Talk:Skanger

Terminology
On the Adrian Kennedy Talkshow on FM104 Skangers are known as 'Scumbags'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddevlin79 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not just Dublin
You know the term Scanger/Scobe ((which is re-directed here}} is not just used in Dublin.It's used in Nearly every Town and all the City's in Ireland.When said typically from a Dublin Working class.Well I don;t think of Scobes/Scangers like that.I think of them  typically from working class family in the area I am from.

So please don't change it back just to Dublin as it is blatantly wrong.

Mikel-Fikel 82 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree the term may be more widely used in Dublin but it is understood across most/all of the Republic of Ireland and while in other cities local terms (e.g. Scobes in Cork) may be in more widespread usage A Scobe is effectively a Skanger with a Cork accent.

Skangers are a nationwide phenomenon so when the article is edited accordingly why do people insist on reverting it? Do Dublin people really WANT to claim exclusive ownership of Skangers ? Somehow I very much doubt it ! 80.229.222.48 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"a stereotypical member of a youth subculture group in Dublin"
Why just Dublin? They're all over Ireland!

The vast majority out side of Dublin are mostly Skulchies (a culchie-scanger hybrid).

I have lived in various parts of Ireland (including Dublin) and have never heard the term "Skulchies" Skangers are everywhere though (unfortunately) 80.229.222.48 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just Dublin
I was annoyed with the way it said stereotypically from Dublin Working class.Well I'm from Cork and When I think of scobe((re-directed here)) I think of them from places Like Knochnaheane or mayfield in Cork City.So I will be editing out he Dublin part.

Howiya?
Is it really appropriate to have this Dublin label for female scangers in the article considering this article is about scangers all over Ireland?

Skanger Vs. Scanger
"Skanger": 18,700 results. "Scanger": 10,100 results. A change in title maybe in order.


 * I've edited the page "Skanger" so it now bears the correct title. This article should now be merged with crrectly-titled article.


 * Why does every usage of the word now have a capital letter? Also, is it possible for some reference to be left in the article to the fact that an alternative spelling is available albeit less common? Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - [[Image:Ichthus.svg|25px]] - 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * seems it has been changed back, why i dont know Owwmykneecap 20:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone went and made an identical article at Skanger. This is stupid. If no one objects I'm going to turn that back into a redirect and then we can discuss which spelling should be used in the heading. I personally think both spellings should be mentioned and used, since both are in use. Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - - 13:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect until the 27th July and is a redirect again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - [[Image:Ichthus.svg|25px]] - 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As in with a K. I have never seen it referenced to with a "c" before. Also I dont mind this being funny (in fact i think this should be), but there is a lot of wrong information in this article, how old was the person who wrote it, as in did the have any first hand expeerience with them in school etc or is it more a view from slightly further afar? Owwmykneecap 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I've only ever seen the word spelt with a c, so both are obviously in use. I believe this article is the collaborated work of lots of people (from looking at the edit history), of varying ages and experience. Some seem to have been more biased than others. I am, however, surprised at how NPOV this is. Not entirely, by any stretch of the imagination, but surprising neutral and factual. Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - [[Image:Ichthus.svg|25px]] - 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word should be spelled 'skanger' as it comes from the word skanky. Good article, but then, I did play rugby.

