Talk:Chaps/Archive 1

Please discuss and present proposed additions for any issues surrounding the pronunciation of "chaps" in this section. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary when discussing this issue. Dreadstar † 05:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose beginning with one simple (but well-footnoted) sentence, moved from section above. Note also that I checked the OED, which, like most dictionaries, lists both pronunciations without any regional explanations. But if you want, I can add it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)  :

The pronunciation of the word chaps, as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders in the American West, particularly the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada is with an "sh" pronunciation (/ʃ/ shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA /tʃ/ chaps).<ref>Dictionary of American Regional English</ref><ref>Price, Steven D., ed. The Whole Horse Catalogue. New York: Simon and Schuster/Brigadore Press, 1977, p. 168</ref><ref>"Buckaroos in Paradise - Glossary" American Memory from The Library of Congress. Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Cowboy Chinks and Chaps-Pronouncing chinks and chaps." Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"February 2007 Westerners: Wild and Wooly Chaps." The History Net. Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Rodeo terminology." Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Chaps: Pronounced shaps, no matter what you may have heard or what your dictionary says." Parker, Jameson. An Accidental Cowboy Thomas Dunne Books; 1st edition, 2003. p. 271. ISBN-10: 0312310242, ISBN-13: 978-0312310240</ref><ref>Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215</ref><ref>"A Cowboy's Personal Gear," web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Museum and Happy Trails Theater, p. 17</ref><ref>"Cowboy," Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Web page accessed September 2, 2007</ref> This may reflect, in part, a similar regional variation in pronunciation of related words such as chaparral.<ref>Dictionary of American Regional English</ref><ref>The word "Chaparral" spoken</ref><ref>"Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” thereby mimicking the sound of the original Spanish terms chaparejos or chaparreras." Slatta, Richard W. The Cowboy Encyclopedia. W. W. Norton & Company,1996, p. 64 ISBN-10: 0393314731, ISBN-13: 978-0393314731</ref>

Please format the refs in this fashion for this exercise:

*[www.cnn.com article title] ''source''

e.g.

• article title cnn.com

Other Wikipedia articles such as the Dictionary of American Regional English are not reliable sources that can be used to reference article content.

And when adding the references to the actual article, please do not mix all the refs together under a summary "refs include, x,y,z,a,b", it's confusing and hard to read in the referencing section. Please format per WP:CITE. Dreadstar † 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an accurate and NPOV statement. As with many editing battles, references start to pile up. I would be in favor of cherrypicking the best references and leaving the statement as is. But, since this seems to be so controversial, retaining all references, which all appear to reinforce the statement, would be reasonable. Or, would a 'Sources' heading take care of this, by decluttering the initial statement, but retaining the complete list of sources?

Well, then just cite Dictionary of American Regional English. Wikilinked or not, DARE is the authority on American regional English. I don't own a copy but my library does, and I photocopied the relevant pages. --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started by citing the articles individually. I do not have a copy of DARE, so an external link will have to be substituted by someone else.--Getwood (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you want? --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The full citation which you list below is more what I meant. The external link is just a description of what DARE does. (It does look like an entertaining book).--Getwood (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, differences of pronunciation can be addressed better on Wiktionary. Also, I recommend putting the above statement through Wiktionary's verification process. There are some problems of evidence here. For instance, if the text does not "explain" the pronunciation, does that mean the author says "chaps"? If the text says "chaps (shaps)" does it mean the author acknowledges one pronunciation (shaps) or two? Or is the author merely noting the variant spelling? If the text makes a big deal about "shaps" being correct and "chaps" being ignorant, does that mean "shaps" is the only pronunciation in the author's home town, or does it mean "shaps" is fighting a losing battle there and "chaps" is winning? This is all so not encyclopedic, except as an encyclopedia article about The chaps shaps debate, dudes vs yahoos, in which there are no winners, only nitpickers. See also Tomato#Pronunciation, which mentions usage worldwide. Chaps has nowhere near a worldwide view of its topic. --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this version? --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the western United States and Canada many people pronounce chaps with an "sh" (/ʃ/ shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA /tʃ/ chaps), and the word is sometimes spelled shaps or schaps.<ref>Dictionary of American Regional English</ref> Some people who say schaps become upset whenever they hear anyone else say chaps.<ref>Price, Steven D., ed. The Whole Horse Catalogue. New York: Simon and Schuster/Brigadore Press, 1977, p. 168</ref><ref>"Buckaroos in Paradise - Glossary" American Memory from The Library of Congress. Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Cowboy Chinks and Chaps-Pronouncing chinks and chaps." Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"February 2007 Westerners: Wild and Wooly Chaps." The History Net. Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Rodeo terminology." Web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>"Chaps: Pronounced shaps, no matter what you may have heard or what your dictionary says." Parker, Jameson. An Accidental Cowboy Thomas Dunne Books; 1st edition, 2003. p. 271. ISBN-10: 0312310242, ISBN-13: 978-0312310240</ref><ref>Sandilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215</ref><ref>"A Cowboy's Personal Gear," web site accessed September 2, 2007</ref><ref>Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Museum and Happy Trails Theater, p. 17</ref><ref>"Cowboy," Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Web page accessed September 2, 2007</ref> "Shaps" is an attempt by Anglo cowboys to mimic the soft "ch" as pronounced by their Spanish (Mexican) counterparts.<ref>"Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” thereby mimicking the sound of the original Spanish terms chaparejos or chaparreras." Slatta, Richard W. The Cowboy Encyclopedia. W. W. Norton & Company,1996, p. 64 ISBN-10: 0393314731, ISBN-13: 978-0393314731</ref>

