Talk:Chad (slang)/Archive 1

Archive 1

other uses redirect to Chad disambiguation page

I support the inclusion for the link at the top of the article. There are several reasons someone who is looking for a different "Chad" might have come to this page. Among these many reasons is that they might be mislead here by a wikilink from another article. And if that is not the case now because not enough articles link to this page (I wouldn't know if this is or isn't the case) happen now, it might happen in the future when new links are added to various articles on wikipedia.

Plus, it's not like the link is doing any harm to the article. It can only help. We can't foresee potential issues readers might have, which is why it's better to err on the safe side and include the link. Please discuss this issue here. Charles35 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you bother to read WP:NAMB? If an article incorrect links here, which I guess is not likely, then the link needs to be fixed on the article page. CTF83! 06:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, virtually nothing links here...all the more reason to not have a DAB link at the top. No one will accidently come here. CTF83! 06:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the disambig link should stay. NAMB is a guideline that should be applied using common sense, not an intractible policy. There's no benefit to the article or Wikipedia in removing the link. Please get consensus before re-removing. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So we just ignore guidelines now? There is NO reason to list it! There are 2 articles that link to it, so no one will get here by mistake. CTF83! 04:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless there's a benefit to keeping the hatnote, it should be removed. WP:NAMB is not intractible, but it's not meaningless either. The benefit to removing it is reducing unnecessary clutter. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, when I first saw reference to the page, I thought it would be about the "hanging chad" usage. It doesn't seem unreasonable that someone searching for the hanging chad sense term might mistakenly select this, I think there may be some marginal benefit to having an {{about}} hatnote offering other options. I don't see the need for the need to distinguish from chav though. The pronunciation is not that easily confused and chav is already listed under see also with other related terms. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the unnecessary clutter here. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Slang section

Could we add a 'slang' section to the dab page to include this one and the hanging one? A character created by Ayn Rand. The book was very dated by the time I read it though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, more sections = easier mobile navigation. CTF83! 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The hanging one as in "Chad (paper)"? I don't think it's slang. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chad (slang). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lpchad.com/lifecycle/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001105825/http://www.lptrixie.com:80/ to http://www.lptrixie.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

The name Chad re-emerged in modern times around the mid 1960's, first seen & identified w/ "surfer"-types in California. Ceadda was modernized into the contemporary Chad. Its first slang associations were with surfing. RavenousFallen (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC) 20240516073519

That is not a reliable source because it can be freely edited by anyone. The information is not verifiable and therefore should not be included in the article. Dammitkevin (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not read Kevin Kaduk's book about Wrigleyville, but as a Chicago native who was a big fan of the Lincoln Park Trixie Society website when it was active, I can confirm that the term "Chad" originated from the LPTS. The Lincoln Park Chad Society (the creator of which I'm not sure was affiliated to LPTS or not), came later on. I'd like to make this change on the page, but don't have a source (aside from myself). The current "source" of that information (Tracy Schwartz' article — http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-04-24/news/0804240648_1_chads-south-side-trader-joe) does not make that claim. StickerMug (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Move to Wiktionary?

Came across this article, which seems to have had a lot of good time/effort put into it, however, it looks like it belongs in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DICDEF

Not quite sure what type of tag to use to have it moved & merged in part or in full, but someone else may know the proper formatting? Kitty4777 (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Adding Category:Transwiki cleanup Apologies if this is an incorrect tag Kitty4777 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kitty4777: Yes, that was incorrect and generated an {{error}}. I've fixed it. That category is populated by placing {{TWCleanup2}} on the article page. Interestingly, this article calls "female Chads" Trixie (slang), while wikt:Chad calls them "Stacy". — wbm1058 (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See also the related Template:Copy to Wiktionary. These templates are placed on the top of the article page. wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not a DICDEF any more than chav, yuppie, or metrosexual. A DICDEF would be a brief, one-sentence thing without any explanation of the cultural background or history. The lede was edited to eliminate potential confusion regarding such. WOPR (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Also oppose the move. ♟♙ (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the first paragraph

Someone keeps editing the first paragraph of the body to remove the statement that the term originated in Chicago. The direct quote from the article "But there are terms within this Chi-alect that are specific to the North and South Sides." supports the statement, so removing it is disruptive. And the source provided for it's origin being a TV Show is not reliable and in any case all the unreliable source says is that a TV show had a charcter named Chad who was attractive, which has nothing to do with this clang term and makes no claim of origin. The disruptive edits will be reverted forever by me. OrgoneBox (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit you're advocating for is "The term originated in Chicago, Illinois, by a satirical website dedicated to the Lincoln Park Chad Society,". That's the one you keep editing back to. As has already been explained to you this is not supported by the source. The source does not even say it originated in Chicago. It could be part of the Chicago dialect having originated elsewhere. The source is a light-hearted article in the first place.

