Talk:Chaps/Archive 1

Disambig
Given that this page is forwarded to from the phrase "assless chaps," and the extremely common usage of the same term in popular culture, it seems that there should be a mention of this particular terminology on this page. My understanding is that all chaps are "assless." Admittedly, I am no authority on the issue and I could very well be mistaken, but if not, it seems this would be a good place to clarify this particular aspect of the word. Phaeretic 05:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Leather leggings with a seat are callled "pants."  :-)  It seems perhaps in "popular" culture, we are talking about a completely different use of a similar garment that has relatively little to do with ranching, hmmm?  Hence if the redirect seems to go this article and this article is completely irrelevant to what a person thought they were going to find, then maybe the redirect page could be made into a disambiguation page that sends people both this chaps article and to other articles that are relevant to other uses of the garment...I suppose this article also isn't real helpful to, say, motorcycle riders...perhaps someone needs to create a new and different article on the topic they are interested in describing and then create the appropriate cross-links or disambiguation pages. Montanabw 04:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna create a disambiguation page on this topic. Stay tuned Montanabw 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page created. See Chaps (disambiguation) discuss "assless chaps" as a term there to your heart's content. Montanabw 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For photos of assless chaps, Search Google images for assless chaps Search Google Images. --Una Smith (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If the phrase "assless chaps" is to be used on this page, it needs to be clarified to the reader that the term is incorrect. As other users have stated, all chaps are technically assless. Allowing "assless chaps" to remain does not seem particularly useful to me, and will tend to give readers the false impression that it is accurate. I have test-edited the phrase out of the non-equestrian section, and the article reads just as smoothly without it. 91.132.202.96 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It willtake a braver soul than I to tangle with the leather community, they can call their version whatever they want to, I'm just tired of the whole topic. After a month of mediation just over how to pronounce the word, I honestly could care less what non-equestrians want to spat about.  Can we just NOT start an edit war over this, please???  This article has had enough conflict over a piece of clothing.  Sigh...  Montanabw (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation
I'm not sure I consider the source for the pronunciation of chaps valid. The "sh" sound is not common in Spanish dialects at all (see the phonetics section of the Spanish language page for instance). R343L 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I know is that the word is properly prounounced "shaps," the "sh" sound is used for words like chapparral, chaps/chaparajos, etc...so there is an "sh" pronounciation from somewhere and it is used for many Spanish-derived words that describe things in the western United States. Maybe it's from an old dialect that is no longer used (just as there are archaic, "dead" or very rare dialects in English). But it is correct prounounciation for the cowboy garment.  Anyone who says "chaps" with a "ch" sound is immediately recognized as a dude, greenhorn or possibly even an idiot among real cowboys in the west.  It's the way it is said. Walk through any rodeo with a recorder. No one says "ch." 161.7.2.160 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've lived in both rural and urban Texas most of my life and never heard it pronounced with an "sh". Even the references given in the article list "shaps" as a secondary pronunciation, not primary. I don't think wikipedia should choose one pronunciation over the other (for this article, the one for "Cowboy", or wherever else it might be given). And, agree with R343L: the "sh" didn't come from Spanish, but later.68.88.203.184 07:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have lived in Montana all of my life as did my daddy and my granddaddy, and the only people who DON'T say "sh" are east coast greenhorns at the dude ranches. OR English riders talking about half-chaps.  Sh is also used in Wyoming, Oregon, rural Califirnia, etc.   So, obviously, this is why Wikipedia says "no original research."  Chaps are your buddies in England and what the wind does to your skin.

Besides, the Roy Rogers museum agrees with me, hence the cite...it is one of the better sources of cowboy traditions and lore.

Chaps, with an sh, protect you from Chapparral, which is most definitely spoken as "sh" listed as primary ponounciation. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Chaparral "Spanish, from chaparro, evergreen oak, from Basque txapar, diminutive of saphar, thicket."

Bottom line is that sometimes so many people say it wrong that wrong becomes right; that would be a bad thing for wikipedia to promote. I will look up a few more sources in some old books on cowboy stuff and cite them when I can. This isn't exactly on my A list of crises to fix, but it does keep coming around. Montanabw (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Added another cite for "shaps" pronounciation. Will add more as I find them.  Will takesomeone other than myself to figure out how it all got there, but it's the correct way to say the western riding version of the garment that is used when riding horses and other critters.  Beats me how motorbikers pronounce it, and ditto for the BDSM crowd (we can comment on that if relevant).  Don't know if ch versus sh is some archaic pronounciation of 15th century Spanish as it evolved in Mexico up to around 1850, or an English corruption, or what, but it's how it has been said by American cowboys in the western United States for the last 100 years at least. (just as the term buckaroo is said by some to have derived from how the Spanish in California pronounced vaquero; with more of a soft "b" sound rather than the "v" sound English speakers use...)  it is an intriguing question.   Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the b/v of Spanish, those sounds merged sometime before the 16th century; it's not something that evolved in Mexico since Castillian Spanish has the merger, also. So, the American cowboys heard "vaquero" with something very close to an English "b". "Bebida" has the exact same sound, by the way.