Guys, the spelling in general use in Ireland is "skanger". Google says 29,600 hits for "skanger" versus 11,000 for "scanger". "skanger" is more well-represented on UrbanDictionary. It is the spelling used on most of the few Irish sites which actually deal with real Irish culture, overheardindublin.com, p45.net, etc. Let's get this sorted out for once and for all. Almost no-one actually spells it with a 'c', so let's have Wikipedia reflect that. --John Lunney 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly think 11,000 is "almost no-one" as you've suggested, but perhaps the order of the two spellings in the introduction and the article name should be changed. You should probably seek consensus for such a move. Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - [[Image:Ichthus.svg|25px]] - 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it's not "almost no-one", but "skanger" is certainly the predominant spelling. I wasn't planning on just going wild and moving the article. But I certainly believe it should be moved to reflect the majority spelling. I've moved around the talk page a little so that all discussion of the spelling of the word is in one place. Looking back through the revisions of this article, a lot of information has been deleted, some of it inappropriate, some of it fairly reasonable. Also, if we change it to "skanger" here, it should change on Wiktionary too.
 * What do others think?
 * --John Lunney 13:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Skanger - by far the most common spelling. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What?!?
This article has completely destroyed all credibility I previously regarded wikipedia with. One short paragraph could easily describe the word and how it is used. This article is an incredibly biased attack on a low socio-economic group within Irish society. The reason it has not already been removed?? "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas". Why yes Mr. Marx, I do believe you have a very valid point there, where is the article on "rugger buggers" from blackrock? Perhaps its due to the fact that people from these socio-economic groupings have less access to computers or lack the acedemic writing skills required to be a regular wekipedia contributor. With this in mind the question must be posed, What does wikipedia represent? The views, opinions and humerous prose of the elite intellects and acedemics? or an objective, unbiased means of each individual contributing their own knowledge into an evolving up-to-date encyclopedia? Martinq22 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like an article on the phenomenon of "rugger buggers", then why not go start one? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which everyone is welcome to edit & editors are encouraged to co-operate to achieve concensus. Care to contribute? - Ali-oops&#9997; 14:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I dont really believe that adding another biased article will balance out the scales here. I mean, Im all for definitions but this article is just ridiculous!Martinq22 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Theres an article about d4 ppl somewhere else but not as well done as this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.222.177 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Its the same as having an article on chavs I think. It is a cultural phenomenon. 86.42.12.126 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no classism
To people who say that putting down scangers is classist: Shut up, it's not and saying that is, quite frankly, offensive to honest unemployed people who are trying to work and do the best they can in life in difficult circumstances. To be a scanger, you have to conform to the "stereotype". You have to wear the gel, the cap, you have to be violent, abusive and envious of people who are in a better situation than yourself. The only way it's classist is if you think all unemployed people waste their dole on pointless Civic mods and only a few idiots think that. There are plenty of good people who can't get a job and scangers aren't among them. --193.203.134.22 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. In fact it is honest people from what another contributor has refereed to as "a low socio-economic group within Irish society" who have most reason to be disdainful towards Skangers 80.229.222.48 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spides, millies &c.
The inclusion of the material about spides and their support of loyalism/republicanism is informative, but I can't help feeling that it doesn't fit in the "scanger" article. I don't know much about spides and millies—is there anyone who thinks they would be able to start an article on them? Or would a separate section in this article about "Spides and Millies" suffice?

Also, since people keep adding more bullet points to the part about the scanger accent which are not related to it, does anyone agree that I should create a separate section entitled "Distinguishing features of speech" to avoid confusion?

— Doshea3 20:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Belfast Spides are the same as the skangers, only are usually called different, so why would they have no places in the article? (86.131.164.88 20:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

semi-protection
I've just asked an admin to due to anon editors constantly removing the NPOV/orig tags - Ali-oops&#9997;  19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That won't save you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.216.23 (talk • contribs)
 * It helps - Ali-oops&#9997; 06:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Monk.
Skangers do say knacker drinking. Everyone says knacker drinking.

Eh the reference to the monk being a drug dealer is still in the article and needs to be changed he was, as has been pointed out, an armed robber.

And those people that are up in arms about this not having sources need to chill out it's true and you all know it. it is also just a feckin joke stop taking it so seriously.

Wikipedia Editorial Policy too lax
Aye - and, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a "feckin joke" when it's editorial policy allows the inclusion of utterly inane topics - such as Scanger.

Hobo chang ba 08:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a touch of information snobbery to me! What in your opinion should Wikipedia stick to?

