes priority over Wikipedia; sorry).

I've seen WikiCats around and I know he's a respectable editor. I also have a lot of respect for JoanneB. So, IMO, this is just a disagreement between two respected Wikipedians. No trolls anywhere in sight. We just need to get off the emotions and principles shtick and focus on how to improve Wikipedia.

--Richard 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, you're absolutely right. Thanks for reminding me :) I've let real life tension show in my communication style too much here. WikiCats, my apologies. --Joanne B 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm back and, man, what a busy weekend it was. OK, I had a little bit of time this morning to look at the two articles: Westies (people) and Easties (people), the latter of which I codged off of a Wikipedia copier that hadn't synched since the deletion of the article. I also did some Google searching to learn more about the topic.

Here's my two cents worth. The Easties article deserved to be deleted as poorly sourced and so poorly written (POV) as to fall below the standard of acceptable quality for Wikipedia. However, I do understand WikiCat's argument that the two articles should either both exist or both not exist. That is true in the long-term. JoanneB's argument, however, is a short-term argument. Easties was below the standard. Westies was above the standard (just barely). The solution of deleting Easties was correct in the short-term. The long-term solution is to rewrite Easties to be above the standard (and maybe improve the Westies article as well).

Here's what I mean by "the standard of acceptable quality for Wikipedia". Consider the following articles: Nigger,Yuppie,Townie,Chicano. All these are higher in quality than Westies (people) except maybe for Yuppie. I'm a little surprised that the article on Yuppies is so thin. Seems to me that there is a veritable gold mine of material (no, not Yuppie jokes) to write on that topic.

Anyway, I put the resurrected text from Easties (people) in a sandbox called User:richardshusr/Easties (people). The intent is to use this sandbox as a staging area while the article is being worked on (so as to avoid an immediate AfD as soon as the article is created). I'm not the best person to improve this article because I know next to nothing about the article (nothing at all until two days ago). --Richard 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, what's this? [1] It's a speech by Genia McCaffrey (mayor of North Sydney) and one of her topics is "Easties vs. Westies".

I also like this link [2], not a WP:RS but it does identify five types of white people in Sydney.

Wikicats, if you agree with my analysis above, feel free to move this discussion over to my Talk Page so we can stop clogging up JoanneB's page with this.

--Richard 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. While I completely agree with you that the main reason Easties (people) was deleted was because it was poorly researched and very POV, and it is a good thing to try to make a better version in your userspace. However, I have to point out that the argument that both westies and easties must have an article or neither is flawed. There are good reasons why several editors including myself voted to delete Easties and yet try to salvage Westies, and these reasons have nothing to do with bias or POV, but that we didn't think it was possible to salvage it. You mentioned that references at Westies also mention easties, but this is only true of the lowest quality references. Easties is a neologism, or very close to one, whereas westies has been around since at least the 80s. This is reflected in the fact that there are reliable sources writing about the term westies, not just using it. Another difference is that westies has broader relevance than Sydney class wars in a way that easties doesn't (yet?). The two terms should be judged on how they stand on their own, not simply as counterparts in a restricted context. If the article in your userspace loses it's POV and gets some proper sources, I will be surprised, but also very happy to have it as an article. But this will be because it is has become a good article which demonstrates that the term has some notability of its own, not simply because we already have a Westies article. JPD (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrected Easties (people) Talk

Anyone wishing to contribute to this sandbox version of Easties (people) is welcome. --WikiCats 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of those two references Richard. They had little to offer. --WikiCats 01:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCats deleted the following text, characterizing it as mostly OR...

conspicuously wealthy and, generally but not exclusively, white Anglo-Saxon (or Jewish) demographic of individuals. They are typically from a white collar or upper class background and choose to reside in the city's generally more affluent eastern suburbs

I disagree. Based on what I have read, the stereotype IS generally white, possibly Anglo-Saxon, definitely white collar and affluent. I'm not so sure about Jewish or upper-class.

--Richard 04:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it may be non-neutral prose. I'm happy to reinstate it. Do you have any references for this? --WikiCats 10:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]