Talk:Chav/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Chav Origin

Chav is short for Chavi, a gypsy word meaning child and has been used in Chatham in Kent for well over one hundred years. I know. I live here. The term became popularized after Chatham Girls started being lampooned in the national papers in the late 1990s. It simply means 'child'. Having been up north before this time and used the word, no one ever knew what I was talking about, proof that its roots lie in gypsy Chatham. The addition of the acronym came later.

Chav's Dont have to be black

I dont know if it is the same in america but in britan most chav's are not black. Just Yobs with berbury hoodies on. Every time you walk past a chav in britan you get MUGED. Bloody Sh**theads

> If anything, Chav is more White Kids trying to be "Gangsta", and if anything you doin't get Chavs in America.

Charva, Charver, etc.

The old Charva article cropped up via anon edits to the (defunct) redirect Charver, there is now (finally) a discussion open about what to do about it at Talk:Charver#Why_the_constant_reverts.3F. -- Jon Dowland 13:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ned

I just added Ned as the consensus here was to do so, SqueakBox 18:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Ned and Chav although similar derogatory terms that denote the hooligan or outcast lower classes of England and Scotland respectively - are not the same thing. Next thing you'll be adding the term Pikey in with Chav. Ned should have it's own article just as Scallywag has it's own. I move to delete the Ned from this article and keep the existing Ned article. Piecraft 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish), SqueakBox 17:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongly support Piecraft on this one, and a careful reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish) suggests there is no support for this merge at all. I can see no concensus for such a merge. To suggest that Ned is a derivative of, or synonym for, chav is incorrect. Ned 'culture' is distinct and has existed for considerably longer than chav 'culture'. This merge should be undone, and the Ned article maintained separately. It should probably be renamed as well, but that's a side issue for the Ned talk page. After all, this article isn't titled Chav (English). --Cactus.man^>Reply 08:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the above, the merge should be undone pending a proper concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

it has been undone, SqueakBox 16:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Charva article

• Merge doesn't mean cut and paste into the middle of the article.
• The new text is nowhere near NPOV. It gives a different etymology and has awful expressions such as "low morals".

If you have to incorporate could you make it into a proper article and take all the prejudice out? Secretlondon 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A: Ned added into the middle B: When you are talking about a derogatory term NPOV doesn't exactly apply. -Josquius

I suggest you study Wikipedia:NPOV - "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".". What is ever so witty to you and your school friends looks frankly embarassing in an international encyclopedia. Secretlondon 17:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

London, get that attitude seen to.

Charva IS NPOV- When you are talking about a term, part of the very definition of which is low morals then NPOV is a very negative outlook -Josquius

Devvo

Do we really need two pictures of Devvo from fat-pie.com? ZephyrAnycon 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've tidied this a bit, so just the one is there now. Two did seem redundant. -- Mewcenary 22:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Chav is closer to Guido

It seems to me that Chav is pretty close to the New York concept of a Guido, and not necessarily much like "wigger" or "poor white trash"

For a nice overview of "guido" see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=guido&defid=1193873

Mikeross

'Chav' as a label for an unwanted social lower class?

As a media student studying the representantion of 'Chavs' in the media, i was shocked to find that many sources believe that the term is an oppressive labelling for lower class teenagers rather than a term that the victims have earned themselves.

Is the term 'Chav' unjust or are the media just looking for a way to earn the respect of a majority of it's readers? Facemelta5000 08:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the word and attitude associated with it is entirely justified - many a time have I been assaulted by chavs simply because I wear the uniform of the local grammar school. Poorsod 14:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that Chavs lash out at the presumable higher classes in spite. This is strange as i have heard from numerous sources that Chavs claim to be chavs and are not placed by situation which actually seems to be the case. Is this just bravado we are seeing.

I personally feel that by acting the way they do that Chavs forgoe the right to defense from anyone by alienating all who would want to help them. Those who do stand for them do so for personal gain. try being mugged by one and then tell me if they are bad are not. Facemelta5000 11:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally feel that we should shoot the lot. Then I have to remind myself that I'm against the Death penalty.

Re-Write

Well, I've attempted to bring some sense of order to this article, which was messy and unencyclopedic. I've left a blank section entitiled 'development of the stereotype'. This could be filled with much of the interesting stuff from the 'charver' section that described how such a social group may have formed. Unfortunately, it had been written in an exptremely subjective manner. Robdurbar 16:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd post it under here (I am not Robdurbar, however) :

I added a little info under the "Elements of the stereotype" section, pertaining to Chavs being fueled by cheap Alcohol, tying in a little to the new British Law allowing pubs to open 24/7 and how it might probe an increase in Anti-social behaviour. Could someone tidy that up and link to a Wikipage or external link about the new law?

We don't do speculation or crystal ball watching.Secretlondon 14:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we split Charva from this article?

The word Charva is purely aword from the North East of England, not related to the media term Chav (other than the term having a very similar meaning) certainly if terms such as NED and Scally are going to have their own page, then the term Charva should also have its own page and not be copied and pasted into this page (I also think that the Charva page should expand on it seperate etymology, including the words former meaning as a synonym of terms such as 'mate' or 'buddy' as derived from the word 'char' meaning tea

Charver has already had its own article, which was deleted, it seems, as much because of the article's poor quality as of the simialrity of the terms. Although it is true that charva has a logner hsitory than chav, I think the terms are simialr enough to be one. Ned has survived a vote for deletion, probably due to the Scots being unable to accept the fact that they are the same as chavs/townies/sacllies/kevins or whatevers, becasue they see chav as an English term. Robdurbar 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What I've been trying to say without success. Even though I supported the Scots in their independance they are rabidly against this too thinking charva just derived from chav. -Josquius

Rewrite

See also Talk:Chav/Archive01#Disputed?, Talk:Chav/Archive01#Neds, Chavs

I'm not gonna enumerate every fabrication in the article: there are too many, and to do so would take more time than it would take to remove them (which is what I've done).

