Talk:Southshore, New Zealand

"socio economic status"

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Stats-and-facts-on-Christchurch/2022-Community-Profiles/2022-Community-Profile-Coastal-Ward.pdf

NOTE - Southshore is one of the least deprived areas in the wider Brighton area 153.111.229.202 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is in the coastal ward, not the city itself, the reference I mentioned earlier states that it is a lower-socio economic community/suburb. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Before the earthquakes South Shore properties were above average for Christchurch and certainly the most expensive along the coastline, even above the newly built houses at Waimari Beach. If it has gone downhill since then it will be because the richer owners have moved out due to sea-rise worries and no insurance, leaving behind houses that are rented out to lower socio-economic tenants. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Tipene O'Regan used to live here, untill his house got red-zoned (like ours). Southshore is still is a lower-socio economic community like most of east chc (incl Linwood). What is interesting about Southshore is the Māori history compared to other suburbs of chc (e.g Hillsborough)

I will restore this content if no further obligations are made. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what South Shore looks like now, I haven't been there for a long time. I do know that New Brighton looks pretty derelict. It has always been a bit run-down despite the council's efforts to upgrade it, but now it looks almost abandoned. I'm surprised people still buy property there though, with all the warning that it will be under water in 50 years time, which applies for much of the east side. The lifestyle there now seems pretty appealing to a certain group, making it a great place to live if you're renting without the worry of seeing your land and possibly only asset sinking into the ocean. Agree about Linwood, which suffers the same fate. The mall used to be a vibrant shopping area with a Farmers and other major tenants. Since the quakes it survives only as a community precinct, not a proper shopping mall. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Eastgate is a dead mall - many businesses closed in recent years (incl in Brighton).

We used to live closer to Brighton until our house got red-zoned we then shifted to Papanui. I think there is interesting info about these suburbs, but I haven't really looked into it. I knew prior to editing this page there was some Maori presence in Southshore/South Brighton. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

All of this chat is anecdotal not informational; it reads like a comments page on facebook. Read the report, note the detail on mapping of the area, and note the deprivation index for Southshore is extremely low. The report shows clearly the different areas within the coastal ward. The deprivation index is nationally used. A book published in the UK with a brief reference is not a good choice as a reference source.

Use this: https://massey.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Embed/index.html?webmap=bd6277d69e844652917bf174ee017c64&extent=164.7366,-47.4217,180,-34.200%20&zoom=true&scale=true&search=true&searchextent=true&details=true&legend=true&active_panel=legend&disable_scroll=true&theme=light

You'll see that Southshore and Merivale have the same deprivation score. If you think things have changed substantially since 2018 you will have to wait for the release of the current census data.

Eastgate is not in Southshore, and neither is Linwood, comments relating to those areas are irrelevant. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There are different sources sating that it IS a low-socio economic suburb and other sources stating that is not. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/research/groups/research-groups-in-the-department-of-public-health/hirp/socioeconomic-deprivation-indexes-nzdep-and-nzidep-department-of-public-health

It is not a low socio-economic area. If you don't understand the index or statistical data then do not make assertions, and do not keep putting false information into the article. Anecdotes about Eastgate mall are not research, and do not relate to the Southshore article.

Leave the statement out, you cannot support it. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The area has always been a reasonably affluent one. Best to avoid saying otherwise without clear evidence that Southshore is now low socio-economic. Also best to use statistical data with care. Student and CCC analysis of statistics is not ideal either and should also be used with care. A proper independent secondary source is better if available. To user:153.111.229.202, your tone doesn't help your case, nor the Council's if you are using its IP address. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Roger here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsure what you mean by student data. The CCC report is directly from government collected data. I think the researchers / academics at Massey and Otago universities might disagree with your assertion - a secondary source with a brief mention, from an academic in the UK, and published in the UK is not a good source. Primary sources are the place to go. Note both links above are to data from govt.nz

Unsure why using a shared IP address provided by a public library is a problem. Where are you from Roger 8 Roger? If by tone you mean asking you to stay on topic and not conflating Linwood and Eastgate Mall with Southshore, then I suggest you refrain from making off topic comments which are judgemental in tone. If the talk on this talk page had stayed on topic there would have been no need to point out the irrelevant and anecdotal nature of the comments. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say student data. If you don't understand the problems arising from an IP using a shared email address on Wikipedia then ask someone who does. The subject was the decile level of Southshore and whether it had gone down post-quake which is directly related to the same issues affecting most of the east side. A couple of posts, read in context, that mention Linwood and Eastgate, or the appalling neglected state of New Brighton, is therefore not off topic. By tone I mean tone - look it up. I never said the secondary source in question was a good source to use here. Statistical data is primary. Its direct interpreted use here can often amount to personal opinion so we must do what I said: "handle with care", not "don't use it". A government, any government, is not an independent or necessarily reliable publisher so, once again, "handle with care". It's quite normal for anonymous new entrants hiding behind a shared IP to enter the fray all guns blazing. They either disappear or less often reconsider their approach and settle down to making a useful contribution alongside other editors. I hope you take the latter approach. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You wrote : "Student...analysis"

The subject of this talk topic was the mistaken assertion that Southshore was a "low socio economic area", not the wider area; the comments were off-topic.