 * As noted in an above comment, the etymology of "chaps" can be traced to Basque "txapar", also pronounced with a "ch" sound. If anything, "ch" -> "sh" migration has French influence. I don't really take offense to pointing out the differences in pronunciation in this article, or even labelling one as "correct" as long as it can be backed up. I do have a problem with the beginning of the third paragraph stating that this pronunciation is mysteriously due to Mexican and Spanish influence. For that reason, I'm making a citation needed note. 69.148.83.47 04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to know the "b/v" thing on vaquero. been having an edit war in the Cowboy article on that issue.


 * Well, I know that all sources on the word "chaps" say it is the abbreviated version of "chaparajos." That much is certain.  And the word chaparajos is, according to all sources, a Spanish/Mexican word.  I can clarify that in the text. So the real pronounciation fight, I suppose, is over how to say "chaparajos," or at least how it was said by the Mexican ranchers, and particularly the Californian vaquero of the 1800's from whence the United States Cowboy picked it up.   I have never heard, for example, "chapparrel" pronounced with anything but an "sh" cound.


 * This is one of those very frustrating things, because all knowledgable horse people in the western riding tradition say "chaps" with the sh sound. If you say it with the "ch" you are immediately identified as at best a "dude" and at worst, an ignoramus.  It's so taken for granted that so far I have only located two sources (both cited here) that remind people that the correct pronounciation is "sh." It's so taken for granted, I guess.  The dictionary thing drives me totally nuts, but at least they mention the sh prounounciation.  I suppose I should be grateful.


