Talk:Liverpolitan

Liverpolitan / Liverpudlian / Scouse

Hello Liverpolitan1980, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the work you've put into this page. Always great to come across another Liverpool Wikipedian :)

I wonder if some of the content you've put here might be better added to the Demonym and identity section of the article on the city itself? The more common terms "Liverpudlian" and "Scouser" both redirect there. I suspect Liverpolitan might not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for a page of its own. But there's definitely plenty here for it to merit a mention in the city's article!

Let me know if I can help navigate any of these policies etc. :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks. I was thinking that although the Liverpool article might end up rather large. A lot of work has gone in to the Liverpolitan identity article. As you can see, reliable sources have been used. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have also spent a lot of time formulating the wording, researching the sources and provding reliable citations. I would appreciate if you could take a look. Perhaps, it's an expression that you have not come across before.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Your point about the article size guideline is fair. To that end, I've added a link to this article from the demonym section of the city's article. I'll have a think about what else I can suggest, especially around avoiding this page becoming what's called a "redundant fork", ie. one that serves much of the same purpose and covers similar ground to the existing city article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I would also suggest we provide a direct link from Liverpool City Region#Demonym. I have copied text from that subsection in to this article to avoid duplication.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks again, I have taken on board your point. I have migrated over the text from Liverpool City Region#Demonym in to this article to avoid duplication. The history of Liverpolitan as a term is fascinating and will be expanded in time. Historians argue that the term predates 'scouser' by many years and as such I feel that it deserves to be recognised. Historians Arabella McIntyre-Brown and Guy Woodland say the word 'Liverpolitan' makes more sense linguistically than “Liverpudlian”. Scouser has its own history as both a demonym and dialect which is separate to the Liverpolitan identity.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. While this is a well referenced page, most of the citations are to articles which only prove that the word 'Liverpolitan' is not well used or understood despite many attempts over the years popularise it. It is far too insignificant to warrant its own entry. Orange sticker (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a subjective opinion is it not? The Mayor of Liverpool city region was on the radio discussing it. The term has historical siginificance and there is a whole section on how it has been used in popular culture. it is almost like you are suggesting that the Liverpool identity is based on the scouse identity and nothing else. That is simply not the case and has been explained at length within the article. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore - the article makes it very clear that the identity is not universally shared. It does not attempt to present in any other way. I have taken pains to introduce the section 'Comparisons with other identities' to make that exact point. I hope you can appreciate that. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is very well written and referenced, however there is no evidence that the term is currently used as anything other than a synonym for 'Scouser', nor that it was ever in common use. Orange sticker (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

All discussion is related to whether the concept of 'Liverpolitan' even exists. I cannot find any citations where the author assumes that their readers already know what the word means.

Orange sticker (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. However, there are citations which point to historians, political commentators and journalists. The article makes it very clear that this term historically precedes the term 'scouser' Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for saying it is well written. Obviously I agree with that :) Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you might propose an alternative or re-written lede? Other to that I am happy that you have acknowledged that the article is well written and referenced. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

An alternative lede:

Liverpolitan is an associated adjective and demonym of Liverpool, a city in North West England. It most commonly refers to:

• A native or inhabitant of Liverpool.

The term has been discussed by journalists and political commentators to mean *A native or inhabitant of Liverpool City Region incorporating the boroughs of Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral or "anything from or related to the city of Liverpool or the Liverpool City Region", with some controversy. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpolitan identity. I have argued to keep this article. Unfortunately, I think the nominator has chosen to take this article far too personally. I have clear evidence on social media that the editor is politically motivated to undermine this work because she personally hates the subject and identifies as a Scouser. She has called the Liverpolitan demonym an attempt by a bunch of snobs to encourage stigma against the city of Liverpool. This is simply not a good enough reason to delete well written, well researched work which has taken many hours to carefully interpret and elucidate. The editor clearly has also not read the citations. Everything written in the article is supported by them. To suggest there are few results on the term is also disingenuous. There are clear results for Liverpolitan as an historic term dating back to the Victorian age.

