Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Chaps

Mediation

I removed my name from the "involved party" list because I was attempting to mediate the dispute, not be a party to it. I was asked to step in to help stop the edit warring, and any uncivil comments or personal attacks that were going on with the case. I tried to get the opposing parties to find a properly sourced, neutrally worded consensus version, and although I did some small amount of research to get a better understanding of the basis of the conflict (who said the word in what way), I wasn't a disputant. I'll be happy to participate in any discussions where the mediator believes I might be of assistance, and I'll be happy to give a timeline of events if needed, to show how we got to the current point in the discussion and article content. I'm also adding User:C0pernicus, due to this earlier request. Dreadstar † 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider Dreadstar to be a party to this dispute, in light of Dreadstar's edits to the article and its talk page prior to and during the dispute, and edits by Dreadstar and Montanabw on one another's user talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar has been attempting to facilitate resolution of this dispute. Dreadstar has been remarkably patient and has attempted to weigh the arguments on their merits. I have appreciated the presence of this administrator in keeping the fighting down to a dull roar. Dreadstar would obviously need to make edits if doing the job of a mediator. In fact, as stated above, Dreadstar was mediating. Dreadstar does not appear to have a personal stake in this particular topic except in assuring NPOV and quality, despite the large amount of time and effort devoted to its conclusion. We are here now in mediation only because administrative mediation has already been rejected...by one.--Getwood (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The administrator locked down the article and thus was the only person who could make an edit, and did so once there appeared to be something of a consensus on the talk page. What's going on here is one person who just will not let this go. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw asked Dreadstar personally to intervene in Chaps (just as she asked Getwood), and Dreadstar obliged. This repeats a similar episode in February, when Montanabw asked Dreadstar for help in a content dispute over Saddle Bronc and Bareback Riding and Dreadstar protected the article then blocked the other editor. Dreadstar also was involved in a previous content dispute with me concerning Chaps. For these reasons, in my opinion Dreadstar had a significant conflict of interest and should have refrained from involvement in this content dispute in an admin capacity. Nor did Dreadstar mediate. Here I do not accuse Dreadstar of improper user conduct; this forum concerns only mediation of content disputes. --Una Smith (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening

Hello. I hope that this mediation will be productive, and the issues at hand can be worked out in a peaceful, satisfactory manner. In that spirit, I would like each of the participants to make a statement expressing their opinion on the matters at hand and what they hope to get out of mediation. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Keilana. Do you want our opening statements here on this page or on the main page? Also, shall the filing party be the first to post an opening statement or can we post in any order? Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to be on this page, and you can post in any order. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Una Smith

The article Chaps is primarily about the garment, not about the word chaps. In general, an article (entry) about a word and its history and usage belongs on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. An article about a word (rather than about the thing named by the word) can be appropriate for Wikipedia, but only with adequate sources. Adequate sources then necessarily would be based on scholarly fieldwork. That said, below is an outline of the claims in question, and my POV on them. I have tried to format them so that others can add their own POVs. --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims

1a

Claim 1a: that the "shaps" pronunciation is the original and sole authentic pronunciation, and that the "chaps" pronunciation is incorrect.

• This claim is disputed, so requires verified reliable sources. An unsourced claim by advocates of a POV is no more reliable nor verified in books than in Wikipedia. References supplied in the course of this content dispute are proof that this claim exists. However, proof that a claim exists is not proof that a claim is true. Proof that this claim is true is absent. Claimed: "Shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. Proved: Some people think "shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1b

Claim 1b: that the word chaps, referring to the garment, entered English via the (California) "Vaquero" culture, and hence that the "shaps" pronunciation is correct because it resembles the pronunciation of chaparral ("shaparral") that is prevalent in California.

• This etymology requires adequate sourcing. I think it is a folk etymology; I have read contradictory claims that chaps entered the English language via Texas, specifically the area now known as southwest Texas and New Mexico, where the word is pronounced "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

2

Claim 2: that the two pronunciations can be assigned to speakers by riding style, "chaps" to English riders and "shaps" to Western riders.

• That is a tidy but inaccurate stereotype. Montanabw knows English riders who say "shaps" and I know Western riders who say "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Please be patient with me, I am traveling out of state this weekend, have limited online time, and thus will probably not have the time to put forth a fully-developed argument until sometime on Monday. Montanabw^(talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement

Factual background

Although the issue is not clearly articulated by the filing party, my understanding is that the core dispute in the article chaps surrounds the question of the soft "sh" pronunciation, "shaps," versus the hard "ch" pronunciation. The current paragraph on pronunciation in the History section, as edited by the mediator after there was an apparent consensus on the talk page, currently reads as follows (actual citations omitted for brevity):

"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.[6] This may reflect, in part, Anglicization of the 19th-century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of related words such as chaparajos and chaparral.[7] English-style riders, among others, pronounce the word with a "ch" sound (IPA /tʃ/).[8] Both pronunciations are recognized in many dictionaries.[9][10]"

This version was acceptable to myself and I believe to some of the other parties to this mediation, though I will not presume to speak for them.

The last stable version of this article, and the original section on pronunciation, prior to the beginning of the current dispute can be viewed here.

My understanding of the situation, subject to correction by other parties, is that the original tone of the section that discussed pronunciation of the word "chaps" was not acceptable to the filing party, who tagged it, apparently taking issue with the hard "ch" pronunciation being described as "inauthentic", "indicative that the speaker is clearly not familiar with cowboy culture of the American west," and " Such pronunciation among cowboys may render the speaker vulnerable to mockery and being labeled a "dude."