The origin of most words is shrouded in mystery, usually little can be said for certain or stated as a fact about how a word was first used. Nobody can say for sure when or how a particular word was used for the first time. The statement that the phrase Chad originated there would therefore be a very strong statement that would need a strong source directly stating it as a fact. It directly contradicts multiple anecdotal accounts above on the talk page of the phrase being used earlier and it's hard to see how it could be true.

The fact that Chad was used in an episode of The Outer Limits as far back as February 2000 is in my view interesting for a few different reasons: 1) It could form slight evidence that the word was being used in that way before that (as is pretty clear from the talk page). 2) It could indicate there is something about the word Chad that people associate with that type of person - like for instance how the names Jake and Ashley could be associated with particular type of individuals 3) Even if it was completely coincidental with how they used the name Chad there it might stand by itself as a striking early usage that would need to be an enormous coincidence. The Outer Limits is certainly a culturally relevant show, however I can slightly understand why someone would not care to see this mention which is why I left it. This was your decision that the episode shouldn't be mentioned.

In view of the above I hope you will allow the edit back to a much less definite statement and reconsider your statement that you "will be reverted forever by me", which is in no way how Wikipedia works. Anonywiki (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The quote from the article cited supports the statement. Period. The word "Chad" wasn't used in an episode of The Outer Limits, there was a character named Chad. Your claim has no basis and your insistence otherwise is WP:SYN. OrgoneBox (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source

Why is this source [1] dubious? OrgoneBox (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary that added it was pretty clear: Memoirs are dubious sources, and we'd like to get a better one. We don't have to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard; we're just asking for additional sources. This is really not a thing to get worked up about.--Jorm (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of image

Genghis Khan, a sexually active Mongolian, has been described as the greatest conqueror of all time.

The image and caption on the right have been the subject of some controversy over the last couple days. @Jorm: and @Hakken: have removed it, whereas myself, @KylieTastic: and @Benjaminikuta: have included it. I added it to the article a few weeks ago, since a lack of any illustration seemed inappropriate. Rationales for removal have been scant: this doesn't belong here (Hakken, [2]), This has no place in the article (Jorm, [3]) and The image has _NOTHING_ to do with the article (Jorm, [4]). My rationale is that, per the cited text in the image caption as well as the page content, it does belong there and obviously has something to do with the article: Genghis Khan is indeed an example of a particularly courageous or competent male (description from the lede, which has two inline references). I could also find references for viewed as constituting the top decile in terms of genetic fitness, if required. Is there any objection to this? jp×g 18:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. The word "chad" is a modern conveyance and has absolutely nothing to do with Ghengis Khan. Nothing. Whatso. Ever. You will be hard pressed to find me a reliable source that includes Ghengis Khan and the phrase "chad" at the same time. If you do, I'll be impressed, and then we can include it.--Jorm (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is he REALLY happy, or just smiling? There are no reliable sources, but he's in the article anyway.

This is a very expansive (and creative) application of WP:NOR, and applying it in a general context would make illustrating articles virtually impossible. For example, on Screaming we see several images of people with their brows furrowed and their mouths open; for the policy to apply as you claim, we would need WP:RS saying specifically that these people were screaming (versus the current "proof", image descriptions offered by Commons uploaders). Similarly, at Mycoplasma_laboratorium#Watermarks there's an image of a watermark on an integrated circuit, which is analogized in its caption to the Venter team's inclusion of watermarks in the synthetic genome; no reliable source makes that specific comparison between the two. I could come up with hundreds more examples, if you want me to -- image guidelines do not require reliable sources to explicitly back up specific images (or image subjects) themselves. Have you got any reason why MoS and precedent from other articles should not apply here? jp×g 20:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to fit for all of that. Either way, in no universe would the Khan of Khans be referred to as a "Chad". A "happy butcher" is called "Happy" so it fits? "Happiness" is an ancient term that dates back to probably the beginning of language; "Chad" is a recent neologism. I don't understand why you can't grasp the difference.--Jorm (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