Or this one:

In the western United States and Canada more people pronounce chaps /ʃ/ than /tʃ/, and the word is sometimes spelled accordingly shaps or schaps.<ref>Dictionary of American Regional English, Eds. Frederic G. Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Volume I, A-C, 1985, ISBN 0-674-20511-1, page 592.</ref>

For what it's worth, I expect the original pronunciation in California and points northeast of there was "shaps", but it is shifting to "chaps". But Wikipedia is not about what we think is true, it is about what we can document in reliable sources without extrapolation. --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Una, this topic appears to have upset you. It seems to me that Montanabw had already deleted much of her original "dudes" verbage. I think her sentence stands just fine. But, I'm OK with your second version. (Although your first is more fun). Let's put the sentence in and move on.--Getwood (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it though? Not upset in the least. But, also not giving up. Consensus is achieved by working it out, not by giving up. --Una Smith (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you weren't upset. I'd hate to see what you would write if you were upset. I would like to say, in reference to your comment about a worldwide view, that an interpretation of western US/cowboy culture by "the world" doesn't seem as relevant as the culture itself. We all agree that chaps in their current form originated as a tool used by cowboys. While DARE is an incredible undertaking, and is unmatched in its efforts, it is not without flaw. For one thing, a quick look through the Board of Visitors reveals a large Eastern bias. Additionally, this is really more a consideration of industry jargon than regional dialect. To me, sources which reference regional instead of technical language are not the definitive source in a technical article. If I may quote my friend from Texas, who grew up in a ranching community and still works for a large ranching operation, "There is no other way in Texas (or anywhere else I know of) to pronounce chaps other than SHaps." Once again, I agree that this debate has run its course and my honest intention is not to stir the pot. My point is that we are not dealing with regional terminology, but industry terminology. Canada to Texas, it's a cowboy word pronounced a cowboy way. In my industry, I hear non-experts talk about 'burnicular' disease, bringing their mares in to be 'palpitated' and treating a horse with oral 'electriclights'. To have a worldwide perspective, should these be given credibility as well?--Getwood (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't write when upset. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Una and I do share the trait of not giving up! This is such a tempest over one sentence. What the problem is here, is that, through ignorance and misunderstanding, particularly within the "leather community," (who really don't really seem to care about the traditional use of the garment), as opposed to the motorcycle crowd,( the other large segment who wear this garment for practical purposes) who does say "shaps" is correct, there MIGHT be language drift from "shaps" to "chaps." However, to say that would be "original research." Other then people from the east coast moving out west and saying "ch" chaps because they don't know any better, I can assure you that there is no change in the word within the horse community. Further, the word has not been spelled "shaps" or "schaps" in literature since about the 1920's. I can live with some language to the effect that "sh" pronunciation was derived from an anglicization of Mexican Spanish, (so is "buckaroo" from vaquero, for example) but the phrasing "an attempt by Anglo cowboys to mimic ..." is horribly condescending in tone (trust me, it is, and plays on the 'cowboys are ignorant' stereotype). And it was in fact the original, traditional pronunciation of the word. At least, if the people who first adopted the garment from the vaqueros have any right to name it... Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about phrasing the last bit as thus: "Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” an Anglicazation of the 19th century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of the words chaparejos or chaparreras." (With footnoting) Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if with proof that all cowboys pronounce it "shaps". --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the above "Cowboys ... Anglicazation" carries the implicit definition of WASPs working in animal husbandry in a certain part of western North America. That is the narrowest possible definition, and a long-standing problem with Cowboy. --Una Smith (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One last point. "Chaps" are not a worldwide piece of equipment; this is not a tomayto/tomahto issue. It is an issue of a garment that developed from within the Spanish equestrian and cattle-raising tradition into its present form in the American west by circa 1870 or so, and thus the terminology used to describe it also needs to show respect for the traditions of the American west, where the garment is still used for both show and work purposes. I am willing to remove (and DID remove) all references to the "ch" pronunciation reflecting ignorance, but let's not go to the other extreme. As I have said before, this isn't my opinion, it is sourced from many, many places, and in fact I really wonder if any single other terminology question on wikipedia is as extensively sourced. Improving the quite poor Wiktionary article can also be looked at, but what is going on here is a perfectly encyclopedic comment on appropriate usage. One. Lousy. Sentence. Let's come to an agreement on phrasing and then go on. We all have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaps are used in other regions, and no one has the right to dictate how anyone else should pronounce a word. Certainly not on Wikipedia, which describes, not prescribes. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Which are the two or three best reliable sources that describe the differences between pronunciation and why that difference exists. I'd also like to see a WP:RS that says the wrong pronunciation "upsets" some people. Neutral phrasing is important, we're not here to judge who is right or wrong, and verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, not "truth". The only time I've used the word "chap" is when asking for chapstick. If these snarky comments about each other continue, I'll be asking for a cattle prod instead. Dreadstar † 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where here did I make a snarky comment about someone else? --Una Smith (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a general comment, not directed at anyone specific. We should focus on the editorial content of the article and not each other. Dreadstar † 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re DARE, it is important to understand that volume I, in which "chaps" appears, was based entirely on ethnographic field work. In other words, it involved trained professional linguist interviewers, forms, and thousands of informants who were selected because they were locals, people who like Montanabw can boast of being 4th generation residents of a place. Principally, of an old, stable, rural place. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's necessarily snarky, but qualifiers or comments like "people who like Montanabw can boast.." aren't really necessary, now are they? Dreadstar † 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about paring it down to these three sources:

• DARE: Dictionary of American Regional English, Eds. Frederic G. Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Volume I, A-C, 1985, ISBN 0-674-20511-1, page 592.
• Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: andilands, John. Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book:Picturesque Language of the Cowboy and the Broncho-Buster. University of Alberta Press, 1977; facsimile of 1913 ed. ISBN-10: 0888640218, ISBN-13: 978-0888640215
• Cowboy Encyclopedia: "Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” thereby mimicking the sound of the original Spanish terms chaparejos or chaparreras." Slatta, Richard W. The Cowboy Encyclopedia. W. W. Norton & Company,1996, p. 64 ISBN-10: 0393314731, ISBN-13: 978-0393314731

Then we can put the sentence in and move on.--Getwood (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As for citations from books that are not available online, just follow WP:CITE#FULL. There is a list of citation templates, with templates such as Template:Cite book.

Using the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> when presenting links for evaluation on the talk page makes it harder to actually see what those links are. That's why I asked that the links be provided in readable format like http://www.wikipedia.com, at least on the talk page for discussion. Once we get the content and references down, we can format it correctly for inclusion in the article. Dreadstar † 18:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That makes sense.--Getwood (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is that while I am OK with fewer references, they got put in for a reason: this article did start off with only two or three pronunciation refs, and the last time the sh/ch issue came up, it took about nine to explain the pronunciation; it's how the original version that started all this got so complicated. Most dictionaries, including the OED, simply list both pronunciations (though OED adds "schaps" sources, interestingly) without explanation. Frankly, because so much of this western stuff is from oral traditions, I don't think there is a "reliable source" that explains WHY the difference exists (there are "sources," not necessarily "reliable," one was in there way back, but it was part of what started the spat over the tone of the article! sigh). The difference probably exists because people who only read the word in its modern spelling and have never heard it spoken aloud by those who know what they are talking about are going to (understandably) assume the "ch" is pronounced like "chapstick." Which was why the original complicated version mentioned shibboleths. This is technical language, Getwood is correct that it is widespread, and largely developed via oral traditions of people who did not necessarily read and write (hence probably why there are at least three different spellings in early writings) and the point is really extremely simple: yes, some people pronounce the word "ch." But it is in fact not the traditional or authentic way to say the word, even if the pronunciation is now included in many mainstream dictionaries because the "other" version is apparently far more widespread than I ever imagined it to be. Can one "prove" that "every cowboy" says "sh"? We all know that's a false argument. People often have popular mispronunciations. Examples beyond Getwood's wonderful "classics" would include "Nooculur" War for "nuclear war, "Eye-rack" for "Iraq", etc... Heck, speaking of mispronunciation, my 84 year old father calls my little Civic a "Hondo" (lest my cowboy roots be called into question, that probably settles it! LOL). Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But to the point: Does anyone else who has weighed in here, other than Una, object to the original sentence as I proposed it above, possibly with cites broken out as was later suggested? There was a stable consensus on this pronunciation until this latest spat. If there are no other objections, may I be permitted to re-add the cleanest possible version back into the article? ONE sentence! Just one sentence! Can we just settle this? I am tired of arguing. I really am trying to assume good faith, but it's becoming very difficult. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I object. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for retaining Montanabw's original pared down sentence, using the above three references, and adding the rest to a Sources or Further Reading section.--Getwood (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Getwood, you lost me. Too many changes. Please show what you mean. