Talk:Westie (person)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Westie (person) is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is not a forum for discussing what you think of people from the Greater West of Sydney. Such messages may be deleted. Please discuss the article instead. Thank you.

This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.

Need a link to classism somewhere. Secretlondon 20:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 What about? 2 I am a sydney westie 3 New Zealand 4 Sydneycentric? 5 Sydney Westie 6 Out of date? 7 no 8 Westies, Metros and Bogans 9 Merging of the Bogan article into the Westies' article 9.1 Bogans and Westies different terms 9.2 Oppose the merge with Bogan 10 Problem with the first paragraph 11 Cost of living 12 Origin of the term... Sydney, Australia 13 Cost of living around the world 14 How popular is the term these days? 15 Major removals 16 Dictionary entry from the Macquarie dictionary 17 Neutrality 18 Citations 19 Simply someone living in the outer western suburbs 20 Layout 21 What, it IS a forum about what you think about people from West Sydney? 22 Is this article based on references or are others using us as the reference? 23 Parochialism in Sydney

[edit] What about?

What about the "metro-bogans" and "uptown-westies". You know the type, basically bogans, but with money... same value systems, same sub-culture, still nationalistic to the point of idiocy, but they've got a bit more money then most (and can be seen wearing pink shirts...)

[edit] I am a sydney westie

and this article needs bits on the sydney and melbourne westie/bogans at least. --Ballchef 14:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand

The claim that bogan is only a South Island term is absurd. Bogans are plentiful in West Auckland (as discussed) and the Hutt Valley. Although "western", the West Coast "coasters" are not, generally, bogan/westie types and have other perceived character defects 84.66.44.115 20:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Sydneycentric?

I have never heard the term used outside Sydney, save when referring to people from Western Sydney. Also a Westie can refer to anybody of a lower socio-economic Caucasian background, whereas a Bogan is usually used to describe a poorly presented younger male or female.

[edit] Sydney Westie

In Sydney, someone known as a "westie" is simply someone living in the outer western suburbs. Whoever did this article is clearly having a shot at "westies" by describing them all as bogans.

[edit] Out of date?

when was the last time you saw a sane person in real life with a mullet? --Sumple 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a dude down my street who sports one. I see him each day on my way to work. Dispite the desrision they recive it's not an uncommon sight in Wellington (NZ). Palendrom 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no

Absolutely not. Westies aer a uniquely sydney concept.

in ballarat westies are as stated in the article and bogans are different. more just like bums but they dont wear eminem and other stuff like that. so "westie" is not a soul sydney term thankyou very much.

[edit] Westies, Metros and Bogans

In Brisbane, a Metro is the pink shirt type (also in Melbourne, sometimes interchangeable with Wog, to the point where some people only know them as Wogs and haven't even heard the word Metro). Westies are usually people from Western Australia, but that term isn't used much at all, except by those who have liven in Western Australia. Bogans are generally just the proleteriat.

[edit] Merging of the Bogan article into the Westies' article

I have to ask why the suggestion is for the Bogan article to be subsumed by the Westie article, and not the other way around. I can only assume that this is due to the ongoing perception of Sydney residents of Sydney being the non-political capital of the country, despite said residents being more or less isolated in holding that opinion. Petrus4 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogans and Westies different terms

Bogan is clearly a term that has little use in Sydney and should definitely be kept separate from Westie. Bogan can be seen to be not offensive whereas Westie has direct derogatory connotations - and related terms (Eastie).

I agree - since Eastie has been been given a NPOV tag, I've given Westies a NPOV.