This is IMHO the single most Urban Dictionary article on Wikipedia i.e. the one article that everyone and his cat seems to think they are entitled to add bogus synonyms, stereotypes and backronyms to.

Here are some samples/examples:

• Council House/Housed And Vile: 7 Google hits, most of which are indirectly drawn from this article
• There's only one paragraph of etymology in the etymology section, and even that lacks references (cf. Pikey)
• "The most similar slang in the United States is probably the term guido (UrbanDictionary)". Urban Dictionary is not a notable source
• "Chav" has nothing whatsoever to do with "wigger" (what on earth does Tim Westwood have to do with Vicky Pollard?). An earlier editor, seeing that it's possible to get away with anything, even tried to parlay this exploit into the claim that "nigger" [1] is also a synonym...

I've removed all of the unsubstantiated material. If any of it is notable and verifiable it should be easy to demonstrate this by citing respectable sources.

chocolateboy 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, a much more in depth change than the one I could be bothered to make. However, I've put some of the charver stuff back in as charver diverts here, a change which occured on the basis of the two pages merging. and if you ask around in the North East in particular, it does have a longer history and slightly different conotations.

O, and I think we should have some sort of list of alternative names. As for the vicky pollard/time westwood thing; Tim is an example of someone putting out the sort of culture that a chav might want to espire to. I don't think its inclusion was meant to say that wigga=chav; but that one who might be labeled a wigga may also be labbeled a chav Robdurbar 15:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi.

I've re-removed the "charver" section for the following reasons:

• There's no evidence (i.e. Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) to suggest that this is a notable cultural stereotype outside of neologistic humour sites such as ChavScum, its spinoff, ChavTowns, and their blog and forum offspring. If this article were about ChavScum, then that would be a different matter...
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The "chav" stereotype is a notable pheonomenon. The "charva" stereotype, unless evidence is provided to the contrary, is not, however popular the word is alleged to be. If "charva" is a synonym of "chav", then it certainly doesn't need a whole section to establish this "fact". It merely needs a notable source. If it's not a synonym - if it's indeed a word whose usage and etymology are independent of "chav" as was intimated in the deleted "charva" article (and in your comment above) - then it doesn't belong here.
• "... if you ask around in the North East in particular, it does have a longer history and slightly different conotations". That's original research. It's fine for Urban Dictionary (and even Wiktionary, which, sadly, has little in the way of quality control). I've never heard anyone pronounce "clitoris" "KLY tor ihs" (['klaɪtɒɹɪs]), and neither has any other editor of the Clitoris article; nevertheless the pronunciation remains. Why? Because the Talk page opinions of Wikipedians are not notable or reputable sources.

Re: chav synonyms: fine if they're backed up by reputable sources. Otherwise, they'll go the way of all original research and bad jokes.

As for "chav = wigger". If you can find a notable source among these 99 links that confirms this, then go for it. There's certainly no evidence that the Collins English Dictionary makes this bizarre assertion.

chocolateboy 17:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mostly true, and I personally don't feel that there is much of a difference (or certainly a noabtle one) between chav and charver, but I do know that many people feel that there is; enough, I would think, for it to warrent a mention. IF it is accepted that they are different, then 'charvers' are certainly a big enough soical group to deserve wikipedia inclusion, be it on their own page or here.

The problem with your insistence on soruces is that we are dealing with a phenonenom which is largely a product of oral culture. You're right that the lsit was too long and words like wigga shouldn't really be there; but I think you'll find that there is little if any evidence for almost all of the words used for 'chav'; this does not make their use less valid. This may be approaching original research; but it doesn't make it any less true.

And, by the way, you will keep offending people if you insist on removing whole sections of articles. Wikipedia is a collaboration: what would have been wrong in offering a compromise, such as removing the charver section (which I'd already cut down from the four paragraphs of largely offensive material that was already here), but keeping a line or two in the article somewhere else? Robdurbar 13:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

And, by the way, you will keep offending people if you insist on removing whole sections of articles.

Am I bovvered tho? :-) Seriously, I'm more concerned about ensuring the article isn't an Urban Dictionary-style embarrassment, as it was before. Or would you prefer it to keep the accuracy and neutrality warnings? As for offending people, I suggest you take another look at Wikipedia:Be bold and Jimbo's widely reported comments on the mediocrity of many Wikipedia articles. [2]

what would have been wrong in offering a compromise, such as removing the charver section [ ... ] but keeping a line or two in the article somewhere else?

That's exactly what I suggested - a passing reference and a source. What's missing is the source. Your claim that we must somehow pioneer research into the subject because "chav" is too new to have been written about is both addressed and refuted by Wikipedia:No original research and incorrect. It's easy to find articles in broadsheet newspapers on the subject, and, as mentioned above, there's even a reputable dictionary entry that can be cited.

Anyway, I've added some synonyms listed in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. I can't find any evidence that the use of this word is specific to the north of England, so I've snipped that.

chocolateboy 17:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, sorry about getting a bit het up there. Good source for synonyms list Robdurbar 14:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Massively improved article: good effort (nice to see the basic structure I tried to implement months ago surviving :)). I've tweaked the bit about car modding 'cos I know several people into modding who are most certainly not chavs.

Now, who wants to start the sweepstake on how long before some comes in and fucks up the article again? Icundell 15:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Monday - as half term is over.. Secretlondon 14:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

UK vs England

Chav is clearly a UK term rather than a specific English term. User:Mais_oui! has started an edit war to change it to England. Living in Scotland, I can confirm that the term chav is used reguarly. Astrotrain 19:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Living in Scotland... " Wikipedia:No original research.