An essay is not a guideline or policy. Are you saying that including the illustration violates WP:NOR or MOS:IMAGES? jp×g 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. You're just not hearing anything. --Jorm (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That seemed like a simple question to me, but at any rate, this discussion doesn't seem likely to end in either of us changing our opinions. jp×g 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A more recent image would probably be better, but this one is certainly better than nothing. Benjamin (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not better than nothing. Misinformation is worse than no information.--Jorm (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

edits re Omaha and supposed origins

Yes, we've asked for better sources, but that does not mean that it is appropriate to simply replace what we have with a completely different and unsourced version [5], or to make sneaky edits that replace Chicago with Omaha (when the cited source does not mention Omaha) [6]. Meters (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And evading the range block on the IP with a new account is not going to work either. Meters (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove File:Wikipediavirginvschad.png

I don't think this image is a relevant visual for the article. It was created by Wikipedia editor @Chess, according to their edit summary, so it's not an actual example taken from slang internet discussion of "Chad", as the caption leads the reader to believe. The article doesn't discuss any correlation between Wikipedia and "Chad" slang, yet the image uses lots of Wikipedian vernacular. It's just extremely out of place. I think this image should be removed from the article. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, to the point where I am removing it immediately. Meters (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The challenging aspect was illustrating the meme in such a way that is both a) free content and b) chooses a fair target for the "virgin" subject. One can't exactly just grab an "actual example" from the Internet because then you're violating copyright and we can't grab the well known "Chad stride" image because we have no information on the original creator and so can't satisfy NFCC#4. Choosing a fair target makes it difficult to choose many concrete subjects, throwing in Jimbo would probably violate BLP. It seems as if it's for the best that this article doesn't have an image for it as it doesn't seem like one can be created that'll meet standards. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One could imagine a meme image which illustrated a concept effectively while making a subtle, tasteful reference to Wikipedia goings-on (I believe we have one with Jimbo in it at "Don't talk to me or my son ever again") but this is a far cry from that. The idea ought to be that a normie (i.e. a non-editor) can understand what is going on. jp×g 22:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this really any relation of the "Wot No" doodle?

Is there any reference for the claim that the Chicago slang is somehow related to the name "Chad" for the doodle of the little long-nosed face peeking over a wall? The former is UK-specific (when it reached America it changed its name to "Kilroy"), mainly limited to the 40s (whereas to judge by the "Trixie (slang)" page the Chicago slang is much later, unless there are older examples) and seems to have nothing in common with it meaning-wise at all. Wombat140 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is about the use of the word as slang and makes no claim of connection between the different variants. OrgoneBox (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Gigachad

It should be the image you see when you enter the page as its what most internet users associate with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 03:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

What is this in reference to? Chimp1872 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Gigachad dates back to 2017 on many internet forums and has become the de facto usage of the term "chad," as it is no longer referred to in the previous derogatory terms. "Gigachad" has over taken the previous meme. Modern NFL Historian (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Referment

Would expanding as "alpha male" be more accurate than just "alpha"? Or should it be left as "alpha"? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

pictures

can somebody put a picture(s) of a chad?

like these. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EpfCgqPXEAgjLAW?format=jpg&name=360x360 gigachad

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/virgin-vs-chad/images/7/79/Chad.png/revision/latest/top-crop/width/360/height/360?cb=20201214194847 chad TheT.N.T.BOOM! (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect description

This description of Chad is incorrect. Chads are generally regarded in a negative way. 2600:100F:B111:8F9D:188D:A989:D53F:5EA8 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

agree. See youtube vids like Contrapoints… Chad is generally used in a derogatory way much like “jock” was used in the 80s/90s (e.g. male w/ more testosterone than brains.) Sceptre1067 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes agreed, why does it say 'in modern slang' when this new usage of Chad has just developed in the last year or two. The article should emphasize the negative meaning and write that it has a positive connotation as well as an after thought. It's a subset of younger people, it's not 'modern slang'. Chad has been negative all throughout the 10s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7C02:E700:8C25:CC63:2D9B:8291 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)