As you can see from the above current version, all three of these statements have been removed and the original section has been cut from a long, wordy paragraph with 16 sources to a short, concise paragraph with five sources. However, that does not appear to settle the matter.

Since then we have been attempting to develop a version that is acceptable to all. At one point, the edit warring and reverting within the article over this issue became so intense that, after more than 50 edits to the article over a period of roughly a week, the administrator locked down the article until a consensus could be reached on the Talk:chaps page.

As of today, the debate has gone on for approximately a month. Five people have weighed in, with roughly equal numbers on each side, but the bulk of the discussion (at least in quantity) has been between myself and the filing party.

Response to filing party's issues

• "Inclusion/exclusion of ethnographic dictionary as a source"

Statement: This is an extremely vague complaint. I am guessing that this is a discussion of the use of the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE), but that reference is in fact used twice in the history section, though in one spot it still has a "citation needed" tag. The issue was thoroughly discussed on the talk page and the limitations of DARE as a usage guide were considered by the administrator in arriving at the current version. It appears that the input by User:Getwood on the talk page as to the problems with DARE was particularly influential. I will not respond further on this issue until there is further clarification.

• " In general, an article (entry) about a word and its history and usage belongs on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia..."

Though this concern was not raised in the original request for mediation, thus I suggest it be struck, in case it is not, I shall respond: it is my position that the pronunciation issue, and the reasons for any differences is a usage note that is both informative and encyclopedic, particularly in light of the history of the garment and its roots in the vaquero tradition.

Montanabw's issues

• "Does the weight of the evidence support the statement that the "traditional" pronunciation of the word "chaps," when used as a garment in the equestrian field, with a "sh" sound or a "ch" sound?"

Statement: The phrase "has traditionally been pronounced with an "sh" sound," in the current version appears to be the main bone of contention between the filing party, who supports the "ch" pronunciation, and those of us (Getwood and myself) who have lived and worked in the American west, who support the "sh" pronunciation. I believe (though I cannot be certain because filing party hasn't said this in so many words), that filing party does not believe that most western horsemen and women, as well as the working cowboys of the American west, say the word with the "sh" pronunciation, and have done so since at least the 1880s.

Most dictionaries (including the OED, which I don't think was cited in all this, but could be if needed) simply state that the word can be pronounced "sh" or "ch," generally with no further notes on usage. (The OED has some historic usage notes, but no current ethnographic information) The sources on usage I located that support the "sh" pronunciation can each be further analyzed, but in short, in the course of previous edits, I located roughly 16 sources on pronunciation, of which at least 9 sources explained the usage of the "sh" form by most cowboys and western-style riders. Further, upon a truly sincere search, I was unable to locate any sources explaining the "ch" use, other than a few message board discussions (not acceptable as wikipedia sources) that made it clear that a dispute exists and that there is an "east versus west" flavor to it. The administrator who intervened in this case was able to locate a couple of acceptable third-party sources that suggested that the "ch" use has become common amongst English-style riders, a statement that has been incorporated into the current version.

Response to Filing party's statement:

First off, filing party misstates and distorts my issues, which has been an ongoing source of conflict in this whole discussion.

First example: Filing party states: "Claimed: "Shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation. Proved: Some people think "shaps" is the original and correct pronunciation."

This is a distorted statement and an emotional holdover from the talk page discussion, it is not the way the current version of the article is worded, hence this is a red herring and an non-issue. The statement "some people think" is an irrelevant and somewhat catty description that "proves" nothing. Personal opinions, in either direction, are not at issue in the mediation.

2."requires verified reliable sources"

per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the assertion that the "sh" pronunciation is an early and traditional use (at least if one considers usage in the 1870s and 1880s to be "traditional" when discussing cowboys and western riding), was supported by several third-party sources written by experts in the field, and several, such as the History Channel reference, the Steven Price sources, and the phonetic "schaps" reference in DARE, were published by entities with a reputation for thorough fact-checking. The five sources cited in the current version may need some tweaking against the other nine to select the very strongest sources, but the filing party only offers vague accusations as to the accuracy of any of these sources.

3. " chaps, referring to the garment, entered English via the (California) "Vaquero" culture...is folk etymology."

This also is not what the current version of the article states, so another non-issue. The garment has roots in Mexico, which once encompassed land from Texas to California. Differences in geography and terrain required different approaches to the handling of cattle. Hence, over time, two main schools of American cowboy culture and western horsemanship developed, often called the "Texas" tradition and the "California" tradition. There has been considerable intermingling of the two traditions, particularly because many Texas ranches drove cattle north and west to the Rockies during the 1870s and 1880s, and cowboys in general traveled all over the west in search of work. Absent an expert or text sources on 19th century Mexican Spanish pronunciation by working cattle hands from Texas to California, what we have is evidence of how words like chaparras, chaparajos and chaparrel were Anglicized by English-speaking cowboys and thus entered American English. What is clear is that by the 1880s, there is plentiful evidence that the garment was pronounced "shaps" and even sometimes spelled phonetically as "shaps" or "schaps." The current version of the article says "traditional," not "original" or "correct". Thus, the weight of the evidence supports that at the height of cowboy culture in the American west, the "sh" pronunciation was widespread and common, and further is a pronunciation that has carried forward to the present day.

Conclusion: The current version of this article has accurate, verifiable, reliable statements.

4. " that the two pronunciations can be assigned to speakers by riding style, "chaps" to English riders and "shaps" to Western riders. That is a tidy but inaccurate stereotype. Montanabw knows English riders who say "shaps" and I know Western riders who say "chaps". --Una Smith (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I never raised this issue, either, but on this point, I happen to agree with the filing party to the extent that in my experience not all English riders say "ch," given that many people raised in the west use "sh" no matter what the discipline. However, my experience and that of filing party are both less relevant in Wikipedia. The source cited, the Price book, is a reliable third-party source. My suggestion is that, once mediation is settled, that the word "many" be inserted in front of "English riders," as it appears that this is not an absolute in either direction (people who ride western but live back east apparently do use the "ch" pronunciation as well).