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I presented no false argument. This needs explanation, so here we go. Mexican Spanish has regional variations in pronunciation. In northern Mexico there are two such regions: Pacific coast extending into California, and Interior extending into New Mexico. They are separated by the Sonoran Desert. Chaps is an abbreviation for chaparreras (DARE). Chaparreras is pronounced in the US by DARE informants with both "sh" and "ch", just as in Mexico. Pronunciation of chaps follows the same pattern. Neither pronunciation of chaps is more or less traditional, more or less wrong. That is because there are two traditions involved, not one. Now, here comes the crux of the matter. The pronunciation chaps has become global and the pronunciation shaps is in the majority only in the population given in the text proposed by Montanabw. To me that text displays Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Once again, the topic of pronunciation is better suited to Wiktionary, where many editors have far more expertise in linguistic ethnography than anyone contributing to this talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure if there's a version proposal in there or not. So here's what we'll do, a section for sub-each of you to present a version, then we can discuss each one. Wiktionary is nice for some basic etymology, but I do think some mention of the difference in pronunciation and any notable reasons for those differences would be an informative and encyclopedic entry. Too much detail is just as bad as too little, so try to make them informative, yet concise. Dreadstar † 08:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I am very late to this party, but wanted to add my two cents: I have lived in California, Virginia, Massachussettes, Rhode Island, New York, and England. I have always heard the word pronounced 'Tchaps,' but was taught that the word came from "Chaparral' with a "sh" sound. I'm not sure what all the above fuss is about, and I have only had time for a quick perusal, but can't we just say "some say Chaps, and some say Tchaps?" or something like that? All the english riders here on the East coast say "Tchaps." I have worked in/owned two tack stores, one in California and one in Virginia, and never heard people say 'shaps' except when joking. I also don't see anything in the article which references the origin of the word being chaparral.... shouldn't this be included? Or does the spanish term predate the english term? --AeronM (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. If you have time to waste check the article history. The article used to say only "dudes" say chaps. Your suggestion is what I suggested at the outset, and several times since then. Chaps is from chapparreras, which is likewise pronounced both ways. The related word chaparral is almost always pronounced shaparral, perhaps because it is used almost exclusively in California. FWIW, I pronounce them "chaps" and "shaparral", and the habitat type I know as chaparral occurs only in California. --Una Smith (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall we say City People, and (now the truth comes out) Easterners, actually! (said grinning with tongue in cheek). However, "People unfamiliar with its roots" wikilinked to shibboleth was the last stable version. The point is that the "sh" pronunciation is most closely associated with the vaquero, also called "Californio" or "Buckaroo" tradition, most closely associated with the Great Basin region and spreading out from there. But it is used on the rodeo circuit, the western horse show circuit, the Quarter horse/Paint/Appy and other stock horse breed circles (and other breeds that derive their styles from them). But I have long ago given in that some people are going to say "ch" even though it is a linguistic departure that arose from people reading the word in books and never hearing it pronounced by the people who formed the garment into what it is today. But find me a source (other than message board discussions) where anyone says "ch" is correct colloquial usage. I quite honestly looked a few months ago and could not find one single example outside of the dual pronunciations in the dictionaries, and the reference in DARE (which is, by the way, off if it says "ch" is used in Colorado, because I can guarantee you that Western riding horse people there say "sh"). But this has gone on long enough. There is a stable version of wording that I can agree with, even though it pretty much eviserated my original edit and I have given in and given in and given in. Enough is enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So could we say "some say this, some say that" and go on from there? Seems to be the easiest solution in my mind. --AeronM (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, is there anything you'd like to add to either of the final versions above, or are they what you had in mind with your opening statements in this section? Dreadstar † 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I would have to say I prefer ver. 2 (simpler). --AeronM (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think you've got hold of a folk etymology there. You hear "chaps" from visitors from Eastern cities and you figure they learned the word from reading it in books. Well, that may be but you have not proven that to be the origin of "chaps", and the field ethnography in DARE goes against it. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photo used on the Russian Wikipedia page about chaps. It could do with cropping. --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That photo is used here in a couple of articles, see no reason to fight over photos, but the article already has the rodeo rider in batwings, and as a side view, it is probably more illustrative. There are also the batwings used by the cutting (sport) crowd, which are styled differently.