I disagree that westie people should be merged with bogan. --WikiCats 10:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose the merge with Bogan

As I've mentioned on the Bogan talk page & the Aussie English talk page the terms are not synonymous but carrying through with this merger would be to imply that they were. To make this implication would be to have a go at westies. This would be offensive even tags suggesting the merge could be found offensive. It seems that most of us are against the merger and for much the same reasons as I mention. Therefore there should be no merger and the tags should be removed promptly. Jimp 10:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was do not merge. --WikiCats 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Thanks for removing the tags. I was about to remove them myself. Yes, as I've stated, I agree that the general consensus was that to merge the articles would be a mistake. The terms are not equivalent. I've just done an edit of the article to remove the implication that westies are bogans or that the term is implicitely classist. Jimp 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your recent changes Jimp. Thank you --WikiCats 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the first paragraph

The second sentance of the first paragraph does not make sence. It may have been that someone has accidentally edited out half of the sentance. It simply reads: 'In other cities of Australia (such as Canberra and Brisbane'.

[edit] Cost of living

"... Sydney's western suburbs, a region of suburbs in which the cost of living is generally considered to be less than that of Sydney's more easterly and inner-city suburbs." states the article. Either it is or it isn't: what does it matter how it's considered to be? Jimp 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) It matters, because people make decisions based on their perceptions, not based on their knowledge. They use "gut instinct" and feelings.--Garrie 03:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the term... Sydney, Australia

I would like to suggest that for much of the area between Parramatta and Penrith the crime rate is lower than it is in say Redfern? Also - in a LOT of the residential suburbs - it is probably lower than the crime rate in Sydney's Central Police District. --Garrie 04:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't be at all surprised if you are right. But it's irrelevant. The article is trying to describe the meaning and conotations of the word 'Westie'. Whether that meaning is unfair prejudiced, or plain wrong in it's intent, is interesting, and probably meat for endless discussion, but of marginal significance.

[edit] Cost of living around the world

The westie stereotype is perceived by some as being in a state of transition, as Sydney is one of the most expensive places in the world to live

I think this needs to be very well referenced. In fact if your list is long enough, every place in the world is one of the most expensive places in the world to live. It's all relative to income anyway. --Garrie 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How popular is the term these days?

I get the impression the term has less currency than it did in the 70s/80s. My suspicion is that people have been rearranging their pejudices somewhat.

• Muslim enclaves have taken more space in the mental space people used to reserve for Westy/non-westy distinctions
• people have moved about, suburbs have become gentrified, and what used to be looked down upon, by those East of (hey the article should definitely define exactly where the inner city ends and the western suburbs starts) I dunno, Annandale, now live there.
• Emblematic westy football teams have merged and moved about (so have teams that westies were untied in hating)
• Westies have embraced the term to a certain extent making it less effective as an insult in the hands of non-westies
• People have come in from overseas and other states, for whom the term means much less than to those raised in Sydney, and other terms mean more. For example Sydneysiders know what a bogan is, 20 years ago we probably wouldn't have, (now we're grateful to have a useful term for Macquarie Fields).

Maybe one day the article can be deleted as an obscure historical artefact, but probably not quite yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter.cant (talk • contribs).

[edit] Major removals

Please do not make major changes and remove tags during this sensitive time when major issues about this article are being discussed.--WikiCats 12:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Major changes to the article should gain consensus on the Talk page.--WikiCats 12:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of NPOV and other sort sof tags is that they are inviting people to improve the article to remove the problems. Adding references and removing POV sections does not need discussion on the talk page first - not unless/until the action is disputed. JPD (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been unilateral action to make major changes to the article without discussion or consensus. All this during a major debate. Making major changes during a debate is against the guidelines and against the spirit of Wikipedia. No removal of tags or major edits occurred on the Eatsies Afd. The same courtesy can be extended here.