• "Rejection by filing party of over 9 sources, including mulitple reliable sources from within the field, discussing actual pronunciation of a word. "

Statement: This is basically a continuation of the first issue I raised, above. Filing party has failed to address what is wrong with any of the sources that were cited, and mostly objecting when one source was not given wholesale approval over everything else presented.

• "Filing party's use of source material out of context" This is mostly a redundant complaint about filing party's distorted use of evidence for her position over on the talk page, her use of logical fallacies in reasoning, and her distortions (including those made here) of the positions of others, particularly misstatements of things I have said. This is probably not really a mediable issue, however, and I am willing to let this one go if everyone else is.

In conclusion, while I am not 100% certain of what the filing party's concern actually is, it appears that it is a dispute over the verifiability of the concept that the traditional pronunciation of the word "chaps" with a soft "sh" sound, in spite of numerous colloquial and historical sources that verify that the word was and still is pronounced in this fashion throughout the American west. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Undue weight on "shaps"?

As I see it, this content dispute boils down to a question of WP:UNDUE. The "shaps" pronunciation has the geographically more limited distribution but is emphasized in the article. Also, within that distribution, "shaps" appears to be a shibboleth. If the article discusses pronunciation of the word chaps, then it should reflect both of these points. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shibboleth

Montanabw's remark about dudes, which she has inserted in the article and repeated on its talk page, demonstrates that "shaps" is a shibboleth in part of the "American west". Multiple comments on Talk:Chaps demonstrate that both the "shaps" pronunciation, and its use as a shibboleth, do not occur in all of the "American west". --Una Smith (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which pronunciation is older?

Proof that the "shaps" pronunciation is old is not proof that it is older than the "chaps" pronunciation. On the contrary, the lack of explanation of the "chaps" pronunciation suggests that "chaps" is the older pronunciation. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Getwood weighing in

I will try to write a more complete statement soon. I just had to make a few comments. First, the black and white reading of the current statement is baffling to me. It really seems mild and non-judgemental...and true. (We'll add Montanabw's qualifier to allow English riders the pronunciation of their choice as well...)

• Comment on the lack of evidence=proof theory: Are you serious???? there is also no evidence that the Earth is flat, therefore the Earth is flat.
• Comment on the geographically limited distribution: the West is a big place, and it is the birthplace of "shaps". :)
• Comment on the shibboleth: this was removed because it stepped on your toes. What do you want?--Getwood (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on a reference list in my sandbox: User:Getwood/Sandbox/chaps which any are welcome to view. It is still rough-hewn, and it is still growing. There are some good academic dictionaries, lots of usage of the shaps spelling, several semi-academic glossaries, and strict pronunciation guidlines from current organizations like the Professional Bull Riders association. A few of my favorite samples: Barrère, Albert (1890). A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant. Ballantyne Press. p. 224. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help),Vocabulario Vaquero/Cowboy Talk. pp. pp.xiv, xxiv, 54. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |title= (help); Missing pipe in: |authorlink= (help), New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association (2005). "Glossary". Retrieved 2008-04-10.... I will be tweaking the structure and adding references over the weekend.

I think Taivo has done a nice job below of looking at the evidence, and crafting a nice statement. In terms of Una's arguments: 1a) The "shaps" pronunciation does appear to be the original pronunciation, but the assertion that the statement says that this is the only pronunciation is a stretch. 1b) The word did come from Vaquero culture. 2) English vs. Western: I am happy to drop this one. I think the current statement as Taivo has worded it is accurate and non-judgemental. In terms of age of the words, I think that the Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant above from 1890 is pretty strong. In terms of the French influence, some of the earliest references I have found relate to the Northwest Territories, but Vocabulario Vaquero suggests that the pronunciation was influenced by "Spanish spoken along the border where speakers pronounce the digraph {ch} as[ʃ] or{sh}." In terms of the shibboleth aspect, I think it is best avoided, although there is certainly evidence for it. In terms of the pronunciation being "chaps" in Texas and New Mexico, I'll let Jim Fish state his own case: Fish, Jim (2002). "Cowboy, Texian & TexMex Lingo". Retrieved 2008-04-10.

"chaps (shaps), n.; leggin's, leather coverings for the legs. Derived from Spanish word, "chapaderos". Riles me up to no end when I hear folks callin' 'em "chaps" (with the "ch" sound). They're chaps (with an "sh" sound)! Chap is what the sun an' wind does your face or the saddle does your rump. Don't ever forget it - especially if you're a-ridin' for my outfit."

--Getwood (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That blog is a mighty strong evidence of [tʃæps] in Jim Fish's part of Texas. --Una Smith (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And shibboleth...--Getwood (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment or two. I think you need to stay away from statements such as "original" pronunciation. This is a clip of a BORROWED word, and, as such, the original pronunciation is Spanish, not English. Borrowed words are never adapted to the borrowing language immediately, they are slowly adapted over time and in varying ways. The only accurate thing you can say is what I have written in the compromise wording and what the various references attest to--"by the end of the 19th century...". You cannot attest to the "original" pronunciation, only what was more or less the most common pronunciation within the largest community of users at the end of the 19th century. Second, the statement by Jim Fish is not only evidence that he uses ʃæps, but that other people, perhaps many people, where he lives use tʃæps (he wouldn't make the statement if no one or almost no one said tʃæps. Third, I get riled up when people spell Shoshoni as Shoshone, but that doesn't necessarily make it a shibboleth. (Taivo (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Short (I promise) followup by Montanabw

I think the crux of this matter is whether or not the current version in the article is acceptable. All prior debate, personality clashes, and other spillover spatting is really irrelevant now.