• "Cowboy Armor." Western Horseman, July 2007, pp 145-146
• Etymology On Line
• Tom Lindmier and Steve Mount. I See By Your Outfit: Historic Cowboy Gear of the Northern Plains
• Price, Steven D., ed. The Whole Horse Catalogue. New York: Simon and Schuster/Brigadore Press, 1977, p. 168
• "Buckaroos in Paradise - Glossary" American Memory from The Library of Congress. Web site accessed September 2, 2007
• "Cowboy Chinks and Chaps-Pronouncing chinks and chaps." Web site accessed September 2, 2007
• "February 2007 Westerners: Wild and Wooly Chaps." The History Net. Web site accessed September 2, 2007
• "Rodeo terminology." Web site accessed September 2, 2007
• "A Cowboy's Personal Gear," web site accessed September 2, 2007
• Roy Rogers and Dale Evans Museum and Happy Trails Theater, p. 17
• "Cowboy," Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Web page accessed September 2, 2007

I changed one of the dictionary references back to DARE, since this source was so adamantly supported earlier as an essential source, and since it does support the text of the previous sentence.

The Sources section has the sources currently present on the Chaps page, and adds Montanabw's other sources.

It's looking good to me, but I like this step by step approach.--Getwood (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, I made one small change, linked chaparrel to Wiktionary instead of creating a note/reference for it. It's fine to use DARE as a source, but not the article DARE. So, the "Sources" section above, what are those for, exactly? Going in the External links section? Dreadstar † 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Dreadstar me laddie, the "external links" aren't all links and the three in there to date ARE sources used in the article. Can you give me 24 hours to review the one last time, and take one last look at your version so I am sure the footnotes are OK. And per Getwood's suggestion, the rest of the old sources no longer in the footnotes would go into a "works consulted" or "references/sources" or "external links" or whatever section. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No hurry on my part. If the links aren't used as references, then they can be put into sections per Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. Dreadstar † 08:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the above, it looks like these additional links should probably be under a "Further Reading" section instead of "sources."--Getwood (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that anything that was originally in a footnote could rightly be called a "source," as it supports the other footnotes, but it's not a big deal. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to beat this particular dead horse even more, also check out Nevada glossary of western terms, and message board about people visiting South Dakota, horse show circuit use, and another seller site. But to be fair, I will also note that I found ONE possible debate that there could be some variation amongst some people in Texas, or perhaps the discussion just was about some sarcastic leg-pulling, per this blog of a guy who does an old west TV show, said shaps and got "corrected"- but the "correction" may have been sarcastic cowboy humor (you probably had to have been there to know for sure) and the post had follow up comments, but Getwood, isn't Texas your balliwick? In this search, I ran into a couple more boards where the topic was discussed, mostly easterners debating westerners. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not from Texas, but I have a good friend who grew up there in a ranching family. He still works on one of the bigger ranches in Texas. I e-mailed him because I didn't know, and he wrote: "There is no other way in Texas (or anywhere else I know of) to pronounce chaps other than SHaps."--Getwood (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've added version one per the above discussion, as well as renaming the "references section" to "Further reading" and adding the above "sources" to it. If any of this was incorrect, just let me know and I'll fix. Dreadstar † 23:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, except that the italics got overdone, look at the hardcopy, it's clear that there is a spare ( ' ) in there somewhere. Also, before the bleep and lockdown, that bit was a subsection ( = = = ) of the history section, labeled "Terminology." Don't know (and have no opinion on) if restoring the header is better organization or will once again draw attention to this whole issue. Your call. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Italics fixed. Since it's really an extension of the "History" section, I don't see any need to give it a subsection at this point. Naturally, if there's WP:CON on it, I'll be happy to comply. Dreadstar † 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care that deeply, only that it is about current usage, but really don't now what else to do with it, as indeed it does extend from the history section. Originally the thing was a separate etymology section back when it was more like a paragraph, now it's sentence or two. Maybe it doesn't need to have attention drawn to it. If no one else cares, I can let it go. (grumbling mildly) Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not too late to stick my oar in (I did contribute to the pronunciation issue in edits way back), I'm very much happier with Una's version 2. In version 1 also pronounced by some is too loaded for what should be a factual observation. This appears to insinuate to the reader that it's a second-class pronunciation; whereas in fact it's likely to be the majority pronunciation world-wide, regardless of a somewhat (apologies!) geeky preoccupation here on the part of some with what the pronunciation might be here among the initiated minority.

Also, can we be more respectful of IPA conventions? Wikipedia usage is to use IPA symbols in the first place for pronunciation information. "An 'sh' sound" and "a 'ch' sound" look utterly amateurish compared to the use of the appropriate standard symbols. C0pernicus (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ver.2. --AeronM (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessarily permanent, so your input is definitely valued. The problem has been sources. From my understanding, the regional/group variance in pronunciation is a bit more complex than "US/Canada" and "inside/outside of California", depending on the pov of the source. So, being a bit more specific seemed to be the best course of action. I'm not happy with the weasel wording of "also pronounced by some" and would rather replace that with more specific language. If we can source it, then we can add it. I did find a source that says: chaps (customarily pronounced “shaps” by Western riders and “chaps” by English riders), from this broken site. Perhaps something simple like that would help mitigate the neutrality issue you mention. There has also been discussion around "traditional" versus "non-traditional" aspects of the pronunciation. Dreadstar † 00:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Dreadstar for taking on this project and putting in the time and effort to reassemble this page, as well as mediate between warring factions.

C0pernicus- Talk about loaded: "geeky preoccupation...on the part of some...among the initiated minority"  :)

I'm in favor of the Western/English style delineation.

I also agree that the IPA symbols are appropriate, although, really, these would be the geekiest part of the article. Wouldn't you say?

Just another two cents from a geek.--Getwood (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The version in the article works and is an accurate representation of word usage. Though polling on wikipedia is, by its nature, an unscientific sampling, the discussion here to date is really just going around and around between the same people. The "sh" pronunciation is longstanding and well-sourced. A source has (finally) been found that indicates that some English riders have adopted the "ch" pronunciation, and given that Stephen Price has been writing on horses since at least the 1970's, his work is probably the most authoritative on the point of the joint pronunciation. His Whole Horse Catalogue used only the "sh" pronunciation in the 1977 edition, thus this author's more recent works using both suggest that a linguistic shift has occurred, probably reflecting the growing use of chaps amongst English riders. Beyond that, all dictionaries and assorted dialect guides can only reflect that both ways are used, no one has taken a scientific poll. What is in the article reflects both uses with clear historical documentation as to American English usage. So let's just call it good. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the photo caption on the first image should read "A modern Western rider....." (Just to be accurate). I can't make the change since the page is still blocked/locked/whatever. --AeronM (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make the edit if everyone agrees to it. Dreadstar † 03:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, ring in here if you would be amenable to changing the caption under the photo from "A modern rider....." to "A modern Western rider......" It seems minor, I know, but I think more accurate. Thanks --AeronM (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes to the change. It may be minor, but I think it's a good change. (And probably non-controversial!...)--Getwood (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, if anyone disagrees, let me know. ~Hopefully it's non-controversial.. ;) Dreadstar †