The changes have been challenged and need to be debated.--WikiCats 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The changes made have been so broad scale and insidious that even the link to Easties was removed. --WikiCats 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Restore the link to Easties if you like, but it will have to be removed if Easties is deleted. The changes haven't been challenged until you tell us what is wrong with them. It is good thing to improve an article to address issues raised in a debate, even while the debate is still going on. That is how Wikipedia works, and the guidelines encourage it. The only question is whether they were improvements or not. JPD (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well let's start with the See also section. Why did you delete that? --WikiCats 11:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is fairly clear that the article is going to be deleted. I have already agreed that that may have been premature, so you could add it back in. That is a very minor point compared with the content of the article. JPD (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Macquarie reference claims to be an online reference but it is not online at all. Also the Scott Poynting reference can't be checked.--WikiCats 15:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Macquarie reference claims to be the online edition of the dictionary, which is online. There is no link given, as you have to pay $20 a year to subscribe to it. I don't see why the Scott Poynting reference can't be checked - find the book in a library and look it up, or even try [1]. You can't complain that an article has OR research, and then complain when someone bothers to add referenced material! JPD (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This phrase "refers to people from outer suburbs and a lower socio-economic background" is not neutral prose. The Macquarie Dictionary is not governed by guidelines but we are. --WikiCats 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what about the phrase is not neutral, but even if it weren't that would not be relevant. The sentence taken as a whole is neutral, which is all that matters. Isolating phrases from their context is a bad idea. JPD (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to the people from the Greater West of Sydney with terms such as "socio-economic" most certainly is POV. --WikiCats 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists (and encyclopedias!) all over the world use terms like 'socio-economic' when describing a group of people. The term only describes through what aspects of a group you're describing, it's not inherently POV. Please read Socioeconomics for more information. --JoanneB 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Joanne is absolutely right. On top of that, the phrase you complained about doesn't say anything at all about the people from the Greater West of Sydney. Even more importantly, the whole sentence is reporting what the dictionary says, rather than stating it as a fact, and so the only question as far as NPOV goes is whether it is whether the Macquarie Dictionary's view is worth reporting, and you would have to agree that the Mac is a pretty important and authoritative source when describing the use and meaning of Australian words. JPD (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary entry from the Macquarie dictionary

I found this entry in the Macquarie dictionary.

I'm not sure how much of this can be used verbatim due to copyright issues but the ideas are certainly valuable and should be incorporated into the article.

(Derogatory) a person from the western suburbs of Sydney, usually characterised as being unsophisticated, uncouth, and typically wearing certain distinguishing items of clothing, as flannelette shirts and ugh boots. The word is applied negatively to any people living west of one's own suburb, thus a Bondi inhabitant may call a person from Ryde a westie, but Ryde inhabitants would not consider themselves such, and instead apply the term to people from Parramatta, who in turn apply it to people from Penrith, etc.

--Richard 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is worth mentioning. Note that this is from the Macquarie Book of Slang, not the dictionary. The dictionary entry, as well as being more recent (I think) , takes a slightly different approach. JPD (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The article still has numerous problems with POV and a lack of neutral prose. --WikiCats 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not place NPOV tags on articles unless you are willing to spell out the problems in detail on the talk page. There is nothing non-neutral about the one example you have given so far. The only problems I can see are a lack of direct citations for the "Sydney, Australia" subsection, which also contains material that is borderline, and the "unintelligent", etc stereotype, which is not a POV problem at all. JPD (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you can see some problems. That's a start.

The history shows that I have been reviewing and editing this article since the start of the year. There have been big problems with prose and unreferenced original research and there still is. Individuals who wish to pigeon hole the vast bulk of Sydney’s population with sweeping generalisation based wholly and solely on where they happen to live at the time ought to be aware that I am not going anywhere.

There has just been an effort on the part of individual editors to consciously and deliberately create a huge NPOV problem for the Wikipedia. There was no effort on the part of those offended by the Easties article to clean it up. It was left in the shocking state it was to ensure its deletion. Those editors should be aware that this state of affairs is not being tolerated.