Pictures
These were added, Image:Scumbags.jpg, Image:Chavscum.jpg and Image:Subtle shocker.jpg. I removed them as they could be anybody, anywhere and I also thought that they could be being used as an attack on the people pictured in them. Any thoughts? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good choice. It looks like those photos are all from the same source; judging by the titles, my guess is that they were intended as an attack. Censored photos are okay, but these photos are just inappropriate for an encyclopedia. &#8212; Inkuh 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with current picture as it is optically censored. Leave it alone.
 * The picture that was put back in was originally in the article. It was removed twice by User:Davie jamestow so he could insert his attacking pictures here and here. When I removed his picture after the second edit I forgot to put back the original picture, which is acceptable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of the Scanger page ?
It seems to me that this page was created to help establish a negative stereotype - an activity I believe should not be promoted by Wikipedia. There is a notion that a pre-existing concrete stereotype is being defined. Well, that's nonsense - A stereotype is never fixed in definition. That changes with time and the particular prejudices a defining party brings to the exercise. Why is it that the poorest and weakest in society are usually the ones being "defined" as members of these stereotypes? I believe negative stereotyping develops as a futile reaction to the insecurities inherent in a capitalist society - An amorphous group, e.g., scangers, is called into existence and then blamed for some or all of society's ills. Instead of articles trying to define the shape-shifting characteristics of amorphous groupings such as scangers, chavs, and all the rest, all that is necessary is a page on Wikipedia devoted to defining the phenomenon of negative stereotyping - why it exists - and indicating various methods employed to encourage a more progressive understanding of society's complexities.

Hobo chang ba 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

its not a stereotype, a stereotype would be "all black people rob" a skanger like say a yuppie is the name for people who dress act etc a certain way. the behavoir may be stereotypical of a certain class or it may not but dont confuse this with meanting the term to be stereotypical Skangers are often very anti-social and can be violent...i would hardly calll them the weakest and poorest anyway its a moder phenomenom and rightlyt deserves a page...perhaps a better one, but certainly a page so how about you try write something.... Owwmykneecap 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point: to define the term Skanger.


 * Also it's not for Wikipedia to decide if they should be eradicated from society. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to reply to you when you come back and change the wording and thus the meaning of your comments. As you did here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Changes to Article
The term "scanger" does exist, and this subculture does deserve to be covered by Wikipedia, but the current article is a mass of unsourced "facts" and semi-anecdotal assertions. I've made a start by removing some of the more blatantly uncited parts, but much more still remains. Demiurge 13:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This article does in no way conform to Wikipedia's principle of nuetral point of view. This article is simply appears to be a rant. Certain, supposedly "politically correct" terms are quite offensive such as "grouping" almost as if to imply so called scangers are a population group.Olockers


 * Recent changes have now ruined this article. Those who have rewritten it have done a very shameful job. The writing in the new paragraph on appearance is awful. The term 'scanger' is tied up with the tongue and cheek humor of Dublin. This article used to represent that. The editors have clearly misunderstood its purpose. Now it takes itself too seriously and as a result is far more confusing. What was wrong with cataloguing the contents of one of the many comedic stereotypes Irish people use? And how, in the name of God, can such information be cited? To act as if there is anything more to the term 'scanger' than anecdotes and unsourced "facts" is to make the term more derogatory. Those of you who are intent on ruining this article, please find new hobbies, or at least improve your writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.57.246 (talk • contribs)
 * If it can't be cited, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. WP:V. Demiurge 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article hasn't improved any on the citing sources front, so in accordance with WP:BOLD I propose to replace it with a redirect to Chav, a (properly cited) article on the UK equivalent of scangers. Any objections? Demiurge 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. A Scanger is not the same as a chav and to say so is like making Irish Traveller a redirect to Roma People. It's a stupid idea, if you don't mind me saying. Whereas there are cultural similarities, they aren't identical groups and are defined by their nation of residence. I also believe a lot was lost in the rewrite. I accept some POV had to be removed, but much informative information was simply deleted rather than improved, which is a shame. SoStrongly Oppose - Joe Byrne -- Talk -- Contribs - ga: - fr: - [[Image:Ichthus.svg|25px]] - 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose thought i had already replied to this...anyway Skanger far predates this modern chav phenomon Owwmykneecap 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was born and raised in the US, and never have I heard a single person refer to a condom as a "scumbag". We use the term for sleazy individuals, same as Ireland.
 * Butr that is where the word comes from... from harvard universtity dudes.

