Talk:Chaps

Disambig

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

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

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

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

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

Pronounciation

I'm not sure I consider the source for the pronunciation of chaps valid. The "sh" sound is not common in Spanish dialects at all (see the phonetics section of the Spanish language page for instance). R343L 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What I know is that the word is properly prounounced "shaps," the "sh" sound is used for words like chapparral, chaps/chaparajos, etc...so there is an "sh" pronounciation from somewhere and it is used for many Spanish-derived words that describe things in the western United States. Maybe it's from an old dialect that is no longer used (just as there are archaic, "dead" or very rare dialects in English). But it is correct prounounciation for the cowboy garment. Anyone who says "chaps" with a "ch" sound is immediately recognized as a dude, greenhorn or possibly even an idiot among real cowboys in the west. It's the way it is said. Walk through any rodeo with a recorder. No one says "ch." 161.7.2.160 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've lived in both rural and urban Texas most of my life and never heard it pronounced with an "sh". Even the references given in the article list "shaps" as a secondary pronunciation, not primary. I don't think wikipedia should choose one pronunciation over the other (for this article, the one for "Cowboy", or wherever else it might be given). And, agree with R343L: the "sh" didn't come from Spanish, but later.68.88.203.184 07:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation in an encyclopedic context is not about correct usage, it is about actual usage. I have tagged the article {{tone}}.

Here we go again? Will remove mildly snarky comment about dudes and also remove tag. Actual use versus misuse? One. More. Time. (ch) Chaps is what happens to your legs if you don't wear (sh)Chaps. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Wiktionary:Chaps. Dreadstar † 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Will James, the author of many western novels which actually reflect cowboy life (as opposed to the gunfighter stuff) actually used the (mis)spelling "shaps", leaving little ambiguity about his pronunciation. [1] In Nevada and California, there is a right and wrong way in cowboy culture. And the use of "ch" instead of "sh" is definitely a red flag. I'm all for a neutral comment, but I support explaining that in cowboy culture, the use of the "ch" is almost an insult. Humbly,--Getwood (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

old version of chaps pronunciation section (reference only)

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

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

Pronunciation, again

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

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

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

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

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

Okay by me. --Una Smith (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CON. Dreadstar † 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Terminology

<moved to section at bottom>

Armor?

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

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

"Half chaps"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snake-bite protection

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

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

Lacing belt/safety issue

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

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

Pronunciation

Please discuss and present proposed additions for any issues surrounding the pronunciation of "chaps" in this section. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary when discussing this issue. Dreadstar † 05:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose beginning with one simple (but well-footnoted) sentence, moved from section above. Note also that I checked the OED, which, like most dictionaries, lists both pronunciations without any regional explanations. But if you want, I can add it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)  :

The pronunciation of the word chaps, as used by cowboys and other Western-style riders in the American West, particularly the Great Basin, Rocky Mountains, Great Plains and Western Canada is with an "sh" pronunciation (/ʃ/ shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA /tʃ/ chaps). This may reflect, in part, a similar regional variation in pronunciation of related words such as chaparral.

Please format the refs in this fashion for this exercise:

*[www.cnn.com article title] ''source''

e.g.

• article title cnn.com

Other Wikipedia articles such as the Dictionary of American Regional English are not reliable sources that can be used to reference article content.

And when adding the references to the actual article, please do not mix all the refs together under a summary "refs include, x,y,z,a,b", it's confusing and hard to read in the referencing section. Please format per WP:CITE. Dreadstar † 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an accurate and NPOV statement. As with many editing battles, references start to pile up. I would be in favor of cherrypicking the best references and leaving the statement as is. But, since this seems to be so controversial, retaining all references, which all appear to reinforce the statement, would be reasonable. Or, would a 'Sources' heading take care of this, by decluttering the initial statement, but retaining the complete list of sources?

Well, then just cite Dictionary of American Regional English. Wikilinked or not, DARE is the authority on American regional English. I don't own a copy but my library does, and I photocopied the relevant pages. --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started by citing the articles individually. I do not have a copy of DARE, so an external link will have to be substituted by someone else.--Getwood (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you want? --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The full citation which you list below is more what I meant. The external link is just a description of what DARE does. (It does look like an entertaining book).--Getwood (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, differences of pronunciation can be addressed better on Wiktionary. Also, I recommend putting the above statement through Wiktionary's verification process. There are some problems of evidence here. For instance, if the text does not "explain" the pronunciation, does that mean the author says "chaps"? If the text says "chaps (shaps)" does it mean the author acknowledges one pronunciation (shaps) or two? Or is the author merely noting the variant spelling? If the text makes a big deal about "shaps" being correct and "chaps" being ignorant, does that mean "shaps" is the only pronunciation in the author's home town, or does it mean "shaps" is fighting a losing battle there and "chaps" is winning? This is all so not encyclopedic, except as an encyclopedia article about The chaps shaps debate, dudes vs yahoos, in which there are no winners, only nitpickers. See also Tomato#Pronunciation, which mentions usage worldwide. Chaps has nowhere near a worldwide view of its topic. --Una Smith (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this version? --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In the western United States and Canada many people pronounce chaps with an "sh" (/ʃ/ shaps) rather than "ch" (IPA /tʃ/ chaps), and the word is sometimes spelled shaps or schaps. Some people who say schaps become upset whenever they hear anyone else say chaps. "Shaps" is an attempt by Anglo cowboys to mimic the soft "ch" as pronounced by their Spanish (Mexican) counterparts.