Be aware that the "Sydney name calling battle" will be documented in it entirety. (and in neutral prose) --WikiCats 12:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If your "Sydney name calling battle" is already documented, then it can be included in Wikipedia, in this article or otherwise. If not, it shouldn't be documented here, but that is not relevant to this discussion at all. Please stick to discussing this article. You have claimed there are POV problems here, but saying that you have been reviewing the article since the start of the year, or making accusations about other articles, does not back up this claim. JPD (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that you need to deal with JP is an obsession with targeting the vast bulk of Sydney’s population based solely on where they happen to live. It’s unchristian (and mainly indicates a lack of self-esteem). As an opposing view, you have a lot to offer in documenting Sydney’s name calling war. But if you expect to work with me you need to revert to more neutral prose. --WikiCats 13:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully WikiCats: I am not targeting the vast bulk of Sydney's population based on anything. I am trying to write about the term "westie". Nothing I have written endorses the use of the term, or says anythign abou the people of Western Sydney, other than that they have been associated with the stereotype. If you think I am opposing your view, you are mistaken. You still haven't given an example of any of my prose that is not neutral. JPD (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done something to the article JP because it does not look like it is working properly to me. --WikiCats 14:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Works fine for me. JPD (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

This reference says absolutely nothing.[2]

I've called for citations and if they are not provided soon I will be deleting the relevant contributions. --WikiCats 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing is a bit of an exaggeration, but it doesn't mention the politics stuff. Apart from that, the Macquarie Dictionary is a prefectly good source, online or otherwise. The fact that it is not freely accessible online is irrelevant, but a reference to the physical edition might be better - why don't you go down to the public library and look it up? Unfortunately, libraries near me aren't likely to have a Macquarie. I'm fairly sure that copying a dictionary entry in this context wouldn't be copyvio, but at any rate, I haven't copied it word for word, but slightly paraphrased the appropriate bits so that they fit in relevant part of the article, as you will see by comparing it with Capitalistroadster's quote at the deletion discussion. JPD (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simply someone living in the outer western suburbs

This contribution has always concerned me:

In Sydney, someone known as a "westie" is simply someone living in the outer western suburbs. Whoever did this article is clearly having a shot at "westies" by describing them all as bogans.

It was placed in Talk by anonymous contribuitor 220.239.46.253 on the 21st January 2006. (see above)

Is this true that a westie is simply someone from the Western suburbs and all these derogatory definitions are just origional research. Other publications could have very well used our article as a basis for their definition. We come up very high in Google.

If there is any truth in this then this is a disaster. This is not what we do.

I was born and raised in Sydney and I was down there last week. I never heard the term Westie used. (or Eastie for that matter)

The article was created by a New Zealander . --WikiCats 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

JPD has mentioned that westies has been around since at least the 80s. Maybe we should find a reference from back then to confirm what the definition was then. --WikiCats 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just pay more attention to the reliable sources than to comments on the talk page? The article is not only about Sydney, but as for the part that is about usage in Sydney, I would agree that it started as simply a geographical term, but as is normal with such terms it was used in a derogatory manner and associated with a stereotype. I would also agree that the term is probably still used in a simple geographical sense, and proudly by some - it would be good to get a reference for that. As for references from when the term originated, there aren't likely to be a huge number of serious references, because back then it was a slang neologism. Words like this are more likely to be documented when they have been around for a while and are widely used.

The idea that the stereotype and derogatory connotations are original research is quite frankly ridiculous. Look at all the sources. It is very hard to believe that the Macquarie Dictionary based it's entry on a Wikipedia article of this quality! It is even harder to believe that the Book of Slang (2000), the Poynting and Collins book (also 2000) used it as a reference 5 years before the article existed. It is true that I have heard the term used quite a bit, and if I based the article on that, it would be OR, but I don't have to, since there are reliable sources. It is also true that when the anon made the comment the article was probably mostly original research, and was trying to have a shot at westies. The article shouldn't do this, and doesn't any more. JPD (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

There is nothing particularly wrong with WikiCats' recent moving of info to form the Dict. Defs section, but as a matter of taste, I think it is better to have the information throughout the article as relevant. Even if we do have a Dict Defs section, it is important to have some indication in the lead that it is not only used for residents of western suburbs, otherwise we are unduly emphasising one usage of the term.