POV
This articial is pov from start to finish, i was tempted to norm for delete but the numberious reference from the irish press has turned my away from that course of action (Gnevin 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

How is the it POV? It adequately describes the stereotype which numerous delinquents conform to. It's only POV if scangers are an actual group or movement. --Onias 02:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your use of delinquents in deny this artical shows your inherent negivate pov (Gnevin 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, it would be a tiny encyclopedia that doesn't have people with certain prejudices and biases contributing. Anyway, being a delinquent is part of the scanger stereotype unless you count pseudo or wannabe scangers (that phenomenon is covered quite well in the article) and the article's purpose is to describe the stereotype. By the way, you wrote that I have "inherent negivate[sic] POV" as opposed to positive POV? So the article is supposed to glorify the scanger "culture" or something? Besides, I don't think I'm biased towards scangers. I've only occasionly come into contact with them; I'm naught but a simple country lad :) --Onias 14:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

POV
Of course this is a POV page. But it is no more so than anything related to any social class phenomenon. This is a real enetity, with a braod culture following similar lines. I live in an aprtment block with people like the aforementioned and I can fully vouch for the article's veracity. I reject the supposed Marxist accusation as it taints true Marxist philospohy and also casts aspersions on the author's article. all in all, it;s a good article. There is apronounceds sectarianism, anti-British feel to the Irish scanger. These people are vistims of their circumstances but no more so than anyone else is a victim (e..g rugger buggers). If it;s OK to lauhg at snobs, then it should be OK to laugh at scobies too. re: Spelling... it relaly doesn;t amtter whether you use a "k" or a "c" in Skanger/Scanger. Like most words' origin, it is verbal and not orthographic in origin.

Leave the article alone as it is. Well done ot the author. Let me also add that many sakngers do actually ahve internet. It is a misnomer to assue they don't.

"a stereotypical member of a youth subculture group in Dublin"
Why just Dublin? They're all over Ireland!

The vast majority out side of Dublin are mostly Skulchies (a culchie-scanger hybrid).

Use of the word 'scanger' in the narrative
Given that 'Scanger' is a derogatory term, should it be used in the narrative text? Is this kind of sentence correct: "Scangers have a reputation for anti-social behaviour."? The Nigger article wouldn't have a sentence like 'Niggers are known for laziness'. Know whorramean? Curtains99 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Scanger" is a collection of behavioural stereotypes, not a term of abuse for all working-class Dubliners, so I think it's OK. Demiurge 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Piercings
I think it shoud be noted that scangers only ever have their ears pierced.

VANDALISM!!!!
Some skangers vandalised this page beyond recognition.Its needs to be restored and protected.

Deletion
The article has been marked as unreferenced for several months, yet not one single acceptable source has been provided, and there are no signs of any. Therefore I have removed the uncited information from the article, in accordance with the WP:CITE policy. Please do not readd this information without sourcing it. Demiurge 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To the people who are readding the unsourced content without discussion, please discuss on this talk page why your preferred version meets Wikipedia's content standards for verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. I'm leaving the page for the moment, but I'll revert again in a few days time if there's no serious attempt to meet Wikipedia standards in the meantime. Demiurge 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Unsourced statements can be removed on sight. Where clean-up tags have brought attention to unreferenced information for some time without effect then unsourced information should be removed, regardless of how many media sources have mentioned the article, how long the article has been around or that the information is empirically obvious to people wandering the streets of Ireland.

If you're adding or restoring unsourced information, please include a reference. If you don't then don't get upset if it gets removed. Including something because you "know it to be true" is primary research which is not an acceptable source of wikipedia information. No-one is saying that all the information in every other article is sourced but there's tons of it here.