"... an edit war... ". Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Mais oui! 19:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, the "living in scotland" is hardly original research Robdurbar 15:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Goldie Lookin Chain are obviously based on chav / rap culture. As they comerom Wales, I think it would suggest that the idea at least of a 'chav' should include Wales at a minimum. I don't know about the exact word though. James Kendall 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a scottish friend of mine refers to them as 'neds' that might be useful Viralmonkey@gmail.com 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

-'NEDs' is actually more common than just Scotland, I believe it is an official term which in the past was even used by the civil service in an effort to be politically correct, it stands for 'non-educated delinquent'. A child who skips all their lessons, and commits crime. -- Paxomen 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentions of African-American Culture?

I read the whole article on Chavs but have not read all of the talk, so forgive me if I'm treading old ground here...but why is there no mention of the huge number of similarities between American Black culture and Chav culture? Also with American hip-hop culture in general, regardless of race? Maybe not many Americans have been involved in this article and these similarities have been glossed over or intentionally avoided for some reason. This to me seems sloppy at best and possibly disingenuous.12.30.156.36 14:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"American Black" culture is huge and varied. Chav is a term used to describe a certain group of behaviours i.e. petty crime, loutish, offensive, violent, loud behaviour allied to a certain set of clothes and a way of speaking that owes more to North London than to the Bronx, New Orleans, Compton or whichever limited geographical setting from which you were drawing your ill advised stereotype. We have probably had Chav equivalents for longer than there has been a USA. It's not a 'black' thang it's a 'yob' thing.

---

I wasn't getting into a chicken/egg kinda thing. I just think the similarities are there, but apparently you're offended that someone might suggest that one is influenced by the other. And what does the existence of "Chav equivalents" prove anyway? That louts aren't native and exclusive to London proper? Aside from the "behavior," are you suggesting that Chavs were wearing baggy pants and matching sweatsuits, bling, etc. before anyone in America? Neither of these cultures exists in a vacuum, ya know. Modern music/TV/Movies crosses national borders and influences whoever it influences. And if I'm drawing an "ill advised stereotype" what are you doing? "allied to a certain set of clothes and a way of speaking" seems no less of a generalization/superficial category than any demographic I was trying to expalin. It's not racial, but it's socioeconomic. If you want to think that American (Black or whatever) culture has zero effect on chavs you have that right, but I hope that someone else reads this, forgives that I'm a Yank, gives it more than a second of thought, and at least discusses it cursorily in the article. If nothing else, why don't you lay forth a case (doesn't need to be long) that refutes all connection between the two? Based on your condescending response, I'm certain this is not the first time you've heard the suggestion. Go for it...I won't suggest editing it out.

---

I'm starting to like you! Sorry to have sounded condescending... the extension to your first comments are more measured. It's pretty clear that there are plenty of Chav "Marshall Mathers" wannabes... who are influenced by a 'pimpin' Snoop Dogg image. No quarrel there. My main disagreement was about (1) the use of "American Black Culture" which seemed unnecessarily broad. We wouldn't, for example, want to refer to "American White Culture" being synonomous with the KKK and (2) the timeline of influence - yobs, louts, and thugs have existed since they avoided evolution ;)

Modified cars bit

I've added a couple of sentences to try and distance the apparent (and non-existant) monopoly chavs would appear to have on modifying cars if the tone of the article would be something to go by. Working for a company that imports such bits I can vouch that this is not the case (actually our best selling bumper kit this year has presently been the Rieger Audi A4 kit - and I'm pretty certain that the majority of chavs don't cruise about in A4s lol)

81.130.105.239 12:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit - said company is [3]; the retail front for Price Matters ltd. - who presently are the UK's sole importers for Rieger ([4] - in german) tuning bits; as well as supplying stuff like Lester ([5]) and Carzone ([6])

Hiya.

I'd suggest such disambiguation is better placed in the car modding article (where it's already been added). We don't "helpfully" point out that Burberry is also popular among middle aged middle class middle Englanders, that Olympians and PE teachers also wear track suits, or that Bob Hoskins and Nigel Kennedy also adopt norf/sarf London accents apparently at odds with their backgrounds.

I've snipped both additions. The first is redundant; the second unsubstantiated.

"such as" means "not limited to". Plus: bear in mind we're reporting a stereotype, not conducting a census. Of course, living on a council estate is not synonymous with the word "chav", but it's beyond the remit of this article to protect the feelings of those who feel that a component of the chav stereotype inconveniently coincides with their own lifestyle.

As for the attempt to footnote the Thomson Directory stats by arguing that other forms of car modding may have contributed: you're probably right, but that's not what the News Shopper article says, and it's not relevant here unless you can find a reputable source that has drawn the same conclusion.

To be fair, the News Shopper article is illiterate, inflammatory, and unsubstantiated. I've searched long and hard and can't find any other source for the information it contains. The invocation of the c-word to explain the alleged statistics appears to be the invention of Alison White, the article's author. I'm sure a good case could be made for removing the whole subsection on the grounds that News Shopper doesn't count as a reputable publication.

chocolateboy 16:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. get an account! :-)

Hey

The reason I added it was the tone of what is written implies that Chavs are the sole market for such things. Also - contact direct info@ffwdstyling.co.uk to confirm what I've said (His name's Mark - he's the CEO of ffwdstyling which imports for us.) There is no source more accurate than that of the horses mouth so to say. Email him directly and we can quote him in the article if you like.

Basically imho it's not a neutral statement to say (which the article seems to do) that car modifying is solely the result of Chavs buying kits for their Novas lol.

"but it's beyond the remit of this article to protect the feelings of those who feel that a component of the chav stereotype inconveniently coincides with their own lifestyle." - Sprechen sie english bitte? :-/ You've lost me on that one.

81.130.105.239 17:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:No original research. It's a good read. It should fill you in on the reasons why we have to respectfully decline contributions from the "horse's mouth".