 * There are similar problems with the parts of western riding equipment. A Bosal is correctly a bo-SAL, not a "BOsul," and Romal reins are ro-MAHL reins, not "Rommel" reins.  (Rommel was a Nazi general). Likewise, there are words like Tapadero, Hackamore (Jaquima), Buckaroo (derived from vaquero), etc.  Lots of problems with people losing an oral tradtion here.  Language creep, or something.  But I shall seek to look through various books and see if I can find more places to verify chaps with the "sh".  Never thought this would be such a debate.  Montanabw (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, am now adding NINE sources that say you pronounce it with an "sh" sound. Can we end this now please?  That said, I am open to figuring out the origin of the pronounciation, one of the nine sources does hint at a possible French Canadian influence on the Spanish or Mexican dialect pronounciation, which might be possible, who knows?  Cowboys were a pretty diverse ethnic mix, that much is true.  Montanabw (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation in an encyclopedic context is not about correct usage, it is about actual usage. I have tagged the article.
 * Here we go again? Will remove mildly snarky comment about dudes and also remove tag. Actual use versus misuse?  One.  More. Time. (ch) Chaps is what happens to your legs if you don't wear (sh)Chaps.  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the still needs a tag.  --Una Smith (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reasons? I see no violation of any guideline now.  Please cite specific wikipedia guideline on tone.   Montanabw (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See NPOV. Consider inauthentic pronunciation and the word is sometimes pronounced with a "ch" sound by those  unfamiliar with its roots and it is indicative that the speaker is clearly not familiar with cowboy culture of the American west.  These are insulting to speakers who say "chaps" (not "shaps").  Montanabw, your citations are proof that some Americans say "shaps", and that some authors insist this is the authentic pronunciation.  However, your citations are not proof that "chaps" is inauthentic pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the unfairness of tone. If the word "inauthentic" bothers you, well, there needs to be some modifier that explains that real cowboys use the sh pronunciation and anyone who does not is clearly a dude who is in fact unfamiliar with the conventions of the American west, where, in fact, this garment was refined into its modern form -- mispronunciation (and it IS mispronunciation, no matter how widespread it is) is a sign of someone who doesn't understand the correct context. The use of the "ch"  pronunciation by the leather community does in fact reflect that these folks probably are indeed unfamiliar with the roots of the clothing, as clearly their preferred use would in fact produce considerable chapping in very sensitive areas should they ride a horse in that manner!  (LOL).  If you think you have better phrasing, propose it here, maybe there is a way to improve things that we both can live with.   Montanabw (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The tone was derogatory (I have edited the paragraph). Montanabw, I understand you don't see it;  I do.  Believe me, it is there.  FWIW, as already mentioned by another editor, "shaps" and "shaparral" would appear to be a French influence, so more common in Canada and the northern US than in the southwestern US.  What does DARE say about it, eh?  --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DARE? I have no clue what DARE is.  The possibility that both French and Spanish had an influence is certainly there, but the point is that if 16 sources from California to Texas say it's chaps, and as there is not consensus on the edit, I am restoring it with the "tone" tag until we can AGREE.  Also, you are not properly sourcing the breakaway feature, those leather thongs WILL NOT BREAK when there are three or four of them, and you have no source for your claim of "rodeo chaps" nearly ALL modern chaps are that design.  -- you are confusing ONE web site of some folks who make historic designs with a standard look.  Now please cooperate with me instead of throwing fat on the fire; I am dedicated to authenticity too.   Montanabw (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DARE is Dictionary of American Regional English. --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, you seem to think I am fighting with you. That is not the case.  Please refrain from personal remarks.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Indeed, it did seem that way.  Well, henceforth I shall assume good faith and take you at your word.   Montanabw (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DARE has a lot of interesting background on chaps and related words. Chaparral has but chaps and chaparreras have both  and, and most of the related words derived from Spanish have. For chaps, the earliest cite is WY 1884, spelled schaps. DARE fieldwork reports chaps (tʃ) in CO, IL, and central TX. --Una Smith (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wiktionary:Chaps. Dreadstar  †  22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The wiktionary article is pretty poor, sure needs work. But in the meantime, I am going to try and re-do some info on the word that will, once again, try to accomplish my original goal, which was, once, to try and help people not be subjected to the substantially less-than-gentle ridicule that would be theirs at the often very sharp tongue of many a western cowboy were they to use the, um, "Ralph Lauren" pronunciation.  It's a good faith edit, and it is going to be thoroughly sourced, I do hope it will not start another round here. As for DARE, I wonder how many actual cowboys they talked to (curious, that's a question), as city people in the west (say, in Los Angeles) wouldn't have a clue how to say the word, either.  FYI, this is a term of art.    Montanabw (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add more etymology information to the Wiktionary article. I'd also suggest reading Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  As for the two different pronunciations of the word 'chaps', I'd say make a neutral comment in this article without making judgments as to which is correct - and source it.  And, um, make the version proposals here on the talk page before putting anything in the article adn risking an edit war... :) Dreadstar  †  06:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops as to posting here first, she said two hours later...Expanded history section per some new sources, Terminology section was cut to basically a couple sentences with snarky references to dudes removed. Every single sentence is sourced (unless two sentences came from the same source).   The other thing I'd like to work in is that some people claim the shotgun style is attributed by some to Native American leggings, but sources are fuzzy.    Montanabw (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Will James, the author of many western novels which actually reflect cowboy life (as opposed to the gunfighter stuff) actually used the (mis)spelling "shaps", leaving little ambiguity about his pronunciation.  In Nevada and California, there is a right and wrong way in cowboy culture.  And the use of "ch" instead of "sh" is definitely a red flag.  I'm all for a neutral comment, but I support explaining that in cowboy culture, the use of the "ch" is almost an insult.  Humbly,--Getwood (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! Where were you last week when I needed you!  What do you think of the "terminology" bit as it sits now?  If you want to see the old version, see below.  I will accept that it was getting pretty convoluted, I don't think it was cruel, but whatever.  The sources I found range from California through the Great Basin up into the northern Rockies and Alberta.  I won't vouch for what they say in Texas, after all, "barbed wire" is sometimes pronounced "bob war" there- at least, according to Molly Ivins, who usually was up on such things!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

old version of chaps pronunciation section (reference only)

 * The traditional pronunciation of the word chaps, when referring to this garment, is with a "sh" sound (, as in shave), rather than "ch" (IPA, as in chime).   This reflects the similar pronunciation of chaparral.  The authentic pronunciation by both the working and rodeo cowboy of the American West is "shaps."     However, the word is sometimes pronounced with a "ch" sound by those unfamiliar with its roots, to the point that it has become a recognized form in some dictionaries, even though it is an inauthentic pronunciation.  When pronounced with a hard "ch", it is indicative that the speaker is clearly not familiar with cowboy culture of the American west. Such pronunciation among cowboys may render the speaker vulnerable to mockery and being labeled a "dude."