There are plenty of articles similar to this where this leads to revert warring. Those including the unsourced information without referencing it tend to lose those wars, often resulting in a much shorter article. Hope you guys can find some references. Deizio talk 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All unsourced material is gone. Two references added to prove that the term exists. Curtains99 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the people who were adding the unsourced material back in: I've marked the word "howiya" with a Fact tag; can we start out by trying to find a reliable source for this term? Once we've found that, we can then see about sourcing the rest of the removed material. Demiurge 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Undo, undo!
The ridicoulous shortening of the article was completly unnessacery. I know most of the statments were unsourced but I could garentee most were true and that you could find many sources backing it up. I realise it needed a clean-up and that several statements were biased or made-up but that's no need to delete 3/4 of the frigging article!

P.S. There needs to be a wiki mention of Sculchies. It's own artile or a section of the culchie or scanger atricles. Cheers.

--James Brown Monster, 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. A lot of Wikipedia articles are ruined by people interpreting sensible and well intentioned editorial policies to their most ludicrous extremes and removing three quarters of an article over a few allegedly flawed lines is almost as destructive as any attempt at wiki-vandalism. Actually the original article Going back prior to mid-November 2006 was a lot better (I tried reverting it only to be face ridiculous accusations of breaching some apparently non-existent "consensus") Thanks to the actions of some overzealous editors the article has been reduced to little more than a stub more suited to a Wictionary entry than a proper Wikipedia article with a virtually all the work of previous wikipedia editors chucked away. No doubt the individuals responsible will respond attempting to justify their actions by quoting chapter and verse various wikipedia policies suitably over interpreted without any reference to common sense. But I think the fact that back in July 2006 the article boasted citation by at least four press articles. whereas there hasn’t been a single one since last November speaks volumes80.229.222.48 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting back to much of last year's unsourced POV is not improving this article, IMO. And continually re-reverting without any dialog isn't helping, either. Nice to see you on the talk page now, though. Rather than simply reverting to the older article you believe to be more comprehensive, how about detailing here what you'd like to see be put back in and why. Then we can at least get some sort of buy-in from folks here? - A l is o n  ☺ 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First off "continually" re-reverting ??? One revert and three minor edits hardly amounts to "continual re-reverting" much less a "revert war". Secondly the assertion that the article in its current state is somehow an improvment over the older more comprehensive edits is nothing more than your POV which while perfectly valid is obviously not shared by several other contributers here. Nor does it seem to be shared by the press since theyve stopped referring to this article. While the older article had its weaknesses surely it was better to deal with these through a series of minor edits/improvments rather than "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" through a wholesale butchering of the original article which left very little intact of what had been quite a well written article to which several contributers had obviously put a lot of work into. As for being unsourced POV It can (and has been) argued that this is very difficult to avoid entirely in an article of this type. Any treatment of a sociey's perceptions of a subculture is by its nature bound to be subjective and therfore it very difficult to maintain absolute NPOV or to provide citations to back up every statement. Therfore a certain amount of common sense is required while still adehering to NPOV and providing citations insofar as possible. 80.229.222.48 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR proposal (revert to longer article)
Given that nobody has responded I now propose a WP:IAR on this article and for the reasons stated above a revert to the version of 19:12, 25 July 2007 or one of the long versions from last November. Anyone agree/disagree ?