It's non-controversial. Though technically, "western" could be lowercase, as it isn't really a proper noun. (Though it is also used both ways, so I really don't care all that much) Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Chaps I have filed a formal request for mediation here. Montanabw, Getwood, Dreadstar, and AeronM, to agree to mediation please go there and sign the Parties' agreement to mediate. If any of you do not agree to mediation, the request will be denied; of course, I hope all of you will agree. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for details about the mediation process. --Una Smith (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The request has been accepted and discussion is here. --Una Smith (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of words are pronounced with two or more variants. In a wikipedia article there are two ways to document whether one pronunciation is characteristic of a particular group. One is by citing a dictionary entry that describes one pronunciation as pretaining to a particular group (e.g. in a British dictionary to identify a specific pronunciation as "Am. Eng."). The other is by citing a dialectological (or sociolinguistical) study in which linguists have conducted surveys to find out which pronunciations are characteristic of which groups. The wrong way to document whether a kind of pronunciation is characteristic of one group or not is by basing it on individual judgements in the vein of "I am a part of this group - I pronounce it this way - therefore this group pronounces it this way" or "I have never met anyone but non-members of my grouo who pronounce it that way". Such individual judgements are first and foremost logically flawed since one cannot necessarily extrapolate traits from individuals to the entire group, nor can one expect to have met a statistically representative part of the population, or that ones memory is entirely correct. And it also fails to realise that no one individual can be certain about the pronunciations of other members of the group whom they have not met. Only a linguistic study with sound methodology can make such judgements - and they will still never be 100 % certain (unless the study works with all of the members of the group).

In this case this means that unless a reliable linguistic study can be cited to say that "All cowboys" say "shaps" then that is the wrong way to word it. If a reliable linguistic study can be found that say "the pronunciation "shaps" is common in the rural american west" then that is an acceptable wording. If a dictionary can be found to state that the pronunciation "chaps" is common in England and "shaps" is common in the US then that is acceptable. If a study can be found that says that the "shaps" pronunciation is used as a shibboleth among cowboys of Montana inorder to exclude non-locals or urbandwellers then that is an acceptable statement. If however no such study can be found the article will have to stick to stating that there exists two competing pronunciations - without qualifying to which groups the pronunciations pertain.

I am not in disagreement with the description of pronunciation as it stands, I think it is fairly well sourced and balanced. I might prefer a slightly less "matter of fact"-ly style in ascribing the pronunciations to the two groups.

Of the sources used in the article I would not consider Slatta (1996) to be reliable on linguistic issues, but the other three dictionaries I would consider reliable. Slatta on the other hand could be useful as a quote to illustrate how the sh-pronunciation has been used as an identifier for "cowboys", if not illustrating actual usage then at least describing the pronunciation as norm among the cowboy group, whether this is the case or not. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus' assessment of evidence versus claims. But I don't completely think that the wording is acceptable as it stands. The article implies that the only valid pronunciations to consider are those of cowboys and English-style riders. The fact is that this word has entered the common, nontechnical vocabulary of the language and is known and used by millions of non-cowboys and non-riders. The article ignores the pronunciation of motorcycle riders and other workers who use this article of protection in their daily jobs. The pronunciation of those users of the word is just as valid as the (formerly) strictly technical usage around horses. That pronunciation is, by and large, [tʃæps]. The implication that the only "proper" or "relevant" use of the word is by riders is discriminatory to the vastly greater number of people who know and use the word and are not riders of any kind. This is an encyclopedia article, and is, by definition, descriptive, not prescriptive. While some statement of the history of usage is appropriate the modern facts are "the word was pronounced in the 19th century as [ʃæps], but is now also pronounced as [tʃæps]". I have lived in Utah since I was six and I say [tʃæps]. The last person I heard say [ʃæps] was my grandfather who rode fence on the Matador Ranch in Texas until World War I. He was so bow-legged you could pass a 12-inch ruler between his knees when he was standing up "straight". We are BOTH correct in our pronunciatons. The characterization of [tʃæps] as being restricted to "English-style riders" is mildly offensive to me as a Westerner. The statement must be more neutral as to who says what. (Taivo (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Note issue is in mediation. Also note, farther down the article page, a source that in the motorcycle community, "shaps" is also considered correct. As a third generation westerner, (who, by the way, sometimes showed in the Salt Lake City area), the first time I ever heard "ch" out here was that stupid Ralph Lauren commercial. I will also note that a lot of city people in the west have never really had any significant experience with horses or the equipment used to ride them, and thus can't really be expected to have a clue either way. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The "no clue" comment is the problem here. You have taken cowboy usage as the de facto "correct" usage. This is an encyclopedia, not a prescriptive grammar. If part of the population says tʃæps, then you cannot dismiss them. "The correct pronunciation of 'opossum' is 'possum' and of 'victuals' is 'vittles'. Yankees who say otherwise are just stupid". That's what you have just written. (Taivo (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