Here's a couple of things this article isn't:

• a list of "chav" synonyms (just as the articles on cannabis, sexual intercourse and inebriation aren't lists of synonyms)
• an Urban Dictionary entry [7]
• a clearing house for insults and taunts [8]
• a defence (or disambiguation) of activities (such as car modding, wearing Burberry, or talking mockney) that happen to be components of the "chav" stereotype

You might be able to find a place for your car modding inside baseball in the car modding article itself (it needs some TLC). But it doesn't belong here as it falls into the 4th category listed above.

chocolateboy 17:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt in my mind that at the very least the stuff about Thomson's needs re-writing. I too can find no evidence whatsoever thet 'Thomson has reported' anything. Preferably it should be deleted as relying on a single rubbish source. Icundell 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:No original research. It's a good read. It should fill you in on the reasons why we have to respectfully decline contributions from the "horse's mouth".

'scuse interjecting but I would VERY strongly argue that fact checking in most definitely NOT original research. Its aim of the policy is to exclude unverifiable material and the whole point of this contributor's effort was to verify (in fact he has falsified the claim, an even higher aim :)). The highest policy of all Wikipedia policy's should be to be accurate. Icundell 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather than discussing this with me, please take another look at Wikipedia:No original research, and, if neccessary, discuss the policy on that article's talk page. It's one of the three pillars of Wikipedia, though, so I wouldn't expect much sympathy for your argument. Sourcing information first hand from an acquaintance or colleague, no matter how expert, is explicitly addressed and rejected in that article. e.g.

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.

Also, please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability e.g.

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.

chocolateboy 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

de:Prolet

I've removed the link to the German wiki "Prolet", which is not the same as "Chav" and bears no meantion to anything occuring outside Germany. --24.31.29.171 10:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a "Proll" is the next best thing to a "chav", which, since "chav" is something particularly British, is the best that is to be expected from such a link. As to the German article not mentioning anything outside of Germany, I don't see how that could detract from the German lemma. --Maikel 13:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes and fundamentalism

Chocolateboy, you have done much that is fantastic with this article and saved it from the festering mess that it was, but you fundametalist application of policy is starting to harm it.

It is absolutely essential that the reader (who may be entirely unfamilar with UK English idiom) is cautioned that some terminology may be used in a different sense to that he or she is used to. The two most notable examples are car modding and bling, but others have it as well. We can either do it for every entry (which would be cumbersome and ugly) or do it once and be done with it. But it must be done or the article would not be neutral and would be downright misleading. Icundell 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in this short paragraph; is it very different from, say, the comment that appears at the top of all articles on geographical/political regions of the British Isles which says For an explanation of often confusing terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom see British Isles (terminology)? Robdurbar 12:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of fundamentalism are hardly temperate, though, to be fair, as animadversions go "Wikipedian fundamentalist" has a certain ring to it. I guess that makes this article (note the extreme (extremist?) citing of sources) our bible. Note also that it's a featured article.

• "Care should be taken when considering elements of this (and, indeed, other) stereotypes." According to who? This article isn't about you.
• "Terminology often has a significantly different meaning when applied to a cultural stereotype than in its original use." According to?
• "For example bling was first coined as a term to describe conspicuous consumption of luxury goods, rather than the sense outlined below." "Bling" means "expensive objects of jewellery that are worn in a way that is very easy to notice" in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, this article and the "bling" article. [9] [10] This is an encyclopedia, not a home for pet sociolinguistic theories.

If you have any evidence that "tastelessly modified car" has some head-scratchingly obscure meaning when used in the context of this stereotype, then please provide it. It's easy to win a content argument here by backing up your assertions with citations from reputable sources.

We don't adopt an advisory tone for obvious POV reasons. Note the lack of "terrorism is bad, mmkay" and "please don't be a paedophile" interjections in terrorism and paedophilia. It's simply unencyclopedic to presume to tell the reader how to parse a stereotype. Why is an encyclopedia article suddenly doling out unsourced hermeneutic advice? The test of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View is articles like this where vandalism is rife and temperatures run high. The advisory paragraph you added flunks that test by failing to ascribe its unconvincing "insights" to a reputable source.

chocolateboy 15:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

is it very different from, say, the comment that appears at the top of all articles on geographical/political regions of the British Isles

Yes. That disambiguation appears on articles where it's ontopic. Just as the car modding article contains a "clarification" that not all forms of car modding are "tasteless". The "bling" article contains no such disambiguation as there's no such ambiguity (notwithstanding the fact that "bling" has supplanted "bling bling" as the preferred usage in the UK). Moreover, the administrative minutiae of the various terms for these sceptered isles are expounded in a detailed and well-researched article (British Isles (terminology)). In contrast, neither "car modding" nor "bling" merit a "car modding (terminology)" or "bling (terminology)" article, and, even if they did, they would still be irrelevant here. The vast array of articles that link to UK (it's the fourth most referenced article on Wikipedia) don't include the comment you quoted.

Attempting to perform that kind of disambiguation here is tantamount to prepending the following caveat to the 41198 41201 references to United Kingdom:

(For an explanation of often confusing terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom see British Isles (terminology).)

Felicity Kendal CBE (born in Olton, Warwickshire on September 25, 1946) is a British actress...

Except it's not, because "tastelessly modified car" and "bling" are not "often confusing terms".

chocolateboy 16:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

• "Care should be taken when considering elements of this (and, indeed, other) stereotypes." According to who? This article isn't about you.

Who said it was? Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Terminology often has a significantly different meaning when applied to a cultural stereotype than in its original use." According to?

According to the article I cited to DEMONSTRATE. Follow the link.Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a home for pet sociolinguistic theories.

And a dictionary is not an encyclopedia. The problem is that the article has moved from being bloated to emaciated and potentially misleading to those who are not already familiar with the term (which rather defeats the object of an encylopedia, doesn't it?). Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't adopt an advisory tone for obvious POV reasons. Note the lack of "terrorism is bad, mmkay" and "please don't be a paedophile" interjections in terrorism and paedophilia.