While language shift from sh to ch appears to be occurring over the last 20-30 years now that English riders have discovered chaps, along with the adoption of the garment by the, um, "leather community"; the bottom line is that the garment as it is known today does have a "traditional" American English pronunciation, the "sh" form, that originates in the American west and dates back over 100 years. The Stephen Price books note this shift--the 1977 edition of the Whole Horse Catalogue unequivocally states that chaps is pronounced "shaps," while Price's more recent works indicate there is the (albeit oversimplified) "English riders/Western riders" split.

There is a decent argument that, while Mexican Spanish of the 19th century may have used a hard "ch," and that French pronunciation of "ch" words as "sh" (such as Chevalier, etc...) may have played a role in the word developing an "sh" pronunciation (French influence via Canada being quite strong on the northern plains, Pacific Northwest, and Rockies), the bottom line is the form in which the word became stable in ENGLISH.

What can be verified are a number of sources using the "sh" pronunciation, dating to the "golden age" of the cowboy, the time between the end of the Civil War and the collapse of the open range cattle industry that came with the winter of 1886-87. Hence, the current version stating that the sh pronunciation is "traditional" is sourced and verifiable. To not acknowledge this pronunciation in light of multiple sources (some, admittedly a bit more informal than is ideal in wikipedia) is to be, in fact, unencyclopedic.

A side note: Many Spanish loanwords have changed form when they entered English. Rodeo shifted from a Spanish pronunciation, ro-DAY-oh, to an anglicized form, RO-dee-oh (except for that street in LA); and the Spanish "coyote" is now pronounced "KI-ote" in the Northern plains. The Spanish vaquero became the "Buckaroo" of the Great Basin, and la riata became lariat and lasso (though Cowboys in the north just gave up and call it a "rope.") Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

AeronM

My quick two cents: While I was not involved with much of the dispute, I was concerned with one item, which was montanabw's wording which implied that people who pronounced it chaps were wrong or ignorant, and hints that the English riders, many of whom say chaps, were the johnny-come-latelys and therefore somehow less credible (her comment above "now that English riders have discovered chaps" is of the same flavor......). --AeronM (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromising

Hello all! Just to let you know, I have been keeping up with the discussion and statements. I'd like to remind you to keep as civil as possible, this issue can be resolved and I'd like it to be relatively painless. I'd also like you to start thinking about acceptable compromises. I know that not everyone's commented, and that's important, but if anyone thinks of a possibly mutually acceptable compromise, please do put it on the table. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Linguists ring in

Check back here for interesting and relevant comments by linguists with no prior involvement with this article. --AeronM (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Source material

May take me a couple of days for me to get it all in, but I have actually just spent a bunch of time actually referencing hardcopy on this matter and will provide some additional actual facts that may settle the matter (maybe). Bottom line is that I am, so far, the one who had to do ALL the compromising here, and as far as I can tell, the only thing left is the question of the use of the word "traditional." I really must say that the overwhelming weight of the evidence leans toward "shaps" as a "traditional" use, and just because some people don't like this fact because they say something differently (or because they personally don't like me: I believe that this is actually a personality dispute that has little if anything to do with the actual content of the article) does not change reality. Sources to follow (but I have to manually type this material in verbatim, please be patient.) Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New sources from Montanabw

I suppose if I had done this a month ago, maybe this whole dispute could have been avoided. The evidence is pretty convincing and in line with WP:V and WP:CITE and, I hope, may even satisfy the linguists. My only excuse for delay is that these works consulted were all on the reference section of the library, which is not open at midnight, which is when I am often editing wiki! (LOL) Material is quoted verbatim (though typos are all mine). Sections underlined are my emphasis of those sections I think most relevant to this discussion Montanabw^(talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New source #1

Adams, Ramon. Western Words: A Dictionary of the Range, Cow Camp and Trail. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1944, 3rd printing, 1946. (no ISBN in edition consulted), p. 31

chaps An American abbreviation of the Spanish chaparejos (chah-par-ray' hose), meaning leather breeches or overalls. This word was too much of a mouthful for the American cowboy, so he "bit shallow" and said chaps, pronouncing it shaps.

They are skeleton overalls worn primarily as armor to protect a rider's legs from injury when he is thrown or when a horse falls upon him, pushes him against either a fence of another animal, carries him through brush, cacti, or other chaparral, or attempts to bite him; also they are proof against rain or cold. The word occurs in English dictionaries as chaparejos, but the Spanish word is really chapareras (cha-par-rray'rahs).

(there is another paragraph explaining more about when they are used,with no additional discussion of etymology or pronunciation)

New source #2

Blevins, Win. Dictionary of the American West. Seattle:Sasquatch Books, 2001 ISBN 1-57061-304-4, pp.75-76

Chaps (SHAPS, the a as in corral, traditionally a soft sh, not a hard one as in Chap Stick). Leggings--leather overalls--the cowboy wears to protect his legs whebn he's thrown from a horse or when the horse falls on him, pushes him against a fence or another animal, does its damnedest to bite him, or most particularly bolts him through brush, cactus, or chaparral; also used for warmth or for protection against rain and snow. One of the cowboy's essential pieces of equipment. It's short for chaperreras, which in tern derives from CHAPARRAL, one evil that caps ward off.