Amongst: scholars https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Liverpolitan%22

JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=liverpolitan&so=rel

Books https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Liverpolitan%22+-wikipedia

Furthermore, there are articles on Wiki regarding tribes and languages that most of the world has never heard of and probably never will. Should we go around deleting them all because they are not popular. Wiki is not a popularity contest between identities. The editor above should withdraw the nomination. She has also been accommodated through improvements to the article. Ongoing improvements can also be made but there is simply too much content available on Liverpolitans for anything to be deleted or merged into other articles. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Title

Liverpolitan as the title would be better, IMO, than the current horrible cludge Use of the term 'Liverpolitan. The article is about the term. WP has few Use of the term XYZ articles, but many articles on terms. It is not common sense to use a non-standard title when a common sense title exists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that the change was based on a misunderstanding.

Over at the Article for Deletion discussion I had said earlier today...

"There is clearly an argument that Wikipedia is not the place for an article which would more accurately be titled 'Use of the term Liverpolitan'."

That was a comment on the content of the article and the fact that I thought it should be deleted. I was not actually advocating for a name change.

To expand on my general point, the article is primarily not about what the word 'Liverpolitan' means. Instead it seeks mainly to document (the apparently rather rare) instances of when the word has been used, instances which have been linked together apparently to demonstrate a pedigree for the term and to advocate for its modern day use.

This is clearly rather unusual for a Wikipedia article, which would usually be about the subject of the article, not about instances in which the term in the title had been used.

The reason that this problem exists is because the article has not been well written (i.e. it is currently little more than a timeline of mentions) rather than as a properly integrated discussion of the subject matter. Let's be honest, at present it is just a list of what different people have said through time, with quotes and links. From the standpoint of a Wikipedia article, that is not good. I'd seriously suggest that the author goes back to the drawing board and considers how to write the article again. E.g. surely the areas of most interest are the sociology of the term and the idea that it represents a distinct identity, but those subjects are covered only in passing due to the overly simplistic (almost list-like) format of the article.

To give an example here, almost every paragraph in this article starts the same way: 'In the 19th century [...]', 'In 1950 [...]', 'In 1958 [...]' etc., usually following up with '[so-and-so] said [whatever they said]'. At the very least the author should be trying to find different ways to express themself, but if they go back to the drawing board they may find a much better way to present the entire article. To give just a very basic example, Wikipedia articles usually consist of sentences which are then backed up by a reference verifying the statement. However this article is, at root, just a list of quotes. The references themselves are the subject, over and over again.

The general issue re: mentions primarily to uses of the term affects most (but, I admit, not all) of the article. It is worst in the 'Popular Culture' and 'Quotes' sections where most of the material is just lists of disembodied instances of when the word 'Liverpolitan' has been used. E.g. I'm struggling to see why a local newspaper article title (or similar) including the word 'Liverpolitan' warrants mention on Wikipedia. If the word is commonly used then these instances shouldn't need to be cited in the article.

I was interested (and somewhat amused) to see that the author of the article agreed with my opinion that it would more accurately be named 'Use of the term Liverpolitan' which, as you say, is an entirely inappropriate title and (in my opinion at least) an entirely inappropriate subject for a Wikipedia article (i.e. in its current form).

Others of course may disagree (and the place for discussion on deletion is obviously the AfD discussion, not here). However, I thought it might be useful to clarify why the author had changed the title today.

The notes above are offered in a spirit of constructive criticism. Axad12 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, would you like to have a go at re-writing it to your liking? Or parts of it? I would like to see a specific example of how you would express things on your terms. For example, precisely how you would re-write the paragraphs, which paragraphs, which parts of them etc... your comment, whilst appreciated and whilst well thought out, isn't specific on detail. Also, there are lots of articles on Wikipedia that are lists. I am glad you find me amusing, however, I'm also mystifed as to how to address you since you seem quite sensitive and quick to jump on the defensive. See above. So, let me make it clear - this is in a spirit of constructive criticism. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I didn't expect to have to write the meaning of the word in sections entitled etymology, origins or centuries. Etymology and origins are about how the word has come in to being, the background, the societal context. The defintion of the word is in the lede. It must also be borne in mind that this is a term which has been used throughout history. I was wrong to label the article Liverpolitan identity. I should have started with Liverpolitan to begin with. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, can I just make this clear aswell - your comment here [1]. I wasn't actually directing this at you. It was sent FAO of the user who flagged the article. I am sorry you felt it was towards you but it wasn't. That's why I was hesitant to formally apologise to you. There was no intent to offend you nor the other contributor. It was the way in which they have approached the discussion that I took issue with. Besides the fact they have incorrectly formatted the AFD. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that I found you amusing, I said that I found it amusing that you changed the title based on a misunderstanding. That isn't really the same, is it?