Please read and understand straw man. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's simply unencyclopedic to presume to tell the reader how to parse a stereotype.

I do not presume telling a reader how to parse a stereotype. I propose to caution a reader who may not be familiar with UK idiomatic English (and, for that matter, who may not have time to follow every link to which you have moved out various passages) that certain terms may have notably different meanings to those they are familiar with. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is an encyclopedia article suddenly doling out unsourced hermeneutic advice?

It was doing no such thing. It was giving proper context, something any encylopedia should do. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The test of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View is articles like this where vandalism is rife and temperatures run high. The advisory paragraph you added flunks that test by failing to ascribe its unconvincing "insights" to a reputable source.

Please show the the policy that says NPOV is to be used as a substitute for accuracy (see, I can do straw man too) Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

chocolateboy 15:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In contrast, neither "car modding" nor "bling" merit a "car modding (terminology)"

Yet. Seen the merger proposal? Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to perform that kind of disambiguation here is tantamount to prepending the following caveat to the 41198 41201 references to United Kingdom:

(For an explanation of often confusing terms like England, (Great) Britain and United Kingdom see British Isles (terminology).)

No it isn't. Don't be ridiculous. That's simply Reductio ad absurdum. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Felicity Kendal CBE (born in Olton, Warwickshire on September 25, 1946) is a British actress...

Except it's not, because "tastelessly modified car" and "bling" are not "often confusing terms".

No. They are terms whose meaning is context dependent. A note of caution that some terminology may have a different meaning to those the reader is used to not only improves accuracy, but is a basic courtesy to the user. The dictionaries you cite are not encyclopedias and this is not wikidictionary. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, you've done much that is great to this article, but being skeletal is just as bad as being obese. Icundell 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

---

First off, I'd prefer it if you'd quote when replying rather than dismembering comments with interlineations.

Who said it was?

You did by elevating your own POV to the status of a stance adopted by the article.

According to the article I cited to DEMONSTRATE. Follow the link.

What link? The only link in your editorial paragraph is to the "bling" article, which patently does not "demonstrate" that "Terminology often has a significantly different meaning when applied to a cultural stereotype than in its original use."

Please read and understand straw man.

I don't see anything in that article that justifies larding articles on hot-button issues with unsourced moral guidelines. It's a good idea to actually read and consider an editorial criticism before reaching for the "straw man" cliché.

And a dictionary is not an encyclopedia.

Dictionaries, at least those of the non-comedy variety, fall under the rubric of "reputable sources" for such topics as etymology and usage. In contrast, you've provided no reputable sources, or even disreputable sources for that matter, to support the assertion that "bling" has a meaning different to the one it has in dictionaries, common usage, this article or the "bling" article.

The problem is that the article has moved from being bloated to emaciated and potentially misleading to those who are not already familiar with the term (which rather defeats the object of an encylopedia, doesn't it?).

It's hardly emaciated in comparison to its sister articles (ned, pikey, scally &c.), and even if it were, the solution is to add encyclopedic material, not editorial filler. You've provided no evidence that the article is misleading, and your editorial addition serves to obfuscate the topic by inserting ambiguity where none exists.

I propose to caution a reader who may not be familiar with UK idiomatic English (and, for that matter, who may not have time to follow every link to which you have moved out various passages) that certain terms may have notably different meanings to those they are familiar with.

You seem to be unfamiliar with your own addition. Here it is again:

Care should be taken when considering elements of this (and, indeed, other) stereotypes. Terminology often has a significantly different meaning when applied to a cultural stereotype than in its original coinage. For example bling was originally a term to describe conspicuous consumption of luxury goods, rather than the sense outlined below. Subject to this caveat, typical features of the stereotype include:

You still haven't explained why "care should be taken" when considering elements of this (and indeed all) stereotypes; nor have you provided a source for this lurid statement. Likewise, you've provided no source for the bizarre claim that "Terminology often has a significantly different meaning when applied to a cultural stereotype than in its original coinage". Also lacking is any evidence that the meaning of the word "bling" is somehow different in this context. The paragraph you added does not clarify a single supposed ambiguity, and neither it nor your comments here provide a single shred of evidence to support the claim that "certain terms may have notably different meanings to those [ readers ] are familiar with".

It was giving proper context, something any encylopedia should do.

Telling the reader to "take care", and issuing a fanciful "caveat" do not constitute "giving proper context"; they do, however, in the passage you added, constitute a violation of all three core Wikipedia precepts: Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Please show the the policy that says NPOV is to be used as a substitute for accuracy

Accuracy is easy to demonstrate by citing sources, something you've neglected to do both in the passage you added and in your comments here. Here is the article that counsels against unsourced POVs: Wikipedia:NPOV. Here are articles that counsel against inaccuracy: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

No it isn't. Don't be ridiculous. That's simply Reductio ad absurdum.

No, it's a demonstration of the inaccuracy of the British Isles (terminology) analogy. We disambiguate in the articles themselves, not in the articles that reference them. Incidentally, you do realise that reductio ad absurdum is one of the cornerstones of deductive reasoning rather than a logical fallacy?

No. They are terms whose meaning is context dependent. A note of caution that some terminology may have a different meaning to those the reader is used to not only improves accuracy, but is a basic courtesy to the user. The dictionaries you cite are not encyclopedias and this is not wikidictionary.

The dictionary citations show that your editorial spree is bogus as well as unencyclopedic. If you have any evidence that the stereotype section includes terms whose meanings are somehow warped out of all recognition by their association with the stereotype, then, once again, please provide it. Certainly "tastelessly modified car" and "bling" don't fit into that category.

Like I said, you've done much that is great to this article, but being skeletal is just as bad as being obese.