It is said that chaps come from the VAQUEROS; a brief glance at early paintings will inform anyone that they also descend from the MOUNTAIN MEN, who copied them from the Plains Indians. No one rode the moutntains, Plains or deserts long without discovering the need for some hide covering on the legs.

(note: Second paragraph verifies some info I know, but could not cite, but would like to add to the history section of this article once we are done fighting over pronunciation .) (Two additional paragraphs go on to describe what they are made from and some styles, with no further discussion of pronunciation)

From the same source, see also:

Chaparral (sha-phu-RAL, the a as in corral)...

Chaparro (shah-PAHR-roh) ...

But also

Chalupa (chuh-LOO-puh), Chamiso (chuh-MEE-soh), and Chaqueta (chah-Kay-tuh)

(These mentioned only to note that both ch and sh pronunciation is used for various items, no universal consistency)

OED

(Note order pronunciations are listed, "sh" first. "ch" second)

Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (prepared by). Oxford English Dictionary, vol. III (Chan-creeky). Oxford:Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1989, 2000 reprint, pp. 24 and 28. ISBN: 0-19-861215-X (Vol. III only), ISBN 0-19-861186-2 (set).

(p. 28) chaps (ʃæps, tʃ-,) sb. pl. Short for CHAPARRERAS. 1884 E. W. Nye Baled Hay 139 'Chaps" as they are vulgarly called,..are made of leather with the fronts of dogskin with the hair on. 1884 W. Shepherd Prairie Exper. 41 The cow-boys, with their schaps, i.e. leather-leggings. 1930 E. Ferber Cimarron xii. 195 he [sc. the cowboy]] wears chaps, with the hairy side out, to keep his legs warm in the winter and to protect them from being torn by chaparral and cactus thorns in the summer.

(p. 24) chaparreras (ʃæpə'rɛərəs, tʃ-,) sb. pl. U.S. Also chapar(r)eros. [Mexican Sp.] Stout leather trousers worn by cowboys and others to protect the legs esp. while riding through chaparral. Freq. abbrev,. CHAPS. 1861 E.B. Tylor Anahuac 335 Chaparrerios, over trousers of goatskin with the hair on, used in riding. 1909 'O.Henry' Roads of Destiny 95 Lonny is one of them, a knight of stirrup and chaparreras.

chaparejos (ʃæpə'rerhəʊs, tʃ-), sb. pl. U.S. Also chaprarjos, chaperajos. Var. CHAPARRERAS. Hence chapa'redoed a., wearing chaparejos. 1887 Outing (U.S.) X.115/1 We had all discarded our chaparajos, and the horses were lightly blanketed. 1888 ROOSEVELT in Century May. Feb. 505-2 The broad hat, huge blunt spurs and leather chaperajos of the rider. 1903 Forest & Stream 21 Feb 147 A bit farther on we saw some cowpunchers, or what seemed such, for they sat in cow saddles and wore chaparejos.... (and several more, no further comment on prounciation or other spellings).

But for contrast in pronunciation, see also:

chaparral (tʃæpə'ræl).

(Note only "ch" pronunciation, interesting...)

Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE)

• Note: Montanabw did some research of reviews of DARE overall, and while still stacked a bit toward interviews taken in the east and the south, seeing the FULL CONTEXT of the entire entry happens to change my views for the better on the validity of this source, though I am, frankly, appalled at how selected passages were taken and used out of context by filing party to promote only her own view and not present a neutral analysis of the entire source.

Cassidy, Frederic G., ed. Dictionary of American Regional English, vol. I. Cambridge/London:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985 ISBN 0-674-20511-1 (vol I only)

• Note: in DARE, š is "sh" and č is "ch" and again, note order in which pronunciation alternatives are presented.

(p. 592) chaps n pl Usu |šhæps|, also |čæps| Pronc-spp shaps, schap(p)s [Abbr for chaparreras; see also chaparajos] West Leather leggins resembling trousers without a seat, worn chiefly by cowboys or ranch hands over regular trousers to protect the legs when riding through chaparral or brush. 1884 Shepherd Prairie Exper. 41 WY, The cow-boys, with their sccaps, i.e. leather-leggings and flopping wide-brimmed hats, are trooping off. 1894 DN 1.324 TX, Chaps. 1896 Christian Educ. Jan 7/1 (DAE) a cowboy with spurs, schapps, sombrero and lariat, was a new sight to Miss Selby. 1090 (9=1969) Robins Magnetic North 181, Anybody must needs be a devil of a fellow who went abou t in 'shaps,' as his California cousins called chaparejos. 1926 Branch Cowboy 23, Chaps, woern when there was reiding to be done, were also a part of the cowboy's courtin'-clothes. 1930 James Lone Cowboy 264 MT, some folks wonder why cowboys wear shaps. 1949 PADS 11.5 wTX, Chaps [šæps]...Chaparejos, but the full word would sound affected. Common. 1960 PADS 34.66 CO The wide spread of ..chaps (frequently shaps) in the popular speech..makes [it] fully naturalized. 1967 DARE FW Addit ID, [šæps]; IL [čæps]; ceTX, [čæps], leather leggings to protect horsemen from brush; CO, [šæps].

(p. 590-591) chaparajos n pl |,šæpə're(h)os, ,čæp-| Also sp chap(p)arejos, chaperajos [Prob blend of chaparreras + aparejo] Chiefly West, esp SW =chaps (cites several examples, two the same as OED, none with alternative phonetic spallings)

(p. 591) chaparral n |,šæpəræl| For var spp see quots at A [MexSpan] chiefly SW

(Omitting various examples with alternate spellings)... 1967 DARE Tape TX29, Chaparral [šæpə'tæl]. (Note, this is interesting in light that the OED says the opposite)

(p. 592) chaparreras n pl |,šæpə'rɛrəs,,čæp-| Also sp chapararros, chapareras, chapar(r)eros, shortened form chaparras, chaparro(s) [MexSpan] chiefly SW old-fash =chaps (cites several examples, some same as OED, none with any other alternative spellings)

A non-participant ?