I can't see how this version is so offensive, personally. I certainly won't say "Ver-sigh" next time I'm in Versailles, Kentucky. It's "Ver-sales" to the locals, and the French pronunciation is almost insulting. In the West, it's "shaps" and the other unspeakable version is asking for derision. I also would like to comment that my Mexian friends pronounce certain "ch" words (like Chapala) with a sort of soft "sch" sound. I'm not a linguist, but I think I have a pretty good ear. Certainly good enough to chap my hide when some chap talks about CHaps...--Getwood (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation, again
According to DARE, "chaparreras" is pronounced both with sh and ch; that is a matter of regional accent in Mexican Spanish. "Shaps" is without question traditional in California and some other parts of the US where arguably the word was acquired from California. However, "chaps" is both traditional and current use in other parts. In New Mexico, neither norteños nor gringos say "shaparral"; they say "chaparral". So I take issue with Wikipedia stating "the traditional" pronunciation is shaps; there is more than one traditional pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DARE must not have interviewed many actual cowboys or ranch hands, that's all I can say. And no one in the English-speaking community of the USA says either chaperreras or chaparajos today, anyhow.  The point isn't how people pronounce Spanish today, its how English speakers imported it from Spanish as it was about 150 years ago.  And frankly, I have heard horse people in New Mexico say "chaps" with "sh" within the equestrian community, so let's discuss sources -- remember original research is not OK on wiki.  I agree with Getwood on this that anyone who comes out west and says "ch" is going to be mocked and ridiculed.  I've seen it happen and it isn't pretty. (Especially the snide comments made by the wranglers behind the backs of people at the dude ranch who insist they know everything)  It's also why I also approve of the presence of, for example, an article on Rocky Mountain oysters.  Forewarned is forearmed!  Rural humor can be pretty rough.  And if nine pronunciation sources that all say, essentially, "real cowboys say 'shaps'" isn't sufficient, what is?   Montanabw (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DARE is the authority on American regional English. The article is full of refs that prove many native speakers say shaps.  No question there.  However, those refs do not prove the (apparent) contention that "out west" only "dudes" say chaps. --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this link from the article because the audio clip lacks relevance and provenance. (By the way, I cannot hear if the speaker is saying shaparral or chaparral.) --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This argument is over, so is the edit warring. You will find a neutral, properly sourced statement on the differences in how this word is pronounced. I've removed the disputed statements and protected the article. When you find an agreement, let me know. Dreadstar †  04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay by me. --Una Smith (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CON. Dreadstar  †  07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a bit of history: This topic was discussed and rediscussed several months ago with the old version reached by consensus of previous editors (with 16 sources from dictionaries and other assorted references) and was stable for quite some time.  Naturally, consenus can change, but in this case it is one person seeking to make the change.  At the last edit, there is an unsourced reference to DARE that I have no problem accepting if footnoted, plus nine sources that clearly state (if anyone read them) that there there is a clear-cut original pronunciation that exists throughout much of the traditional west, extending from California, through the Great Basin, into the Rocky Mountains, Alberta, and the Great Plains.  See Shibboleth.   Further, some of the pronunciation sources, such as the Whole Horse Catalog, are of national distribution.   I would like to hope that some sort of understanding of the very rich history and etymology of this word can be achieved, but I strongly suspect that consensus will be quite difficult because it appears that personalities have gotten involved.  The last edit made no reference to people making fun of dudes for saying the word incorrectly, that's just here on the talk page.  I propose we start with the last version before the lockdown, with a few new edits of mine to try and tone down the statement further, and edit it here until we can reach consensus:    Montanabw (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminology


Armor?
In popular culture and even a bunch of museums i've seen leg armor that look just like chaps, actual attachable chaps, not full leg armor or pants. Would these be considered chaps or greaves?