I removed the (cf. Easties) because it is not correct under any of the normal usages of "cf.". In the context of a definition, cf. often implies that the word defined derives from teh one referred to, which is not the case here. Apart from that, cf. means compare or consult. Since there is at the moment no Easties article to refer to, we should not say this. In any case, a simple (cf. Easties) is not very informative. If it is worth mentioning "Easties", I think it would be better to include at least a full sentence describing the use of Easties as an contrasting term somewhere in the article, with a reference, of course. JPD (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Maybe the page should be moved so that the entire class struggle can be described. --WikiCats 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:JPD in the short term. We are working on resurrecting the Easties article once we can put together an article that is Wikipedia-quality (referenced and not POV).

I sort of agree with User:WikiCats.

I think we need to step back from the Westies vs. Easties paradigm and consider a paradigm that describes all of Sydney's neighborhoods and cultures (both white and non-white). Now, I will start by saying that, as an American who has not been to Australia as an adult, I know next to nothing about these except what I have read in Wikipedia or the web.

That said, it seems that there are at least 5 major groupings of white people in Sydney: Easties, Suburbans, Shire folk, Bogans and Country Bogans. [3] (Note: Westies are NOT mentioned in this blog). Anyway, my point here is that it is a bit narrow in perspective to see Sydney as being a class struggle between the Easties and the Westies

Every city has neighborhoods with class and cultural differences.

In New York City, you have the South Bronx (desperately poor and crime ridden), Harlem (also poor and crime ridden), the Upper East Side (affluent upperclass), the West Side (middle class), Lower East Side (poor immigrants), Greenwich Village (artsy, bohemian), Chinatown (poor Chinese). Well, at least that's an approximation of the neighborhoods 25 years ago when I worked there. Immigration and gentrification have probably changed the character of the neighborhoods in the intervening 25 years.

Now, the point I'm making is that Sydney must have similar neighborhoods with similar class and cultural differences. It must also have similar trends in immigration and cultural differences. Focusing on Easties vs. Westies has to be a very narrow view of these differences. I would propose an article of wider scope that characterizes ALL of Sydney's neighborhoods and cultures. The Eastie vs. Westie distinction can be mentioned in the context of the larger picture. I'm not sure what this article should be titled.

--Richard 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We have other articles that deal with class issues such as Class conflict, Social class, Elitism, Social exclusion and Classism. The unique feature with this is the aspect of name calling based on where someone happens to live. Something along the lines of Class issues in Sydney may apply. We may choose to break out New Zealand into its own article.

At present we have the pressing issue of NPOV since Easties was deleted. Moving this page will address that problem. --WikiCats 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see moving this page as solving the NPOV problem. I see resurrecting Easties as the solution to that problem. What I envision is an article with a title something like Neighborhoods and cultures of Sydney. This article would be a Wikipedia-quality treatment of the different cultures described in this blog. I never knew what an Eastie or a Westie was until a week ago. I never knew what shire folk or bogans were until a few days ago. I still don't really know what shire folk and bogans are. An article that surveys all of these terms would be great.

Once that article is written, separate articles could be written about each of the subgroups: Westies, Easties, shire folk, bogans, country bogans, etc.

All of this should be written in an NPOV tone. That is, in a detached, objective anthropological sort of way. It should not be "Westies are bad" or "Easties are bad". Easties are affluent, some of them are conspicuous consumers and thus there is a stereotype. This kind of class distinction exists everywhere.

However, I want to draw your attention to something which has been said about Sydney

Like it or not, Sydney stereotypes you according to where you live. We may like to think of ourselves as a global city - seamless and united - but we are not. We are as parochial about our geography as we are about our football teams.

Writer Jan Morris once said Sydney was not so much a city as a mass of villages, each with its own character and identity. But in one sense it's simpler than that. Sydney is a collection of territories with invisible borders and many of us are not interested in crossing over.