(NOTE: While I was writing this, the above was written, so I have not read the immediately preceding comment.)

Are non-participants allowed to weigh in here? If not, then I will post at Talk:Chaps instead.

There are separate issues involved here as I see it.

1) What is the older pronunciation? 2) What are the current pronunciations and their distributions?

1) Linguistically, there are two obvious possibilities: 1) ʃæps is older and tʃæps is the result of spelling pronunciation by those who see the word spelled more often than they hear it pronounced. 2) tʃæps is older and ʃæps is the result of analogical assimilation to "chaparral" and possible French influence. Both solutions are EQUALLY possible from the standpoint of linguistic argumentation and naturalness. Indeed, the evidence seems clear from the references cited that the Spanish models were pronounced both with initial tʃ and initial ʃ either regionally or idiolectally. The Spanish models are, indeed, relevant to the discussion since the transition from donor language to borrower language is never radical, but is always gradual, following fairly regular paths until the word is completely assimilated into the lexicon of the borrower language. The parties to this dispute seem to imply that the process was sudden and that the answer is either 1) or 2)--it was not and never is. Indeed, the most likely possibility is 3) both variants are equally old, but cowboys standardized their pronunciation on ʃæps. Montanabw has provided a number of references that by the end of the nineteenth century (at least) the word had been completely assimilated into English as ʃæps among working cowboys. Before this complete assimilation, the tʃæps pronunciation may have been in existence, but there does not seem to be any documentary evidence for it other than the spelling "chaps". This is not surprising since a pronunciation that matches the spelling would not be something worthy of note by an author--only when the spelling does not match the pronunciation do authors make a special effort to note it. So the absence of prior statements that the word was pronounced tʃæps is not really illuminating since that is the most common spelling of the word and the spelling matches pronunciation. The very fact that the word is spelled "chaps" is fairly strong evidence of one of its original pronunciations. However, despite variation in its earlier pronunciations, the evidence seems clear that by the end of the 19th century the word had become somewhat standard in its pronunciation of ʃæps among cowboys in the Western US. There have been no references provided to how non-cowboys pronounced the word at this same time. Since an encyclopedia is descriptive and not prescriptive, the cowboy pronunciation is not the "standard", but one variant if there are other variants. What does Webster's of 1900 have for the pronunciation of the word? And the comments that the ʃæps pronunciation is because Americans couldn't "wrap their tongues around" the longer Spanish words is folk etymology and not accurate linguistically. Americans have no problem with "chaparral", for example. It is common for English speakers to clip long forms for common items--"fender" from "defender", "sub" from "submarine", "gig" from "gigabyte", etc. The comment is also irrelevant for determining whether tʃæps or ʃæps is the older form. BOTH forms are equally well-formed according to English phonotactic rules (compare ʃi:p "sheep", tʃi:p "cheap"). The "wrapping the tongue" comments are only relevant to why "chaps" is a shorter word than the Spanish models.

2) DARE is rock-solid as a source for contemporary American pronunciation. It is cited more commonly than the OED when it comes to American regional usage. It is just as authoritative as the OED among professional linguists. If DARE says that both variants are in use in the Western US, then that should be the end of the matter. Both variants are equally worthy of consideration and citation in an encyclopedic article (which is descriptive, not prescriptive). It can be noted that working cowboys tend to prefer ʃæps, but any other comments about the distribution of either or both forms are unscientific. The comment that "English riders use tʃæps" is overly restrictive (and mildly perjorative) since the usage of that form is much more common than just among English riders. The segregation of the English-speaking world into working Western riders and English riders is not an accurate portrayal of the English-speaking population of the Western US, let alone the entire English-speaking world. "Today, there are two pronunciations of "chaps"--one is more common among working cowboys while the other is more common among the general population." That's the statement that can be documented based on all the references adduced to this point in the discussion and the most accurate statement of linguistic fact.

Thank you for letting me put in my two linguistic cents. (Taivo (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Since Montanabw mentioned the order of ʃ and tʃ in OED, it should be noted here that order of presentation means nothing in the OED. It is simply "sort of" alphabetical in this case. The OED is not prescriptive, in any case. Here is the exact comment from the introduction to the OED:

"Each pronunciation in the revised text is given in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), according to a revised model of Received Pronunciation devised by Dr Clive Upton of the University of Leeds, and the scope of this information has been extended to include a ‘standard’ U.S. pronunciation based on a model devised by Professor William Kretzschmar of the University of Georgia. Words from other varieties of English have been given pronunciations based on (but not identical in all details with) the models used by the principal historical dictionaries of World Englishes (such as the trisyllabic New Zealand term mahoe, originally from Maori, and the disyllabic Caribbean mahoe). The Dictionary does not aim to cover dialectal variation in pronunciation within each variety."