Not chaps, though the two garments probably have common roots. I don't know much about armor, unfortunately. But it makes sense the leg protection would be attached in a similar manner if you were riding a horse, it would make it easier to move/// Montanabw 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Half chaps"
Are these not simply gaiters? 195.137.79.247 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose a variation. But people who use them to ride call them half-chaps in the USA.  It wouldn't hurt to add a link to the gaiters article.   Montanabw (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved "half chaps" to Gaiters and fixed links accordingly. --Una Smith (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Restored the material, no harm in it being in both articles. Half-chaps are getting so common that some people think they ARE chaps.  At least in some newbie circles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Being in both articles equals a POV-fork. Some people do indeed refer to half chaps as chaps.  Rather than label those people newbies, I treat it as a disambig. --Una Smith (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I need you to cite the wikipedia policy on POV forks here. I disagree with your interpretation.  My understanding of a POV fork is when people create their own articles to espouse a viewpoint on a controversial topic when they are not part of the general consensus on a topic.  I don't think it is a POV fork to describe something at a page where they are apt to be looking for it.  Is it not a question of usage, after all...   Montanabw (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Content forking --Una Smith (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning half chaps here, with a link to details on the most relevant page, is what I prefer. I will ask for input. --Una Smith (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent source. So, upon reading the article clearly we do NOT in fact have a POV fork here, as this isn't even a separate article, nor is there an opinion involved. What we might have is, arguably a slight content fork, but we are talking one paragraph in each of two much larger articles. Content forking says, in pertinent part: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork." Thus, I see no real problem with having information on half chaps in the chaps article, where people looking for information are most likely to seek it, and in the gaiters article, which is the more accurate description of what they actually are. Why don't we just leave it be? Montanabw (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, do you say "half shaps"? --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do, but a friend I sometimes ride with who grew up in Connecticut or somewhere back east says "ch" chaps and we used to argue about it sometimes. Until she came around to my way of thinking on the matter. (Grin).  However, I will not go to the mat on how people say "half chaps" because I only heard of those things myself about 10 years ago, so what they were called when they were invented is beyond me.  But given the derivation and the fact that they ARE called "half chaps" and not something far more logical like "riding gaiters," it seems pronunciation should follow.   Montanabw (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Snake-bite protection
Not common, but notable: http://whitewateroutdoors.com/osc/catalog.php?cPath=173 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.38.154 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The cowboy boot is basically intended for similar purposes. Interesting.  They look like a variation on chainsaw chaps.  Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacing belt/safety issue
This info cited here is from a chat forum, probably not a good enough wikipedia source, but it seems to explain the breakaway issue, looks like it originated with competition rodeo bronc riders:  http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=14437.5;wap2  Which makes sense, the issue of snaps on shirts versus buttons, mentioned in the chat, is one I have also heard of in the past. This of course makes the statement that buckle-in-front, lace in back as "rodeo style" not make sense. And if you surf chaps manufacturers generally, almost all modern chaps are buckle in the front, and the back belt is laced so it adjusts for size, not to break away. Some show designs don't even lace any more. I will see if I can find a copy of "I see by your outfit" anywhere around here, I don't have it, but it probably would be a good source for several of the cowboy gear articles. If you want to tweak that section to convey the rodeo origins, I won't object to the cite for now until we can find something better. I also can see what can be found for modern rodeo chaps suppliers and custom design folks, the Montana site you note does a lot of historically authentic-looking designs (too bad the photo of the woolies isn't going to pass fair use muster, I'd love to get that into the article), but not all designs are necessarily used for modern work, there are a lot of parades and historical reenactment things that go on here, too. Also, many, many wannabees up the Flathead who bought a horse and a couple cows and now want to pretend they are real cowboys, probably buy a lot of the historic designs. (Don't get me started on that topic!)  Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Surfed about 50 or 60 rodeo images and while I can find chaps for sale with the single string breakaway, in photos of the modern designs actually being worn, where the front is not covered up, they all have the buckle.  A significant number of working cowboys today just wear jeans without chaps, though there are exceptions.  I am going to make a tweak indicative of the rodeo origins of the string breakaway, but I don't think the independent belt per se was a safety innovation, but more practical: how else would you keep them on?  Hooking heavy leather over a pants belt would put one at risk of having their pants fall down!  I'll accept a source on this, certainly, and will let it wait a bit so one can be found.   Montanabw (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Please discuss and present proposed additions for any issues surrounding the pronunciation of "chaps" in this section. Please keep in mind 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 ( shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA chaps).           This may reflect, in part, a similar regional variation in pronunciation of related words such as chaparral.


 * 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, 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" ( shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA chaps), and the word is sometimes spelled shaps or schaps.  Some people who say schaps become upset whenever they hear anyone else say chaps.           "Shaps" is an attempt by Anglo cowboys to mimic the soft "ch" as pronounced by their Spanish (Mexican) counterparts.

Or this one:


 * In the western United States and Canada more people pronounce chaps than, and the word is sometimes spelled accordingly shaps or schaps.

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. There is a list of citation templates, with templates such as Template:Cite book.


 * Using the  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 Neutral point of view. 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)

V. Una

 * (present proposed version here)

V. MBW

 * (present proposed version here)

I like Getwood's version and would be glad to see it in the article. I might want to put in some additional references, or somehow preserve the nine-item list somewhere in case it's needed later (finding them all was a lot of work) but that isn't a big deal and deciding whether or now more sources are needed is a very minor detail can be refined once language and phrasing is settled. Montanabw (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first three references are in the text, and the rest were moved to the Sources section.--Getwood (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

V. GW
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 has traditionally been with an "sh" pronunciation ( shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA chaps). (The following would be installed as references, but they are spelled out here for clarity on the discussion page.)
 * 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: 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
 * 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