To some extent, it's an Australian phenomenon. Almost 20 per cent of Australians moved house in 2001-02, according to a survey by the Melbourne Institute, but 43 per cent of movers relocated to an address less than five kilometres away, while almost two-thirds moved less than 15 kilometres.

But it's especially strong in Sydney, says Professor Stephanie Hemelryk Donald, a British-born lecturer in transforming cultures at the University of Technology, Sydney, who has lived in four Australian capital cities.

"Parochialism can be a really positive thing," she says. "They define our roots - where you feel powerful and where you feel confident. It takes a lot of courage to move outside those boundaries."

The above comes from this article which is referenced in the Westies (people) article.

--Richard 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Richard, I think you have missed some vital facts in your effort to sort this out. While there is a place for a good article on parochialism in Sydney, or something like that, the term "westy" has moved beyond being simply a geographic term. This article shouldn't be about some "class struggle" , but about the use of the term "Westy" and the stereotypes attached to it. I suggest you don't take that blog too seriously, as it is nothing but one person joining in the stereotyping with their own ideas, rather than objectively looking at the stereotypes. Even the radar article which is a bit more serious (note that radar describes itself as an irreverent swipe at the world of news), simply tries to go to the four compass points.

The westy term, having spread beyond Sydney as well as having similar origins in NZ, deserves an article of its own. I don't see how there is a possibly a NPOV problem with that, whether Easties exists or not, unless the article is poorly written and basically says "westies are bad". The only reason "easties" need to be mentioned in this article is because that term is a response to the subject of this article, and so it is relevant, not because there is a need to describe an opposing stereotype. When and if "easties" is as significant as a word in Australian (or even Sydney) culture as "westies", there should be an article on it as well, but it is definitely not the case that we should have both or neither. In the meantime, we should concentrate on neutrally describing the issues. As Richard says, it isn't simply about westies v easties - it isn't even simply about class. JPD (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the "Westy" term deserves an article of its own outside the context of Sydney. It may have spread outside Sydney to other parts of Australia but I would want to see evidence of it being a commonly used term outside Sydney (and New Zealand).

Here's my point... Westy can't have much of a meaning outside Sydney and New Zealand because it is a geographical designation of a socioeconomic and ethnic grouping. While this kind of grouping may exist in other cities, it will not necessarily have the same geographic location in that city.

A speculation - Westy may have a similar meaning in all major Australian cities on the east coast because the east part of the city is near the water (desirable climate) and the west part of the city is inland (less desirable climate and farther from the beaches and harbors). This is pure speculation and I would like to have it be confirmed or debunked by somebody who actually knows Australia.

Here are some examples of my point about the limited range of the term Westy.

In Los Angeles, people who live in West L.A. are not called Westies and, by the way, they are far more affluent than those who live in East L.A. East L.A. is the poor, crime-ridden area and West L.A. is the upscale, tony affluent area. West L.A. is right next to the even more affluent neighborhoods of Brentwood (think O.J. Simpson), Belair and Beverly Hills. If I remember correctly, West Hollywood is more affluent than Hollywood. (BTW, in Los Angeles, west is near the water and east is inland).

In Boston, I believe "Southie" refers to poor white people who live in South Boston - maybe similar to the Westies in Sydney, I'm not sure. There is no "West Boston" but the west part of metropolitan Boston is more affluent (Back Bay, Brookline, Cambridge). This is a gross generalization.

In New York, it's "uptown" vs. "downtown" although demographic shifts have made these more colloquial phrases than actually referring to a geographic area. Upper West Side is more artsy and less affluent than Upper East Side but there is no term "Westies".

In Atlanta, it used to be "inside the Perimeter" vs. "outside the Perimeter" (though probably less so now). North Atlanta is more affluent than South Atlanta.

Every city has socioeconomic classes and these tend to live in neighborhoods (with ethnicity being a major determinant as well). And slang terms often arise to describe people who live in these neighborhoods. The terms may or may not be notable. Depends on how widely it's used and whether people outside that particular city know of the term.