As already mentioned, the article is comparable in length to its sister articles, a better indication of its natural size than the girth it attained in its earlier incarnation as a notorious POV and inaccuracy attractor. At any rate, adding unsourced, POV original research solves neither problem.

chocolateboy 19:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh this is all rediculous; is it really something worth arguing about and taking up many ks of talk page with? I think that the article works fine with or without the 'caveat'; lets look at ways of improving content rather than arguing over a silly little point, and making accusations at each other?Robdurbar 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

chav is pronounced with a sharp (often staccato) 'a' sound. chips happy vehicle

The correct origin of Chav

I seem to remember the correct orgin of the word 'Chav' was from the town Chavton in England. Am I wrong?--80.168.165.216 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are - not aware that that is a real place? It seams that there isnt a correct origin of the word chav; or at least, there isnt one that can be proved over any of the others. The two that appear the most popular with 'official sources' are the Romani one and the Cheltenham Ladies' College explanation. Robdurbar 20:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali G

Initial question posted in archive talk page Talk:Chav/Archive01#Ali_G.3F Cfpresley 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the character Ali G. a chav? Dara

Probably, yes, though he pre-dated the rise of the term as a national word by about five years Robdurbar 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

With black styles at the core of British youth culture, it is argued that Ali G is not poking fun at black people at all but "wiggers" - whites who want to be, or even think they are, black. [11]

Adding Ali G is like adding Del Boy. He also wears bling; he also speaks fluent unsophisticated Estuary English; and he also engages in petty criminal activities. Moreover, it's easy to find bloggers and chatterers making this comic claim. [12] However, it's anachronistic, unencyclopedic and unverifiable, so it doesn't belong here (unless reputable sources can be found).

Of course, if "wigger", "wide boy" and "chav" are merged, both should be mentioned...

See User talk:Chocolateboy#Chav and Ali G.

chocolateboy 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To other editors, please read the exchange in User talk:Chocolateboy#Chav and Ali G. To summarize, I believe that chocolateboy is mis-applying the concepts of verifiability and "reputable sources" in this case. I cited numerous sources (a very tiny sample of 15,000 Google references from the search "ali g" + "chav") that asserted or assumed the Ali G character was an example of a chav. In opposition, Chocolateboy asserted only his personal opinion (POV/OR) as a self-styled "expert" on the definition of chavs. That attitude (such as calling the Ali G-chav association "comic", above) has persisted in his edits of this article (see other sections above). (The sources he cites as "reputable" have nothing, so far as I can tell, with Ali G, either pro or con.)

The important issue here is that sources that Chocolateboy dismisses as not "reputable" or insults as "wibblery" are vital to the definition and intepretation of popular-culture concepts. It is, in fact, posts on ChavScum and on web boards, blogs, personal sites, zines and small journals, etc., that shape and define "chav". There is no official or authoritative source as to who or what is or is not intended to be a representation of a chav. Wikipedia reports widespread popular consensus, when that consensus is uncontroverted by an authoritative source. I have provided sources, and Chocolateboy has not. MCB 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All interesting points. Why don't you take them up on Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia Talk:No original research and Wikipedia Talk:Cite sources, where they belong? Alternatively, you could respond to the specific comments above and here.

As for finding citations that demonstrate that "Ali G is not a chav", please see negative proof.

I have provided sources, and Chocolateboy has not.

Hmm...

What you don't seem to understand is that unlike simply verifiable facts (like the height of a building, or the date of a battle), the nature and intent of an artist with respect to a stage or fictional character is necessarily a matter of opinion and interpretation. User:MCB

No it isn't (Vicky Pollard, Lauren, Lauren, Tasha Slappa, Michael Carroll, Goldie Lookin' Chain). I highly recommend this and this after you've finished rereading Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research. User:Chocolateboy

[13]

chocolateboy 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking into sources for Ali G furhter, the only possibly verifable one is this: [14]. This incldues the line 'what differs Ali G from the modern chav'; suggesting perhaps that he could be labelled as a chav, but predates the 'movement' in some way.

Though I agree with MCB that the majority of what constitutes chavism and chavs is dictated by waht goes in the web forums and in people's interpretations, this does not make it any more appropriate to quote from these in Wikipedia; where they exist (And there are some if you search), 'reputable' publications should always be used.

Chocolateboy, for what its worth, it would be much better if you argued your point more clearly rather than throwing policy pages at peopleRobdurbar 10:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a plethora of reputable sources, including dictionaries, books and broadsheets, for anything and everything an encyclopedia needs to document the "chav" stereotype. This fact is made abundantly clear by the article itself:

A survey in 2005 found that in December 2004 alone there were 114 British newspaper articles using the word.

---

it would be much better if you argued your point more clearly rather than throwing policy pages at people

Really? Which part is "unclear"?

blogs are not acceptable as sources [15]

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. [16]

As for adding "Ali G dresses like a chav but isn't one according to a 'diatribe' by New Criminologist magazine's 'Mr Angry'", I don't see the point, but go for it.

chocolateboy 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand; I meant that there was only one possibly reliable source available for the Ali G comment; I agree (in fact said as much) that for the article in general there are plenty; plus I think the article does say that he is a chav but in a different way. I do agree that including him in the article is wrong, by the way, as it casuses confusion with the whole wigga thing, which appears to be more common than I realised Robdurbar 12:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

btw, have just looked at the 'wigga' page; thats quite a mess too; gonna have a shot at cleaning it up a bit but your help would be appreciated there too

No misunderstanding. I agree with what you've said. The "plethora of reputable sources" bit was just a difference in emphasis of your statement that reputable sources can be found if you look hard enough. Heck, practically the whole article could be impeccably sourced just by consulting the BBC site...