In other words, both pronunciations of "chaps" are cited as "'standard' U.S. pronunciation" with equal weight. There is no citing of "non-standard" pronunciations in OED. (Taivo (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Response to Taivo

I have reconsidered my position on DARE now that I have read several reviews outside wikipedia and, most of all, seen the full entry in its complete context. I am, frankly, very concerned at how the filing party distorted and chose selective excerpts from DARE to promote only her own view and failed to acknowledge the full range of use. (and was completely off base on Colorado pronunciation) Today, it is obvious (though no one can find a true linguistic study, I suspect) that the "shaps" pronunciation has both regional and riding style variations, (English riders in the west usually say "shaps" unless they moved here from the east coast, where they say "chaps") but my point in this, all along, has been that "sh" is listed first in most pronunciations, hence, I presume viewed as the primary form, (and explicitedly designated as such in DARE) and, to the extent that "ch" is used by horse people (as opposed to the general non-horse public, who, reasonably, would have no clue how to pronounce technical language and wouldn't be expected to) has only been mentioned as a pronunciation amongst horse people AT ALL in possibly the last decade or so (comparing the works by the same author, 20 years apart). Other than the OED and DARE, all we really have are various guides to "cowboy lingo" which ALL note "sh" and are quite consistent from 1944 to 2001.

But, truly, at the end of the day, what we have are people saying, "me and all my friends say 'ch'" against multiple sources that overwhelmingly place the "sh" pronunciation as primary and "ch" secondary, plus a number of usage guides (now numbering at least a dozen), both print and online, explaining the technical language (whether a term of art or a shibboleth) has traditionally been "sh." It has become obvious to me that while wikipedia cannot change an apparent language shift on the east coast (and amongst those riders elsewhere who imitate fads on the east coast) that has somehow adopted the "ch" pronunciation, but to downplay the historic roots of "sh" and blatent evidence for its continued use in at least half the country (geographically, given that no one will back funding to poll every horse person in America) would be, in fact, unencyclopedic and inaccurate. (Now going offline, please be patient if I am offline up to 48 hours again, Spring is a busy time) Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole notion that "chaps" is a technical term is invalid. Whether a person is a working cowboy or not, or even a rider, native Westerners can name the obvious distinctive parts of a cowboy's clothing and rig--hat, chaps, lariat, boots, saddle, etc. The names of the parts of a saddle are technical terms since most people don't know them outside the profession. But "chaps" does not fall into this category. You cannot discount the pronunciation of nonriders outright. To do so is equivalent to saying that a Yankee's pronunciation of "opossum" and "victuals" is irrelevant. To divide the pronunciation of "chaps" up into Western riders and Eastern riders is inaccurate. Try telling that person in Central Texas who said tʃæps in the DARE survey that they are an "Eastern rider". (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Some compromise wording

From the point of view of the presented evidence, the most accurate statement would seem to be: "The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]." There really isn't a need to talk about the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation at all in this article. Every attempt so far to delineate the distribution of the tʃæps pronunciation has been inaccurate, unsourced, and, to varying extents, perjorative. This proposed wording also gets out of the "standard" or prescriptive mode. The detailed linguistic transition from Spanish to English is also rather extraneous to this particular article since the details are not really enlightening to an understanding what "chaps" are. If the alternate pronunciation absolutely must be mentioned, it should be done so noncommittally: "The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders." Without looking up new sources, there are adequate references already presented for both of these statements--DARE, OED, the best of Montanabw's refs. (Taivo (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I think that is progress. I offer a small addition, because Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia. Taivo's offering:

"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."

My offering:

"The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in North America north of Mexico working Western riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]."

--Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's simplify the wording to "The word chaps......Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western U.S. and Canada, working riders have tended to...." (Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Prove "primary" pronunciation

What makes the [ʃæps] pronunciation primary? Most common usage? Earliest usage? First define it, then prove it.

By the way, This online dictionary dates chaps to 1810-1820, yet according to Montanabw above, [ʃæps] appears 120+ years later, in "cowboy lingo" books from 1944 onward. Well, I can attest that not all cowboys say [ʃæps]. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1922, Phillip Ashton Rollins, The Cowboy: His Characteristics, His Equipment, and His Part in the Development of the West, Charles Scribner's Sons, 353 pages, page 116: Not more specialized than the spurs but more conspicuous were the "chaparejos," universally called "chaps".--Una Smith (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why my compromise wording "since at least the end of the 19th century" is important. I think that Montanabw has shown that at the end of the 19th century, ʃæps was the most common pronunciation among working Western riders. Before that is left up to the vagaries of the borrowing process (see my above comments about the complexity of the process of borrowing words from one language to another). Montanabw's references are not just from the 1940s, but date back into the 1890s. I would actually be skeptical of any reference to "chaps" in English in the first two decades of the 19th century. The western frontier was still east of the Mississippi at that time and the Western, Spanish-based, cowboy culture was not even in its infancy. Remember that the first American settlers in Mexican Tejas were after Stephen Austin's arrangements in 1821. (Taivo (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

That 1810-1820 reference appears even more mistaken now. The source is apparently the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (not a primary source, but a secondary one). It says that it is an Americanism derived from chaparajos. But when you look at the entry for chaparajos, the date is 1860 to 1865! You can't have a word derived in 1810-1820 from a word that was not in the language until 1860-1865. This source is not based on primary information anyway. If you read the introductory materials for the Random House Dictionary (I don't have a copy) you will probably find a statement that says "all etymologies are based on the OED" or "all etymologies are from X's Etymological Dictionary of the English Language". In my own linguistic work, I have found this online etymological dictionary to be far more reliable than anything on dictionary.com and its date of usage is far more likely to be accurate (1844). And, of course, the ultimate in reliability is the OED, which lists the first reference to "chaps" as 1884 (so the online etymological dictionary's entry may, itself, be a typo for 1884, since the online dictionary relies heavily on the OED). All sources are not created equal. The 1810-1820 date appears to be a mistake or just plain wrong. (Taivo (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

And to address your doubts about the primacy of ʃæps among cowboys at the end of the 19th century, you need only look at the complete DARE listing provided by Montanabw above. The references from the end of the 19th century are virtually unanimous in spelling the word "schapps" or "shaps" or such, indicating a general pronunciation tendency. The spelling "chaps" may reflect 1) pronunciation (which it probably does in some cases), 2) an anti-German bias during the first half of the 20th century which would preclude the spelling "sch...", 3) French influence on pronunciation, or 4) influence from the Spanish spelling. The most likely reasons for the spelling "chaps" from a linguistic standpoint are a combination of 1) and 4) with a sprinkling of 2). I don't think this reflects any French influence at all since the Western cowboy culture is solidly Spanish.