Or this one:

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

For what it's worth, I expect the original pronunciation in California and points northeast of there was "shaps", but it is shifting to "chaps". But Wikipedia is not about what we think is true, it is about what we can document in reliable sources without extrapolation. --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Una, this topic appears to have upset you. It seems to me that Montanabw had already deleted much of her original "dudes" verbage. I think her sentence stands just fine. But, I'm OK with your second version. (Although your first is more fun). Let's put the sentence in and move on.--Getwood (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it though? Not upset in the least. But, also not giving up. Consensus is achieved by working it out, not by giving up. --Una Smith (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you weren't upset. I'd hate to see what you would write if you were upset. I would like to say, in reference to your comment about a worldwide view, that an interpretation of western US/cowboy culture by "the world" doesn't seem as relevant as the culture itself. We all agree that chaps in their current form originated as a tool used by cowboys. While DARE is an incredible undertaking, and is unmatched in its efforts, it is not without flaw. For one thing, a quick look through the Board of Visitors reveals a large Eastern bias. Additionally, this is really more a consideration of industry jargon than regional dialect. To me, sources which reference regional instead of technical language are not the definitive source in a technical article. If I may quote my friend from Texas, who grew up in a ranching community and still works for a large ranching operation, "There is no other way in Texas (or anywhere else I know of) to pronounce chaps other than SHaps." Once again, I agree that this debate has run its course and my honest intention is not to stir the pot. My point is that we are not dealing with regional terminology, but industry terminology. Canada to Texas, it's a cowboy word pronounced a cowboy way. In my industry, I hear non-experts talk about 'burnicular' disease, bringing their mares in to be 'palpitated' and treating a horse with oral 'electriclights'. To have a worldwide perspective, should these be given credibility as well?--Getwood (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't write when upset. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Una and I do share the trait of not giving up! This is such a tempest over one sentence. What the problem is here, is that, through ignorance and misunderstanding, particularly within the "leather community," (who really don't really seem to care about the traditional use of the garment), as opposed to the motorcycle crowd,( the other large segment who wear this garment for practical purposes) who does say "shaps" is correct, there MIGHT be language drift from "shaps" to "chaps." However, to say that would be "original research." Other then people from the east coast moving out west and saying "ch" chaps because they don't know any better, I can assure you that there is no change in the word within the horse community. Further, the word has not been spelled "shaps" or "schaps" in literature since about the 1920's. I can live with some language to the effect that "sh" pronunciation was derived from an anglicization of Mexican Spanish, (so is "buckaroo" from vaquero, for example) but the phrasing "an attempt by Anglo cowboys to mimic ..." is horribly condescending in tone (trust me, it is, and plays on the 'cowboys are ignorant' stereotype). And it was in fact the original, traditional pronunciation of the word. At least, if the people who first adopted the garment from the vaqueros have any right to name it... Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about phrasing the last bit as thus: "Cowboys pronounce this word “shaps,” an Anglicazation of the 19th century Mexican Spanish pronunciation of the words chaparejos or chaparreras." (With footnoting) Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if with proof that all cowboys pronounce it "shaps". --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the above "Cowboys ... Anglicazation" carries the implicit definition of WASPs working in animal husbandry in a certain part of western North America. That is the narrowest possible definition, and a long-standing problem with Cowboy. --Una Smith (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One last point. "Chaps" are not a worldwide piece of equipment; this is not a tomayto/tomahto issue. It is an issue of a garment that developed from within the Spanish equestrian and cattle-raising tradition into its present form in the American west by circa 1870 or so, and thus the terminology used to describe it also needs to show respect for the traditions of the American west, where the garment is still used for both show and work purposes. I am willing to remove (and DID remove) all references to the "ch" pronunciation reflecting ignorance, but let's not go to the other extreme. As I have said before, this isn't my opinion, it is sourced from many, many places, and in fact I really wonder if any single other terminology question on wikipedia is as extensively sourced. Improving the quite poor Wiktionary article can also be looked at, but what is going on here is a perfectly encyclopedic comment on appropriate usage. One. Lousy. Sentence. Let's come to an agreement on phrasing and then go on. We all have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaps are used in other regions, and no one has the right to dictate how anyone else should pronounce a word. Certainly not on Wikipedia, which describes, not prescribes. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Which are the two or three best reliable sources that describe the differences between pronunciation and why that difference exists. I'd also like to see a WP:RS that says the wrong pronunciation "upsets" some people. Neutral phrasing is important, we're not here to judge who is right or wrong, and verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, not "truth". The only time I've used the word "chap" is when asking for chapstick. If these snarky comments about each other continue, I'll be asking for a cattle prod instead. Dreadstar † 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where here did I make a snarky comment about someone else? --Una Smith (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re DARE, it is important to understand that volume I, in which "chaps" appears, was based entirely on ethnographic field work. In other words, it involved trained professional linguist interviewers, forms, and thousands of informants who were selected because they were locals, people who like Montanabw can boast of being 4th generation residents of a place. Principally, of an old, stable, rural place. --Una Smith (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Batwing chaps in Texas

Here is a photo used on the Russian Wikipedia page about chaps. It could do with cropping. --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That photo is used here in a couple of articles, see no reason to fight over photos, but the article already has the rodeo rider in batwings, and as a side view, it is probably more illustrative. There are also the batwings used by the cutting (sport) crowd, which are styled differently.