As for cleaning up "wigger", looks like some kindly soul has already done it :-)

chocolateboy 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to step back from this a bit and see if we can come to a satisfactory resolution. It is clear to me that Ali G must be covered somehow in this article, perhaps in a manner that acknowledges wide public opinion while including a more robust analysis, e.g., distinction between a chav and a wigger (if there is one, and if they are not overlapping sets). The problem here is that to a vast number of people, Ali G is not merely a chav, but is the (canonical) chav. And since the character pre-dates the term, part of the popular definition of "chav" is "person that resembles (style, language, etc.) Ali G". That is a difficult thing to handle. One of the things I found annoying in Chocolateboy's edits was reference to the Ali G material as an "anachronism". That's simply inapposite. Sacha Baron Cohen created a character that satirized a particular stereotype of class, language, clothing, etc. Simply because that stereotype later became referred to as a "chav" does not make it incorrect to report the label. MCB 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The problem here is that to a vast number of people, Ali G is not merely a chav, but is the (canonical) chav.

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. [17]

Reinstate the paragraph when you can back it up with citations from reputable sources, like everything else in that section, and, indeed, the whole article.

chocolateboy 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"wide public opinion...vast number of people..." - where do you get your information from? I suggest that it is from personal experience and that you are describing the views of your peers. I'm not aware of any surveys having been done on this topic. Secretlondon 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Stereotype

I've written the info about steretype's from opinions admittedly, so it isn't neccesarily pure fact, I believe them to be more misunderstood. Medscin 20:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for your addition. Unfortunately the "fact" thing is pretty important. Hence the prominent message displayed underneath edit boxes: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources." Please see some of the discussions above for the rationale. There are, of course, plenty of places where personal opinions on the subject are welcome e.g. UrbanDictionary, ChavScum, and ChavTowns.

chocolateboy 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Am (slightly) happier with chocolateboy's revert on the 'paediatrician/paedophile' incident now that the unsourced (and dubious) dogs reference has been deleted too, at least it makes clearer that teh article is about the contemporary understanding of the chav stereotype rather than wider examples of anti-social behaviour. --Archstanton 14:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

is easily incited into baying mobs by tabloid newspapers, resulting in such stupid acts as attacking the home of a paediatrician because they thought she may be a paedophile. [18]

The linked BBC article has nothing whatsoever to do with the "chav" stereotype, unsurprisingly as it reports an incident that took place in 2000, four years before the word became popular.

Arguing that it should be included anyway because it "fits" [19] the "humorous" "Council House and Violent" backronym is addressed above in the modified car discussion.

Aspects of the "chav" stereotype overlap with other stereotypes and subcultures. The fact that "chavs" supposedly favour an estuary accent, doesn't mean that the article should launch into a tirade against Jamie Oliver and Nigel Kennedy. The Burberry connection doesn't mean that the "chav" sterotype should include random links to articles about Burberry's appeal to middle class, middle aged, middle England &c.

This article is about "chav". There may be a place for a toned down version of your factoid in mass hysteria, mob rule, or Brass Eye, but it's offtopic here. If you really find it necessary to find an outlet for unsubstantiated and anachronistic invective, then I recommend ChavScum. Or, alternatively, add it to the Wiki you recently spammed [20] this article with.

chocolateboy 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's the rude response one can expect after a perfectly civil and conciliatory response, I sincerely hope you don't hold any senior position within the Wikipedia hierarchy. I had already conceded that this article, which you apparently 'own', is about the contemporary understanding of the chav stereotype rather than wider examples of anti-social behaviour. --Archstanton 15:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia hierarchy?

I'm not a huge fan of spam. Animadversion ("which you apparently 'own'") and edit wars aren't exactly "civil" either. [21] Still, you're not altogether wrong. If you take a look at previous incarnations of the article, and its history of constant vandalism, it might shed a bit more light on my "fundamentalism" :-)

chocolateboy 16:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"I'm not a huge fan of spam". Nor am I. Two days ago I put up a link that you considered to be spam, it is no longer there. The fact that you insist on dredging this up in subsequent unrelated discussions suggests that you are bearing a grudge, so I have taken this to mediation. --Archstanton 16:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You've been here for a fortnight, and have already been involved in two edit wars: one to reinstate a link to a personal website less than two days old (which you conceded was spam here), and another to reinstate an inflammatory commentary, supported by a link to an article that, as was clearly explained, has nothing whatsoever to do with this article.

Good luck with the RfM, but if you're convinced that such reversions represent some sort of personal "grudge", then I suggest you familiarize yourself with my edit history (hint: search for "spam" [22] and "ref" [23][24]).

chocolateboy 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've been 'here' since April 2004, albeit infrequently. This is simply a new name as I was bored with the old one and this is the first 'edit war' I've ever been involved in. It takes two to get involved in an edit war, hence my RfM. And I did not concede it was spam (as it wasn't), merely that the case for putting up the link was weak. I'll await the mediators' response before commenting any further in this. --Archstanton 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge From Kev

Uncle G has proposed that the content from Kev be merged here. To be honest there's not really much content in 'Kev', just a vague bit of etymology about Kevin the Teenager, Harry Enfield's character. Weak Support since baisically we'd just be removing the Kev text and creating a redirect; don't think there's anything in there that would add to the current article Robdurbar 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect. Bogus etymology. Take that away and it's virtually a redirect already. At a pinch, add to the list of synonyms and regional variations if a decent source can be found. chocolateboy 13:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree that bogus etymology - predates Harry Enfield's character. Secret[[User talk:Secretlondon|london]] 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No merge, Chav is already far too good at drowning out its regional variants just because the chattering classes picked up on it. Also I think dismissing the entomology out of hand is a mistake, I'm not aware of its use pre-Harry Enfield. --Pypex 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But surely a series of articles with different regional words is just duplication? I dont think its necessary to have them both. Robdurbar 12:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In support of Robdurbar's point, we don't have separate articles for gasoline/petrol or for squash/marrow. The thing is the same. It is merely called by different names in different places. So the second question to answer here is whether these two stereotypes are the same, despite being known by different names in different places. If they are, then the articles should be merged. Certainly according to the Kev article as written, they are. But that article cites no sources. (Thus the first question to answer is whether "Kev" is indeed a stereotype that is part of the corpus of human knowledge at all, or whether the article is unverifiable and original research.) Uncle G 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a couple of online searches yesterday and couldn't find anything decisive. Nothing to support the Harry Enfield derivation and nothing to refute it. (Just a completely unreliable (and irrelevant) suspicion that "Kevs" (and "Sharons") predate 1990 [25], when the Kevin character was first introduced.) I found a Usenet citation from 1993 [26]. I couldn't find anything on Amazon and Google's book searches. I think a dead tree consultation is in order. Out of interest, does anyone have access to LexisNexis?