This may reflect, in part, a similar regional variation in pronunciation of related words such as chaparral.(The following would be installed as references, but they are spelled out here for clarity on the discussion page.)
 * 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.
 * The word "Chaparral" spoken
 * "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

Comments
Looks good, if there are indeed variations in how the word is pronounced, it might be good to start off with something like "There are a couple of variations on the pronunciation of the word "chaps", the primary variation as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders..." Since I have no experience in this area of horsemanship or cowboys, besides John Wayne movies and Roy Rogers, it's just a thought... Dreadstar †  21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we do so, will we get back to the earlier spat that started this whole mess, possibly? (Question, not statement) One may note that farther down the current page, there is a referenced note to the "shaps" pronunciation in the motorcycle community and an unreferenced note that "ch" chaps is the pronuciation used by the "leather community."  However, if desired, such a disclaimer could go at the end of Getwood's version and be phrased:


 * The word is sometimes pronounced with a "ch" sound by those unfamiliar with its roots, and has become a recognized form in some dictionaries.Definition of "chaps" and ["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].  Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we combine the two into something a little more neutrally worded. We can can use the Parker reference and a dictionary entry for sources.  Dreadstar  †  20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps:
 * Chaps, is pronounced with two different main variations, one variation with a "ch" sound; and the other with the softer "sh" sound ("shaps"}, which is used by most cowboys and other Western-style riders in the American West, particularly the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada, thereby mimicking the sound of the original Spanish terms chaparejos or chaparreras.


 * I think the the thing to do is to add in your earlier basic section and kick around the variations debate intro for a couple more days? I have no objections if you want to toss something back into the article, as I do think the material needs to be returned, at least in a basic fashion.  Dreadstar, would that be OK with you?   Montanabw (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need to show that there are at least the two variations on the pronunciation of the word, apparently there are some people who do pronounce it as "Chaps" instead of "Shaps". Dreadstar  †  02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed the dictionary lists both, and I am OK with neutral wording, but what started this whole storm in the first place was the legitimate point that within the western riding community most closely associated with where the garment originated, the "sh" form really is an accurate term of art, or, as Getwood put it, technical language. My concern is phrasing that suggests the two pronunciations are equal and it doesn't really matter which one uses.  I have given in on practically every point raised here, so am really just begging for a slight nod in the direction that acknowledges that there is a more traditional form and a less traditional form.    Montanabw (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so where did the garment originate? Prove that. --Una Smith (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think sourcing is the problem, is there a source for the opinion of the Western riding community? I often run into the same problem with editors saying what the Scientific community says as a monolithic whole.  It's difficult to gauge unless there's an authorative source, but from all I've read, I do see the point about traditional versus less traditional, and the fact that a large number of the riding community use sh instead of ch..  Dreadstar  †  03:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You know the problem any time with "proving" that the "whole community" says anything. (LOL). I guess in turn, I would ask for anyone to produce a single usage guide that says "ch" is an accepted or proper pronunciation anywhere - I freely acknowledge that "ch" is listed as such in the dictionaries and, apparently DARE, as well as being said by non-horse people who live in cities (where there usually are no horses) and on the east coast (where they would not be exposed directly to western regional terminology but would have only read books) but in all honesty, that's why I dug up all that source material -- it ALL says "sh."  Last time this issue came up, several months ago, I looked for "ch" sources, and all I could find were chat forums where people discussed the question.  I guess the Whole Horse Catalogue could be an authoritative source for the horse community in general, it's a big general reference book that covers almost everything (see Amazon.com link to book  So much horse information is, to this day, transmitted via oral tradition that there just simply are not going to be a lot of traditionally authoritative sources.  Which is part of the reason these spats hit.  I can probably analyze the strengths and weaknesses of all sixteen sources if you really want me to...?   Montanabw (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the number of sources we can find for SH or the dearth of sources for "CH", it's finding any source that talks about the ratio of use. It won't help to find billions and billions of sources that say it's pronounced "SH", we know that it is pronounced "CH" too.  I think that misunderstanding is why there were too many sources for the section.  Now, we obviously don't want to violate [{WP:UNDUE]] by saying there's an equal number or that there's any unprovable percentage of a certain pronunciation, but we're not in danger of doing that.  I think we have the proper weight on SH vs CH.  At least I hope so.  Dreadstar  †  04:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm comfortable with the current weighting. There is probably no way to prove relative percentages, the problem is more the question of whether we are talking about "correct/incorrect" use or bonafide regional variations or language shift.  But that's what started this fight, and I am comfortable with your last version, though which refs to use will need some tweaking (which I haven't had the time to do the last day or so...)  Montanabw (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But, to put up or shut up, how's this (with wikilinks added to main article):


 * The pronunciation of the word chaps, as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada, has traditionally been with an "sh" pronunciation (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA /tʃ/ chaps).[Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: 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] This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral.[cite chaparral sources and Sletta source] However, the word is sometimes pronounced with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/), and both are recognized pronunciation forms in many dictionaries.Definition of "chaps" and ["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].