There is no problem with using a shared IP address : "anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia" and "Anonymous editing is embraced and welcomed."

"Wikipedia exists to create a neutral, high quality encyclopedia" : it is not neutral to move off-topic to comments such as this: "I'm surprised people still buy property there though, with all the warning that it will be under water in 50 years time, which applies for much of the east side. The lifestyle there now seems pretty appealing to a certain group, making it a great place to live if you're renting" or "because the richer owners have moved out due to sea-rise worries and no insurance, leaving behind houses that are rented out to lower socio-economic tenants." These are judgemental and are personal opinions, not facts. This discussion should stay on the topic of improving the article on Southshore.

It is inappropriate to resort to personal attacks : "anonymous new entrants hiding behind a shared IP" and you shouldn't make assumptions about editors experience.

Again: Anonymous editing is embraced and welcomed. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Good-bye. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Quote: "Southshore is one of the least deprived areas in the wider Brighton area."

My interpretation of the linked source is that:

1. Southshore is a decile 4 moderately deprived area, putting it mid-range of socioeconomic areas in Christchurch overall.
2. Coastal Ward is overall more deprived than the average in Christchurch (as per the final graph on page 5).

Given the apparent contentiousness of the topic, I propose we leave out the claim that the residents are of lower socio-economic status. Instead, we could mention that Southshore is a decile-4 moderately deprived area, and scores about average on the city-wide deprivation index. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The source shows Southshore as a decile 3 to 4 area, and all you need to do, if you feel it is relevant, is put that in, noting that 10 represents the most deprived area. I think you should stay away from this in general, unless you are going to go through all the Christchurch suburb articles and establish their socioeconomic range. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References and interpretation

Reference: Norris article

The Norris Press article [2005] explicitly states that the tsunami risk has made "no difference to people's desire to buy" from "Northshore to Southshore". Very unclear how this article could be interpreted in completely the opposite way. Do not make statements that are not backed up by the reference material.

The Norris article is interpreted as ""the suburb being less popularised in recent years with other home buyers appealing to further inland suburbs such as Shirley and Burwood"

This statement: "In recent years after the earthquakes, there has been descending change of population and popularity of the suburb." This statement is referenced to a 2006 publication (local history group). Seems unlikely a 2006 publication talked about the 2010/2011 earthquakes, and any changes following.

"Low socio economic status": this keeps being added in several places, despite the 2022 Coastal ward report showing Southshore as among the least deprived areas in the wider ward (3 to 4 on the social deprivation ranking).

153.111.229.202 (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Plz stop messing with us, the statement was covered in a diffrent reference. (I think) this article is one of the "best" articles relating to suburbs in Christchurch... the sources are acceptable and more reliable then most online sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are errors and references don't match some of the statements. The article needs work. Address the issues not the messenger. You posted earlier that it was an "edit war"; corrections are not an edit war, and ensuring that there are references to support statements is normal practice on articles. Interpreting reference sources should be accurate; the Norris article said something completely different from what was written in the article. 153.111.229.202 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is just one example, I forgot to add the other reference I read a few days earlier. This template will be removed soon since it isn't valid here nor is it contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Have returned the needs citations as going on your past work ALL citations will need to be double-checked. On a basic check I corrected 4 basic errors, none of which were supported by the works you had cited. To be fair, one of the assertions didn't have a citation at all. As I said in the edit screen you have self nominated this article for good article status. It needs significant checking, as it has already presented a false narrative in a number of areas. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just done a GAN-style spot-check of inline citations and have not revealed any major problems. Therefore I am removing the template.

NB: There was one citation that did support the text, but I have removed because it was a weak reference for a non-controversial fact. Plus there was already a reference for the fact. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: alexeyevitch had already removed the template, which was perhaps a bit premature but valid considering that there are no major problems with sources. Especially so now that I have verified the sources in a spot-check. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Southshore is prone to coastal related hazards such as tsunamis, floods, and sea level rise. "

This fact is established later in the article. As per WP:LEAD the lead does not need to be referenced, because the facts are established in the sources later in the article.