Also, I'm neither sensitive nor quick to jump on the defensive, I simply objected to the unacceptable suggestion that you made about me on the AfD, and also to the apparently bad faith form of your apology. You should have kept the (imagined) politics out of it really, it's never necessary and it winds people up. (If I remember rightly, you were pretty much told the same thing at ANI.)

I'll give you a tip. If you ever annoy someone on Wikipedia, just apologise, whether they are right or wrong, whether it was accidental or not. It just keeps everything running along nicely...

However, that's all in the past...

To give an example of how you could try to integrate the material into a more cohesive whole, how about having a brief section at the start re: history, giving a brief overview, and then divide the rest of the material not into chronological periods but into subject matter such as demographics, etc. For example, in re-organising the material, to what extent is the 1971 comment re: 'posh and snotty types living in the better suburbs' related to the comment later in the article that the Conservative mayoral candidate referred to herself as a Liverpolitan? When does that perception of the word Liverpolitan arise? Is it still current, and what other references do you have to flesh out that whole idea? To what extent is that different to other possible Liverpool identities? Are there any comparable examples of alternative identities from other cities? Do those arise at around the same time? Is this to do with a broader societal change, e.g. the emergence of the middle class, the process of surrounding villages becoming part of the suburbs? Etc. All that sort of stuff belongs together in one section to make a coherent point, not scattered all around the article.

Then select another theme which multiple sources relate to, and repeat the process. Or maybe demographics is really the heart of the matter and everything can be presented through that lens. Some of the material may not fit anywhere, in which case you can discard it.

As the author of the article you need to arrange the material that you've sourced in such a way that sits together in the most logical way possible, which probably is not the chronological order in which the comments were made. If you don't do that then you are asking the reader to synthesise the material for themselves which, let's be honest, most readers are not going to do. Therefore, whatever you have personally derived from the material, they won't see. They'll just see a list.

Obviously you are enthusiastic about the subject (which, to be honest, I'm not) and you've done your research, so those are two important things. Now you have to do the interesting bit to make the article as good as you can.

If I had more time, I would go into more detail and give some concrete examples. If only... Axad12 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Final point...

I think there are specific criteria for items to be included in 'In Popular Culture' sections of Wikipedia articles. It is usually things like lyrics in songs, references in films, mention in novels, etc. Most of the stuff you have listed, if I am correct, does not satisfy the notability criteria for such sections. Therefore you have the challenge of trying to amalgamate that material into the general synthesis mentioned above. Axad12 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Final final point...

Re: something I said in my initial note above...

Instead of saying:

'In 19XX, so-and-so said that the Liverpolitan identity was blah-blah-blah.'

Say:

'It has been suggested that the Liverpolitan identity was blah-bah-blah'

or 'The Liverpolitan identity has been suggested to be blah-blah-blah'

And then add the relevant reference link.

You don't need to give the reference and quote in the article text. From the standpoint of readability it's usually much better if you don't because this gives you more ways of saying the same sort of thing, so the text ends up being less formulaic.

Also, by doing this you make Liverpolitan identity the subject of the article, rather than making your sources the subject.

Good luck. Axad12 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just to clarify, it seems that you are advocating for improvement rather than deletion. The advice here is usually to give new articles more time to improve rather than call for their deletion. [[2]]. Can I confirm that you agree with that? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think my comment on the AfD was that the title and contents should change and that the whole 'uses of the word' rather than 'being about the concept' was a problem. (I think that was what another user was saying when he said that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary). I didn't actually cast a vote in favour of deletion.

Reading back here (above) I see that I said 'I thought it should be deleted', but I probably should have added 'if it isn't improved'.

There are some other issues that have been raised (by others) on the AfD that you will need to resolve first though.

In most regards, those issues would be resolved by following my comment on the AfD and making the article about all Liverpudlian identities. I do genuinely think that that would be a stronger article.

However, if the current scope of the article passes muster, the strongest part of the article at present is the 'Comparisons with other demonyms' section. Eventually I'd suggest that you bump that up the article and expand the general format throughout the article by including material in the way I described earlier.

If the current scope of the article doesn't pass muster then that section easily becomes the core of an article on all Liverpudlian identities. Axad12 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will note your comments and see what way this discussion is going to, but for the moment, I think there is a problem with the formatting of the AFD itself. So that needs to be resolved. I have also flagged the article at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard because it needs more eyes on it. I feel that there have only been a few people who seem enthusiastic about the subject so far. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)