 * Yes, I disagree per Alison above. Why don't you reproduce the material on the talk page you want to see added back and there can be some discussion on specifics. Rockpock  e  t  01:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As before, please discuss what you want to see added here, provide cites and then we'll talk. The version back then was total original research & this is not what Wikipedia is about. - Alis o n  ❤ 04:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm What is being proposed is a Wikipedia Ignore all rules. The whole point of an WP:IAR is that things like original research  and citations dont matter. What is the point in "reproducing the material on the talk page" Ive already suggested a revert to  the version of  19:12, 25 July 2007. The text of this version is available in the articles history. Reposting the whole thing here would clutter up the talk page and waste bandwidth/server space. 80.229.222.48 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why IAR should be invoked to ignore WP:NOR - a core policy. What is so special about this particular article "that things like original research and citations dont matter." They do matter.  Rockpock  e  t  17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is so special about this particular article "that things like original research and citations dont matter ?
 * Without rehashing all the reasons that have already been given above the fact that the article was far better (with had been cited in several press articles) prior to Nov 2006 before it was reduced to little more than a stub. The whole point of WP:IAR is a recognition that there are instances where rules like WP:NOR dont always lead to better articles. An article of this type being a case in point. 80.229.222.48 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
Sorry, but this is clear-cut. No sources = WP:OR. IAR does not excuse any article from complying with content policies. Please ensure any further additions are reliably sourced. Deiz talk 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IAR does not excuse any article from complying with content policies. Ummm surely WP:IAR. does exactly that ? As in this instance does WP:COMMON. A full article is far better than a glorified stub more suited to Wictionary. Ideally it would be nice to have fully cited material from verifiable sources but clerly this is not always practical An full article (suitably tagged to make the reader aware of potential issues with the content) is clearly the best option until sufficent citable and verifiable material becomes available to replace it. 194.165.161.222 (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OR and WP:RS largely trumps WP:CON