The keys to my compromise wording are 1) it accurately reflects the linguistic situation at the end of the 19th century--that Western cowboys tended to use ʃæps; 2) it removes the anti-tʃæps bias by leaving the distribution of the pronunciation tʃæps unspecified; 3) it removes the absolutes of standard prescriptivism by using "tended" and "also common".

So, with the corrections noted above, the compromise wording stands at:

The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, working riders have tended to pronounce the word [ʃæps]. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common outside the community of working Western riders. (Taivo (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, Taivo, for putting such a lot of effort into this discussion. The compromise wording here looks almost right to me; the problem is it still conveys the disparity of status that has dogged the versions contributed by those arguing for the primacy (synchronically and diachronically) of the /ʃ/ form. The forms of words here (also common outside the community of working Western riders) carries the unjustified implication that working Western riders are somehow more entitled to determine the normative pronunciation of the word. This is bogus: the only normative authority is usage across the English-speaking world, regardless even of whether the speakers in question have ever sat on a horse. If those outside the community of working Western riders have the /tʃ/ form, then that form is an equally valid element in the documentation of contemporary English pronunciation. And if the origin of this form (who knows?) is in spelling pronunciation, well so what? That's the nature of language change.

So (to get to the point) I think we need to get away from the concessive note in The pronunciation [tʃæps] is also common. Can I suggest The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread? C0pernicus (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion here so far, I think the shibboleth cannot be avoided.

The word chaps is a clip of the Spanish chaparajos or chaparejos or chaparreras. From its earliest recorded use to today, two pronunciations have been in use: [ʃæps] and [tʃæps]. Since at least the end of the 19th century, in the Western United States and Canada, speakers have tended to use the pronunciation [ʃæps] but both pronunciations occur there to the extent that [ʃæps] has become a shibboleth. The pronunciation [tʃæps] is more widespread.

Does this work for you? --Una Smith (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Montanabw needs to weigh in the compromise wording as well. She's out for a couple of days (see above). But the problem with the "from the beginning" comment is that Montanabw's evidence is stronger for ʃæps at the end of the 19th century than yours is for tʃæps. Your only evidence is the spelling and the spelling is most likely a reflection of the Spanish spelling (whatever the pronunciation). Montanabw's evidence is an alternate spelling that is different than the Spanish model. Your evidence is circumstantial at this point and Montanabw's is "eyewitness". Go to a college library and find a copy of a Webster's dictionary from about 1900 or another dictionary from the late 1800s and see how that dictionary marks the phonetics of the word. That will be much more substantial evidence of the existence of both pronunciations in the late 19th century. I don't doubt that both pronunciations have been in existence throughout the history of the word, but there is a difference in the quality of the evidence that you and Montanabw have produced. Your evidential problem is that the spelling alone is not enough evidence of the pronunciation since it is just a reflection of the Spanish spelling.

I agree that the compromise wording still has a bit of the "standard" versus "nonstandard" tinge to it, but I'm a bit reluctant to categorically state that tʃæps is more widespread. There just isn't enough hard evidence to suggest that either form is more common than the other. DARE, at best, suggests an East versus West divide at about the Rocky Mountain front, but the evidence cited above by Montanabw is miniscule (just four data points). I'm in Ukraine right now and can't consult a hard copy of DARE. If someone has access to the hard copy they should look to see if there is a map accompanying the entry for "chaps". Sometimes the maps have more data points than just those cited in the text. (Taivo (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Let's not personalize this, please. ʃæps is sometimes identifiable by virtue of its spelling alone; tʃæps is not. This is a bias in the evidence itself. I agree that consulting old dictionaries would be useful here. I have a photocopy of the relevant pages in DARE; it includes no map for "chaps" but perhaps the editors would provide one. I will ask! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.135.31 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 April 2008 UTC (UTC)

Back during my grad student days at KANSAS (!) one of my profs was one of the main guys putting together DARE. Even in the early 80s, when everything was still on magnetic tape, they could run queries of the data base and build whatever map they pleased. I wonder if they're still willing to do such things? I would hope so, but I've lost contact with the process. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

One more complication

The word "chaps" has been borrowed into Australian English from the United States: "chaps, 'tʃæps, n., abbreviated form of chaparejos." The Australian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition. Ed. Bruce Moore. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Utah State University Libraries. 11 April 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t157.e9406> Note that the form is tʃæps in Australia. So we can't really say that ʃæps is a shibboleth among working cowboys because no one would doubt that Australian cowboys are "working". Don't know exactly how to fit this into the current compromise wording, but based on this, the discussion of pronunciation must be broader than just the United States and Canada. (Taivo (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

And non-equestrian is more than motorcycles and S&M

Note here the usage of chaps for chain saw safety: Northern Tool chaps (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Safety chaps are the first use mentioned in the non-equestrian use section. --66.167.135.31 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the bifocals aren't as focused as they should be :p (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

DARE

DARE employs quantitative data gathering but the entries do not necessarily contain all data. Here is a description of what kinds of data may be included in an entry. Because of their criteria for data to include in an entry, spellings other than "chaps" may be over-represented. --Una Smith (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why it would be useful to get a "data dump" from the DARE database on either a map or as a text file. (Taivo (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))