Additionally, "maybe" would read better as "may be". David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Facts don't appear to established in the article, until this is a well referenced and well written article the lead should remain brief. 155.32.24.101 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, those facts were fairly well established. To remove any doubt, I have sprinkled in some more inline citations to the paragraph on coastal hazards. I will also restore the mention of these hazards in the leads. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviews of the text would be useful. For example, properties were red stickered, not red zoned. All coastal areas in New Zealand are prone either to any of tsunamis, floods or sea rise (not necaessarily all three) so is there any point mentioning what seems to be a generalisation of no particular note. It might be more accurate to delve into that topic in the article with specific reference to Southshore. Although having much in common, all east side suburbs have their own peculiarities regarding natural hazard risk, meaning any references should preferably be about Southshore itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Comfort (1995) MA thesis I am referencing in that paragraph is specifically about coastal hazards in Southshore. Apparently Southshore has some specific vulnerabilities (more-so than much of NZ) because it is a sand-spit backed by an estuary. If you would like to expand this topic please go ahead, a PDF of the thesis is linked, and it is quite thorough. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick fact-check Roger, you said For example, properties were red stickered, not red zoned. but according to sources a portion of the suburb was in-fact red-zoned, along the western side of the spit facing the estuary. Here is a source from The Press that shows this. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a look although I make no promises to make changes - time restrictions. Although I'm sure it's accurate, I'm not sure MA theses are ideal RSSs. I have used doctoral theses as a reference before but always paired them with more traditionally published works. However, many theses are published in reputable journals which for me makes them fine to use. I usually put useful academic theses that have only been put on to a university website into the wp:External links section. However, I might be being over cautious in that regard. Some of the best information I have found on a topic comes from students' theses. About this article, Transport is not Transportation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree the MA thesis alone is not ideal. Due to the concerns raised about reliable referencing by the IP editor, I've also acquired copies of the offline sources used elsewhere in the article. They may add some additional support to the coastal hazards coverage.

I'll also be doing a thorough source check and adding additional inline citations. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The book I showed you in-person has some content relating to coastal hazards, this could be used in the article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Answering above - sorry I'm not coordinated. That Press article isn't a proper source for this. The issue is not of fact but of sloppy English, which that journalist has used. The land is what is zoned, not the buildings on it. Either the house was red-stickered or the house is now in a red zone. If some people say casually say 'My house has been red zoned, it certainly isn't encyclopedic level English. I also can't recall ever hearing the term used that way, but seeing this Press article, I have now. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify further, the house sticker stuck on the front door was in three colours, which related to its supposed suitability to live in, determination of which included structural soundness. One sticker was red - meaning not to be occupied. It was different from the land zoning. Anyone living in Chch then will be very familiar with the stickers. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer/GAN review

FYI I don’t think I’m going to get enough time to do a proper GAN review. Instead I’ll try to find time to do some copyediting and additional sources.