The floor is now open to further comment! :-)  Montanabw (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And a note on sources: The "Buckaroos in Paradise" site is from the Library of Congress American Folklife center and may be a better regional source than the Canadian book, which is more informal and whimsical, though the LOC pronunciation comment is sort of made in passing while the Canadian book is more detailed. (There was a reason I wound up with nine sources...). The History Net source and the Whole Horse catalogue sources are also national in distribution. How about the final version just put [source] here and, given that I was the one who found and reviewed all of them originally, I can try to plug in the source that best fits each statement? Montanabw (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation of the word chaps, as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada, has traditionally been with an "sh" pronunciation (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps).[Western Canadian Dictionary and Phrase Book: 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] This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral.[cite chaparral sources and Sletta source] The word is also pronounced by some with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/).  Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.Definition of "chaps" and ["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].


 * I reduced some redundant wording, and weaseled the group of non-traditional pronunciators who use "ch". How's that?  Dreadstar  †  04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey dokey, and you betcha, bucko. (That's Montanan for "OK").   Montanabw (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Getwood? Una? Is this acceptable to both of you? Dreadstar †  04:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ok--Getwood (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It is still POV.  And excuse me but it is silly.  Where people say shaps, most people who use the word say it that way regardless of their occupation (cowboy) or style of riding.  Where people don't say it that way, they don't, again regardless of their occupation or style of riding. --Una Smith (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Una seems to have checked out, she's editing, but not here. How long do we wait before unblocking the article?   Montanabw (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Final version 1
This is the final version for consideration, please add references as if it were in the actual article so it can be reviewed by all interested ediors. Dreadstar †  01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation of the word chaps, as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada, has traditionally been with an "sh" pronunciation (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps). This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and ''chaparral. The word is also pronounced by some with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/).  Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.

Final version 2
Simpler, and more specific. --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The traditional pronunciation of the word chaps in parts of the western United States and Canada is with an "sh" pronunciation (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps). This may reflect 19th-century regional California Spanish pronunciation; outside of California, the Spanish pronunciation of "ch" is (IPA /tʃ/).  Both pronunciations of the word chaps are recognized in American English dictionaries.

Poll

 * Final Version 1 (V1) or Final Version 2 {V2) ? Each of you choose one or the other. If a comment is necessary as to why, please keep it short and to the point.  Dreadstar  †  06:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Polling

 * V1, because it reflects a better NPOV and is more accurate overall. Also doesn't belabor the point.  And it is written by a neutral third party who has considered all the arguments.   Montanabw (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * V1. This statement does say that some people say one thing and some say another.--Getwood (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * V2, because V1 (who uses which pronunciation) is (a) inaccurate and (b) more matter for a guide than an encyclopedia. --Una Smith (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * v.2 simpler and cleaner. --AeronM (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra comments
Sorry, I should have been clearer when I said to vote for one or the other and give a short reason why. I've given an example above. Dreadstar †  03:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Dreadstrar's version for now, but have been confined to a dialup for the last five days which, combined with real life, has limited my time to review. The bottom line is not that just "cowboys" say chaps, (I'm not a cowboy) but so do significant numbers of all western riders, certainly the Quarter Horse world, western pleasure riders generally across many breed disciplines, etc. As Getwood said, and I have repeated several times, this is technical language. And of widespread colloquial use: Certainly if you want to hang by the in-gate at any major championship show anywhere from Washington State to New Mexico to Minnesota to Saskatchewan (as I have) and listen to the teenaged girls waiting for their equitation class whine, MOMMM! Will you zip my (Sh)chaps? MOMMMM! Will you straighten my (Sh) chaps... MOMMMMM! (grin)

If English riders on the east coast (or elsewhere) have adopted a different pronunciation, then that is a deviation from the origin of the word, which (if you read the thread) of Spanish Mexican roots, then adopted by cowboys in the USA. Yes, the Spanish word came first. This IS a Spanish-derived word. Again, I do challenge anyone who says otherwise to go beyond original research and find actual useage guides that say "ch" is correct. When dictionaries list both, as they do, one turns to other sources for further guidance. I found at least nine for "sh", I have yet to see ONE source that recommends "ch" in colloquial use. It is also mildly insulting to say only "cowboys" say "sh", particularly in light of a few cracks made about people in the west or who live in rural areas. Montanabw (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where the usual pronunciation is chaps, there is no need to give the pronunciation because it is pronounced as it is spelled. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no original research here. See DARE:  most of the related Mexican words are pronounced with ch, not sh.  Chaparreras and chaps are pronounced with both.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Better Late than Never
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)

Images
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.