The change in wording on pronunciation in the non-equestrian section was me. I didn't notice I wasn't logged in when I made the changes. (Taivo (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I think all discussion of pronunciation should be consolidated, not spread through the article as it is now. --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In AUS we have chapettes which are your gaiters? They are used for exercising and trail riding. Chainsaw chaps for chainsawing rodeo/western chaps which are used in rough riding and cutting etc.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the oilskin chaps - some of these are used in yards and riding, too. see: http://shop.valleycountry.com.au/catalogue/category1/category9/category32/c486/product255 Cgoodwin (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Add sealskin to the list. According to Theodore Roosevelt, in his time cattle trail bosses on the continental interior in North America wore sealskin chaps, I gather with the fur still on. Numerous websites state he owned a pair himself, made by the saddlemakers John S. Collins and Gilbert Collins. --Una Smith (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper sources, proper sources. Web sites can be proper sources sometimes, but not blogs or chat fora, per WP:CITE and also, for the sake of the article, let's write sparkling prose and not bog down this thing with every material that chaps have ever been made of; I mean "generally made of" implies that there is more. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, you started having fun again, didn't you? :) (Taivo (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

The edit summary of this edit asserts "wool is not hair"; however, see Wool (and Fur too). --Una Smith (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes. wool says, "Wool has two qualities that distinguish it from hair or fur..." which supports the idea that wool is not precisely the same as "hair," and the distinction is significant, particularly for insulating qualities. Besides, the edit summary is not the article text, I was explaining my edits. So let's not start this semantic nitpicking up again. I left in your stuff on European designs, which was interesting, though more sources would be good (why just the 1950s? Was there no traditional design older?) and better citation of the references you included would also be good, particularly ISBN info on books, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Una, given the contention this article has already generated, I strongly suggest we discuss changes before making them. Particularly when they are drastically changing whole sections. It is one thing to add a little material here and there, it is another to change existing edits. I have no interest in having this article locked down or taken to mediation again. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't stress the importance of talk pages enough in articles where two or more people have strong feelings. I work on the Book of Mormon page because I am from Utah and grew up there (although I'm not LDS). Talk about strong opinions between two mutually opposing camps! But on the Talk page we work out every piece of wording BEFORE it goes to the main page. It has been a very beneficial practice because we have formed (both believers and nonbelievers) very strong bonds between us of respect and a mutual attitude toward "protecting" the article from the casual editors with a POV. This article has (at least) two "caretakers"--you and Montanabw, at least--who want it to be the best, but you come from different viewpoints. It is critical that you work out issues HERE ON THE TALK PAGE. It's simple cut-and-paste once you have agreed on some wording. (Taivo (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

And everything about working out issues first on the Talk page applies to Montanabw as well, Una. I'm not singling you out. Heck, I'm guilty, too. We all need to remember that the Talk page comes first, the article second. (Taivo (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

This is absolutely reasonable and I henceforth will do so as long as Una does. But I also will not stand for yet more fringe theories (pardon the pun) or poorly sourced edits in this article, particularly after catching Una red-handed distorting source material (both here and in other articles), misrepresenting my viewpoints (and those of others) in the mediation, and the whole win-lose approach that has characterized the differences of opinion on the talk pages of various other articles that involves Una. (yes, I get snarky, I can get rude and angry, and I certainly will vigorously defend my own positions (LOL!), but I can point to a dozen articles where I have backed down and changed my mind in the face of good solid research and effective logic on the part of another editor). I am sick and tired of this whole situation and would like to settle the larger issue (whatever it is, other than a personality conflict) once and for all. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)