What I'm arguing for is an article that documents what Professor Stephanie Hemelryk Donald says in the SMH Radar article: that parochialism is especially strong in Sydney. Is it? If so, this characteristic should be documented and expanded on. Maybe the categories of Sydney residents that are documented in this blog are more humorous and snide than accurate but the point is that stereotypes exist. Let's document them all in one or more Wikipedia-quality articles.

--Richard 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am all for an article expanding parochialism in Sydney. It would be a very interesting article, if decent sources could be found. (The blog is rubbish, the radar article is acceptable, but it would be good to get a more academic approach.) I am disturbed however that you base your understanding on these sorts of blogs and articles and then ask for evidence that the term is used outside Sydney. Is it not enough that a serious work like the Macquarie Dictionary specifically says "From Sydney this word has spread throughout the country, despite the fact that the people so designated do not necessarily reside in the western part of an area." and in the definition says from the outer suburbs, rather than western suburbs? The fact that it is not also used in the US does not mean we should restrict the article to Sydney.

Ugh. Flog me with a wet noodle for not reading the "From Sydney..." part of the definition. No, you're right, the Macquarie dictionary definition is enough support. Strike EVERYTHING I wrote about restricting the Westies article to Sydney.

One question that I have now is whether the term is restricted to Australia or applies widely to New Zealand or just to Auckland.

And, in light of the above, because Westies is not just a term referring to those who live in west Sydney, it would not be just a subsidiary article of the (as yet unwritten) Parochialism in Sydney article.

Another question that I have is whether "Easties" is a term that is used widely only in Sydney or whether it has also gained currency nationwide in the same way that "Westies" has.

--Richard 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says the term is restricted to Auckland in NZ, but we dont' have a source for that. Grutness seems to heard of the term outside Auckland, but didn't remove that statement. In my opinion, "Easties" isn't as widely used as "Westies" even in Sydney, let alone other areas, but this is only backed up by a lack of sources. JPD (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm finding this debate very exciting. On balance I would say that I support Richard's position. I support the proposal to cover all the issues in Sydney whether it's by moving this page or starting another. What it is called, I'm not to fussed. I'm sure we will work something out. Do you support that JP? --WikiCats 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

An article dealing with parochialism or neighbourhoods and cultures (it really isn't solely about class) would be very interesting, but it woudl take a lot of effort to make it a good article, rather than letting it degenerate into OR garbage. If that article does get off the ground, I'll probably try to help with it when I can, but in any case, this article is worth improving in its own right. JPD (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What, it IS a forum about what you think about people from West Sydney?

I was OK with having the "not a forum" tag on this Talk Page. What motivated WikiCats to remove it? Does he now think that it IS a forum for that? I certainly hope not.

--Richard 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was an attempt to have a go at me. I'm fine with it. --WikiCats 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article based on references or are others using us as the reference?

Above I said: "Other publications could have very well used our article as a basis for their definition." The definition [4] says plainly that they used us in defining Westies. This is a disaster. This is not what we do. --WikiCats 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is actually exactly what Wikipedia does - brings together all sorts of information (properly referenced, etc.), which is then available for anyone to use or copy within the GFDL. This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the info is based on references, as we shouldn't even think of using something like that as a source for this article. Instead, we use reliable sources like the Macquarie dictionary and published books and articles. The fact that our article is used so broadly is all the more reason for us to make sure the material in it is based on reliable sources. JPD (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parochialism in Sydney

After general agreement, I have created Parochialism in Sydney. You are welcome to contribute to it. --WikiCats 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion shortly after creation as being an "anti-Sydney rant, POV/OR and a soapbox". And, I have to admit, the first incarnation of the article was vulnerable to those criticisms. We (WikiCats and I) have worked to improve the article but we now have to overcome the negative initial reactions of those who have already voted on the AfD.

You are invited to check out Parochialism in Sydney article and comment on the AfD discussion page. Thanx.

--Richard 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)