Where exactly does it say this ? 99% of this is WP:OR Thats still leaves (at least) 1% that isint so why revert when editing would be a better (or less worse) option) ? 194.165.177.159 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is sourcing really the issue here though ? Or is it being used as a fig-leaf by those misguided liberals (above) who object to the article (on "classist" grounds or somesuch nonsense) but having lost that argument are now using WP:OR as a red herring to destroy it by butchering it to a stub. Even if their obsessive behaviour is clearly not in line with WP:OWN 159.134.233.64 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sourcing is really this issue here. The whole thing you reverted to is completely unsourced made-up conjecture, with nary a cite to its name. I've no idea where you're going with this "liberals" thing, other than to note that it's usually used as a throwaway phrase to attack a person who you happen to disagree with - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we get back to discussing the real issues here namely WP:IAR, WP:CON WP:COMMON. and all the other points above which havent been addressed ? 194.165.160.139 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IAR allows edits which, although on shaky ground under an generally sound reading of one or more policies, improve the encyclopedia. However, IAR never allows editors to lose sight of the fact that WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such should contain accurate, reliably sourced information. Without getting into any of the nonsense above, the issue remains: If something is unsourced, it can be removed by any editor and should not be reincluded without appropriate sourcing.  <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened this?
This used to be an excellent article with great length, humour and information. What happened? Why has so much of it been taken down? Iloveamerica2much (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy happened this. WP:V for a start. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Expand, merge or redirect
This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning, eytmology and usage of a slang expression. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:
 * 1) Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
 * 2) Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
 * 3) Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the wi template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment below was incorrectly left on my Talk page and the page inappropriately protected. Comment moved. Rossami (talk)
 * The page, and cited references to media sources, provide adequate encyclopedic information about the depiction of this subculture, their actions and behaviour and their influence on society. This is far more than an etymological entry. Given the contemporary nature of the subject, there is also more than adequate scope for expansion of the article. Thanks, <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The media references confirm the existence and even the definition of this term. The question I posed was not whether the term is real but whether there is content that goes beyond mere lexical content.  You say there is.  Please show me what you see.  All I see is a definition, etymology of the word and some connotation and context.  Rossami (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand what you're saying. The page describes a subculture, has plenty of context therein, and is well-sourced. But Skanger is merely a word, so we should move the article to a dictionary? How many pages would remain in Wikipedia if you applied this rationale? "All I see is a definition, etymology of the word and some connotation and context." Never have I heard this as a reason to delete a page from the encyclopedia. If you're suggesting there is no crossover between encyclopedias and dictionaries, you're further off base than I thought. As there is really nothing to discuss here, my previous comment was correctly placed on your page as it was directed entirely at you. The protection was applied as the page was inappropriately redirected twice for no reason. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm thinking about it, maybe you could answer this: Would you also delete / redirect the page Chav? If yes, why? If no, why is Skanger (the Irish equivalent) any less encyclopedic than Chav? Bear in mind this not solely about the current state of the article. If that is your main concern, then you're still being seriously overzealous but OK, Skanger is not yet up to WP:FA. However, I don't think you are actually suggesting the topic is not encyclopedic. There is no deadline, so if you think an article needs more then expand, tag, request your heart out. But don't redirect well maintained, referenced, perfectly encyclopedic pages. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 16:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, let's clear up some confusion. (This is a pet peeve of mine so please excuse the diatribe.)  Turning a page into a redirect is not deletion.  Deletion in the narrow and specific way that we use the term here at Wikipedia means that the entire page and the page history is removed from the project.  Turning a page into a redirect, even a soft-redirect, leaves the history intact and visible to all editors.  Deletion requires special admin tools to carry out and special admin tools to undo.  Undoing a decision to redirect is an ordinary-editor action and can be both reviewed by and carried out by any editor at any time.  Decisions about whether to delete a page get decided through the AfD process (with some exceptions now) and are overturned via the Deletion Review process - both rather heavy with bureaucratic overhead.  Decisions about whether to redirect a page get sorted out via consensus on the respective Talk pages.  So no, I did not "delete" the page.  That said, you have some valid comments about the content of the article so let me end my diatribe and answer those separately.  Rossami (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, to answer your substantive questions, yes there is a policy that says that Wikipedia ought not to have pages which are merely lexical content in the encyclopedia. WP:WINAD has the longest discussion but you can also find a lot at WP:NOT.  That's not to say that a definition can not be part of an encyclopedia article but that we are not supposed to keep things which are only dictionary definitions.  That's Wiktionary's mission.  And, frankly, they're better at it than we are.  (For example, they have conclusively shown that the preferred/original spelling is "scanger" and that "skanger" is the variant.  This decision is confirmed by the etymology section that was here on this very page.  Yet our page titles are inexplicably reversed.)
 * I grant you that this page is well-maintained and well-sourced. It is a very well-documented dictionary definition and was a significant addition to Wiktionary.  Sourcing and maintenance were never the relevant questions.  In my opinion, it's purely a matter of content.  Is there content that goes beyond the merely lexical?
 * To your other points. Unlike deletion where we are supposed to only consider the potential for the topic, we should take the current state of the article into consideration when deciding to merge or redirect a page.  Remember, redirects preserve history and as soon as someone has content that does clearly go beyond the merely lexical, the page can be immediately restored by that editor.  While there is no deadline, there is an appropriate tension between eventualism and immediatism.  A number of our best articles have followed this pattern - content not yet appropriate as a stand-alone page, merged and/or redirected and then later broken back out once we had substantial encyclopedic content.  Future editors have the full benefit of the history to consider when drafting the larger version.
 * As for Chav, I'm frankly skeptical. The page is mostly definitional today.  The proportion of content that is social context is, in my opinion, quite small.  Nevertheless, it is substantially greater than what is on this page.  That at least makes Chav a closer call.  So let me ask again, what content is on this page that you would not expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary?  Rossami (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This ought to be merged into Chav. &mdash; <font color="#000">Hex  <font color="#000">(❝ <font color="#900">?! <font color="#000">❞)  03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the past year, there has been no improvement in this page. The only verifiable content remains a mere dictionary definition, including only definition, pronunciation, synonyms and some usage examples.  A better definition (with confirmation of the preferred spelling variant) already exists at Wiktionary.  I am going to return this to a soft-redirect to wiktionary until someone can find actual encyclopedic content to write.  Rossami (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 'knacker'?
Skanger is a typical Dublin word for this phenomenon, of course there are skangers/knackers/scobes all over the country, but they're generally called 'knackers', not 'skangers', I've never heard the term 'skanger' outside Dublin and I've talked to plenty of non-Dubliners who didn't even know what the word meant. I think the neutral term is knacker, when not used as a derogatory word for a traveller. I think the articles should be merged and other words such as 'scobe/scobie' / 'scumbag/scummer' should be mentioned as well, perhaps a disambiguation for the different meanings of 'knacker'. Skanger though is definitely a Dublin word, which is not to say that skangers/knackers are unique to Dublin.

Also, a picture is needed. - Dalta (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)