Comments
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 Layout.  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)

Actions
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)

Am I too late?
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)

Added wording
Just to give it a shot: Dreadstar †  02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The word chaps has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps) by Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada. This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral. English-style riders, among others, pronounce the word with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/). Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.
 * Looks better to me. From a stylistic point of view I'd lose the repetition of the word pronunciation in the first sentence: how about has traditionally been with the sound /ʃ/ ("sh")? C0pernicus (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, how about: "The word chaps has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound (IPA: /ʃ/ shaps) by Western-style riders, particularly in the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada." I agree that the paragraph seems more npov now, and I still think it is relevant enough to belong.--Getwood (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes incorporated above. Dreadstar  †  17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Are we now beating a dead horse here?   Montanabw (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks alive, kicking, and approaching the finish-line if you ask me. Dreadstar  †


 * I'm OK with Getwood's tweak if it cleans up the phrasing. C0pernicus is probably right that repetitive words are best avoided.  Interesting that you found one example of an explanation of the "ch" (mis)pronunciation by some English-only riders which probably explains the basis of this whole debate.  (Though it may still have regional elements, as English-only riders out here say "shaps" too, other than a few newcomers from back east, who are quickly set straight)  Keep in mind, of course, that English riders use chaps only for schooling, not for competition, so they aren't really "traditional" English equipment, nor show legal.  And they clearly borrowed the garb from Western riders. I dont mean to be snarky, I'm just soooo tired of this.     Montanabw (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I proposed version 2 because version 1 presents a dividing line between "Western" and "English" riders that (a) is not adequately supported and (b) is not universal (as both AeronM and I attest) and (c) I find offensive. If someone "rides Western" but says "chaps", gee, they must be a wannabe, eh? I can believe such a dividing line exists where Montanabw lives, but I know it does not exist everywhere. --Una Smith (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, out here the English riders also say "shaps." I didn't find that "English riders" source, I was just commenting on it.  Thought it would solve the debate.   Montanabw (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's a little too much hyperbole from both sides on this issue, and both versions attempt to set dividing lines. As far as the Western and English rider statement, I've found a reliable source for it:


 * "customarily pronounced “shaps” by Western riders and “chaps” by English riders" The Lyons Press Horseman’s Dictionary


 * Same wording in The Horseman's Illustrated Dictionary.


 * We can attribute the statement if necessary. Dreadstar  †  04:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Same author, Steven Price, so not independent. He has a third, earlier book that says exactly the same thing. Below are some others. --Una Smith (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Words and Ways of American English, by Thomas Pyles, 1952, "Chaps, sometimes spelled and pronounced shaps"
 * Every-day Pronunciation, by Robert Palfrey Utter, 1918, "In the United States, the garment is known as chaps or shaps where it is used."
 * Pennsylvania Dutch: A Dialect of South German with an Infusion of English, by Samuel Stehman Haldeman, 1872, "English Ch remains in catch, child, chaps (and shaps), fetch, sooch, mooch; and it becomes sh in ..."
 * The Horseman's Dictionary, by Lida (Fleitman) Bloodgood, Piero Santini, 1964, "Shaps: See Chaps."
 * Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language in Dictionary Form, 1940, "chaps (colloq.), shaps (Western US)"
 * Publication of the American Dialect Society, "chaps (frequently shaps) in the popular speech of Colorado"
 * La lengua española en la historia de California, by Antonio Blanco Sánchez, 1971, "shaps, 1930; chaps 1912;"


 * Price's book is a reliable source, so it can be used to reference the statement you're disputing. The only question is whether it would need to be atrributed or not.  Dreadstar  †  06:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put the above discussed version into place for now. If you can find consensus for another version, we can update with that. Dreadstar †  07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I object hence there is no consensus and this is premature. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Una- There is no judgement in the current version. It seems that you were offended by the "dudes" comment back in this page's ancient history, and that you are reading more into the current statement than exists.  I hope that mediation will work, because it seems that we have reached an impasse.  East vs. West it would seem.--Getwood (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Truly beating a dead horse
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)

A Minor edit
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)

Request for mediation
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 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)

An outside linguists view
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)

Another Outside Linguist's View
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,. 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, but is now also pronounced as ". I have lived in Utah since I was six and I say. The last person I heard say 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 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, 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))

Non-equestrian pronunciation
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)

Materials and assorted topics

 * 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))

Hair
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)

Edits
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)