Talk:Cashed Up Bogan

Cashed Up Bogan
Why does this have its own page? We already have bogan which surely is enough?


 * I originally added the "Use in Marketing" heading in the bogan article to refer to CUBs - I am not sure who separated it out or why. 'CUB' is a term widely used in marketing in Melbourne (at least) in 2006 and I have referred many to the wikipedia discussion as a quick definition. 11 Aug 06 @ 9.35 AEST

Furthermore, I have said in that article's talk page, this page seems highly dodgy. Wikipedia should not have original research and stuff should be verified. In this case it seems that it is the one external reference that is engaging in the original research: The Age chatted to a single marketing guy who went on about the concept of cub. Whether the cub really is a notable, new, or specific phenomenon is not coroborated by that article. The article just reprints one person's opinion. Furthermore there is no coroboration that any other marketing people believe in the concept, or if anyone else uses the term at all. So wikipedia is reproducing someone else's original research, but presenting that original research as fact. Asa01 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen that marketing research featured in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald also. It was also used to describe Shane Warne in another Herald article recently. But these are not the only places that the term has been used lately. I've seen it used on a number of blogs/forums, magazine articles and even on 'The Chaser's War On Everything' TV show.


 * I don't feel passion for the article remaining. Maybe it is enough to include it in the Bogan article. I suppose you might think differently when it appears in the next edition of the Macquarie dictionary. J Bar 23:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not desperate to have it deleted, but the article needs to have better resources added, and looks perilously like it is going to become an "original research-cruft" article where people drop in and just add their own opinions. I mean look at the new Kath and Kim chat that recently got added. This can then never be deleted because who authoritively can say (given that the term is not clearly defined in any external, credible, resource) that it is not relevant. I checked a number of blogs, etc, and my thoughts were that though many used the phrase "cashed up bogan", repeated usage of a phrase does not quite constitute notability of whatever concept they might be refering to (and Shane Warne does not fit the definition given in the newspaper article linked from Bogan). But if others want the article kept I wont argue. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Asa01 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Sorry they say Warnie is one after all! Asa01 23:34, 1

I agree with other views on this page, that there is indeed inconsistencies with the definition and the examples given. The extent we should perpetuate such a stereotype is debatable, however, there is a group within our society that does fit the raw description, although I would argue that further discussion and refinement is necessary if this term is to become any form of useful, if not amusing, descriptor, rather than just another throw away, negative slang terminology of a social group. Stereotyping, in general, is prone to such outcomes and innacuracies, however, the amusement derived seems adequate compensation in most instances.

Nouveau riche
Added Nouveau riche links. I love how marketing people make up new names for old concepts to encourage people to buy more stuff and to give MX (newspaper) an excuse to print pointless articles that can showcase expensive products their advertisers are trying to $ell. Asa01 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)