Also a note, “The Estuary” by Sarah Penney is probably not very reliable. She apparently had a reputation for being pretty poor at writing academic histories. Additionally this specific book was self-published posthumously with basically no editorial oversight. It is probably fine to cite it but if other sources can be used, we should prefer them. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will priortize work on some other suburbs (especially Opawa) there is a book about Opawa which I plan to aquire. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I would happily support this article for a GA review. Not really sure how this process works though Dhantegge (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I was initally skeptical about reviewing a GA nomination but eventually understood how the system works after reading a guide. Another user might be able to review it if you're not comfortable yet. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southshore, New Zealand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 22:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response Voorts, I traveled to the Banks Peninsula this morning but I'm back in Christchurch. Thanks for beginning this review. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I am quick-failing this nomination. I believe that the sourcing issues combined with the content and reorganization changes are so significant that they need to be addressed before another review is attempted.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've made some minor copy edits to the article for concision, grammar, and clarity, and I've also reorganized some things, but I didn't go through this with a fine-toothed comb so there might be some more issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Minor MOS:WTW issue noted below.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See source review below.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Seems fine from Earwig's tool.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See comments below.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See comment below.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I've identified a copyright concern with this image, which has since been replaced with two other images that have valid licenses.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Not required for GA, but some images need alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Preliminaries:
  • I started taking these notes before some of your intervening revisions so some of these notes might be moot.
  • Many of the following comments apply to similar text in the lead.
• Not required for GA:
  • When you cite 2 or more pages using {{sfn}} citations, you should use "pp" as the parameter instead of "p".
  • This article uses a mix of refs and (multiple) short footnotes. Generally, you should defer to the article's existing citation stytle.
• Like the rest of Christchurch, the Māori were the first settlers to the area. – Specify when they (likely) first settled the area.
• Archaeological evidence of middens in the area combined with the Māori history – "Māori history" is vague – in the area indicates a high potential for the presence of archaeology in the area. – Do you mean "artefacts" rather than "archaeology"? Addiitonally, the sources cited here are dated 1971, 2013, and 2015. Have there been any archaeological surveys since then? Is there more recent research on the archaeological findings of the area?
• In Southshore's early years, a local jogger presumably discovered a wharenui totem in the sand dunes near Tern Street, but others dispute this, as there is no documentation. – First, specify when this happened. Second, how is there evidence that a local jogger discovered the totem if nobody documented it?
• Regarding the sentence that begins There was a walking track ... and the following sentence, specify when these tracks existed.
• The "European settlement" section should be in chronological order. It starts at some point [p]rior to the 20th century, then goes to 1916, 1940–1945, 1958, 1954, 1953, the late 1940s, 1967, "a few decades ago", and the present.
• Regarding the history of European settlement, the article states: Prior to the 20th century the area was known locally to early European settlers as "Sandhills Run". As more settlers arrived, they constructed baches and established a dairy station in the suburb. This should be more specific. When did European settlers begin to arrive? When did they begin to call it "Sandhills Run"? When did the "more settlers" arrive, and when were the baches and dairy built? Also, in the lead, you link to dairy, but here you link to dairy farming. Was this a dairy farm or something else? Dairy farms tend to be in rural locations, not suburbs, so I'm a bit confused.
• There was sparse transportation and lack of facilities in the area in the early twentieth century and Southshore had very few permanent residents. – Specify what sort of "transportation" (roads? public transit?) and "facilities" (bars? restaurants? libraries?).
• A local resident between 1940 and 1945 ... – Is this verified by sources other than a local resident? What evidence is there that this occurred?
• in use of six sections – What does this mean?
• Development in the suburb was slow ... seems to be contradicted by the first sentence of the immediately following paragraph, which states Southshore grew rapidly and was heavily urbanised after World War II in the late 1940s.
• soon receiving a water supply until 1954 – Did you mean to say "receiving a water supply in 1954"? In any event, this is unclear because how could they have lived without a source of water until 1954?
• Channelling and kerbs were installed to the suburbs main road – Specify when.
• between 1000 and 2000 years ago – Specify the actual dates.
• carried southward along? the east coast of the South Island
• Christchurch has no official definition of the boundaries of suburbs, and as a result there may be inconsistencies between sources about some boundaries. A sign is also located on Caspian Street indicating Southshore's presumed boundaries. – This should be stated in the body, not in an endnote, and the various definitions should be discussed with due and balanced weight.
• Everything between It had a population of 1,041 ... and 2.3% had other religions needs a citation.
• had no formal qualifications – This is vague. Does this mean didn't finish university? High school?
• attracted an older demographic to the area. – Specify when they were "attracted" and define "older demographic" (e.g., middle-aged working people or pensioners).
• hit hard – How hard?
• Damage was caused to houses and land. – Specify how much damage.
• In August 2011, residents were informed ... – This paragraph is undue in the context of a summary article on the neighborhood rather than a more-specific article on red-zoning controversies in New Zealand (if such an article exists or ought to be written). I don't think we need tick-tock reporting of the cycles of notices, delays, and apologies.
• The first paragraph of the Transport section appears to be a bit disjointed. The first two sentences are about the Māori, and then all of a sudden there's a sentence about bridges, followed by an axed 10-year-old chain-ferry project.
• Road access to Southshore was very uneven and overgrown with gorse and lupin. – When?
• suburb of Wigram (not Hillmorton) – Why does "not Hillmorton" need to be specified?
• In European times, a longstanding aspiration of many people in Christchurch is a bridge across the estuary connecting the area of Southshore to Sumner. – Who are these "many people". (See MOS:WEASEL.)
• Absent from the discussion about how Southshore was named are the views of the Māori.

Source review (and two spot checks)

Review of just some of the references from this version. I haven't looked at all of the references.

• Rowlands, Moore & Osborn (2006) is published by the Southshore Residents' Association History Group. I have been unable to find any information about this "history group", but my educated guess would be that a local residents' history group of a 1,500 person area is probably not a reliable source.
• I have been unable to find information about Walsh (1971). Who is the author, what's his expertise, etc.?
• Comfort (M.A., 1995), Biggs (M.A., 1947), and Macpherson (1978) are unreliable per WP:THESIS.
• O'Brien (2008) is titled Memories of Pleasant Point Yacht Club, 1921–1980 and published by the Pleasant Point Yacht Club.
• Owen (1992) is published by the Christchuch City Council and has the following note in its National Library catalog entry: "Mobil Environmental Awareness. Made possible by an environmental grant from Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd."
• Brailsford (1981) is published by a Borough Council.
• Moore Davis (2015) is unreliable because it is the affidavit of a retained expert that was filed in a formal proceeding.
• A page is still needed for this cite: Hillier 2006, pp. 45–46, cited in Rowlands, Moore & Osborn 2006.
• LINZ does not support the statement: The western side of the Southshore spit commands views of the estuary, other eastern suburbs of Christchurch, and parts of the Hillsborough spur (emphasis added). The phrase "commands views" requires a reliable source.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.