chocolateboy 16:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ned (Scottish)

Cleared up the NED section, and added a link to the Ned_(Scottish) article. And corrected the spelling of Scotland :) DavidMcKenzie 12:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The "non educated deliquent" looks like a false etymology. Got a source? Secretlondon 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ned has its own page; if you think its the same as chav put it under votes for deletion; for now there's no need to include that stuff here anyway Robdurbar 13:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If it is the same as chav, then what is required is a merger, which has nothing whatever to do with deletion, and does not require a deletion discussion in order to be performed. Uncle G 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Chav vehicle modification

• Chav vehicle modification (AFD discussion)

Uncle G 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Chav - a view from Leith

Interesting that this term is viewed as a late 90s neologism. I can't provide OED standard written evidence, but can say that the term was in regular use locally in Leith, North Edinburgh, when we moved here in January 1996. We had lived in different parts of Scotland, and never heard the expression anywhere else. It was in common use in the local secondary school, and in the primary school, to define, not without some pride, those youngsters who might, typically, belong to gangs, or otherwise define themselves as anti-authoritarian.

Some enquiries produced the (dubious) tale that the term had been in use for many years, and was drawn from a mispronunciation of French prisoners of war, known as Travailleurs.

Who knows?

Colinbrown855@btinternet.com 86.135.231.230 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Chav- A Clockwork Orange?

I'm not very up on my British slang, but would the young males described in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange meet the Chav definition? Certainly Kubrick's work came long before the actual word came into usage, but it's the only image of Chav that I can possibly imagine.

Fairly close I think, but in a more modern setting. Imagaine a British version of a wigger and your pretty close too, but there's no reason why chavs cant be black. Robdurbar 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, no... Don't imagine that. The "wigger" stereotype is associated with middle class white males attempting to enhance their credibility (cf. Mockney). The "chav" stereotype, in contrast, applies to black, white and mixed race men and women who are considered to be incorrigibly working class. And no, Alex and his droogs are not "chavs". A Clockwork Orange is a dystopian fantasy, not a census. There's no subculture in Britain, or anywhere else, that speaks Anglo-Slavic, frequents milk bars, and engages in violence-as-art.

chocolateboy 14:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chavs are just the current urban poor - as seen from outside. Secretlondon 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Some of the {{citation needed}} stuff (and, indeed, other parts of the article) originate here. There's a discussion of that article's merits and demerits here.

chocolateboy 22:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But... I was hoping the article would explain what a "diskle" was. :-) MCB 22:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll be something someone made up in school one day. Secretlondon 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Libertines

I always thought that the Libertines reference to baseball caps in Time for Heroes was against people being more American, rather than chavs. Nevermind. --Nightfreak 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it... for one thing the album pre-dates the rise of the chav phenonemon nationally - and its not explicitly about them Robdurbar 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I aint done nuffink

Someone has put "Citation needed" against the entry that suggests a chav would say "fing" instead of "thing". Is the use of the word "fing" related to being uneducated, or is there another reason for its use? If the former, then it seems legitimate, although perhaps redundant. --Rebroad 21:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's accent - probably Estuary English. Secretlondon 13:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Gangstas and chavs?

Aren't chavs like gangstas, except that their white?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Remixed (talk • contribs)

no Drumnbach 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

chav's now deny there status

At school i get verbal abuse from the chav's mainly comments about my hair been long but i replie "don't call any one your a chav" and they say "look at me do i look like a chav". Its not right they build this stereotype over a year and because its faild they bin it lol but still stick with the style they created with the stereotype. They are now using the term "geek" the wrong way aswell i'm happy with my status as geek but when they called the retards in my IT room a geek it just offends me its so f**king insulting.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davaku (talk • contribs)

AND GET GANG RAPED BY RABID MONKEYS FROM IPWICH (innit bruv - wot the fuck does that mean?!?!) T-W-A-T-S - yeah y'all can read that cant ya (surprising i know) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.171.198.5 (talk • contribs)

• Someone calls a chav a chav"

"I ay no chav"

Joe Mariachi 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Chav origin date

The artical reads:

"Chav is a slang term which has been in wide use throughout the United Kingdom since 2004"

Have we got proof it's been used only since 2004? I'm sure I'd heard it plenty of times before then.

Joe Mariachi 18:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of requiring evidence for earlier use; I prefer the wording 'since the early 2000s', which im sure it had previously. Robdurbar 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1) "Chav is a slang term which has been in wide use throughout the United Kingdom since 2004" vs. "Have we got proof it's been used only since 2004?"

2) "I prefer the wording 'since the early 2000s', which im sure it had previously." The article had a lot of things previously, including warnings about its POV, lack of references, and inappropriate tone. Believe it or not, some people have been using the word (albeit meaning "bloke", "pal", or "geezer" rather than "oik" or "prole") for decades [27], but manage to suppress the urge to let such original research colour the article. Let's stick to the facts published by reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth.

chocolateboy 17:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So where's the verifiability that it was used nationwide only in 2004? I prefer early 2000s exactly because there is no source for it beginning in 2004 - indeed what counts for nationwide? In theory, one internet mention could be spread nationwide - if this was the case we could probably find sources for 1999/2000/2001. I'm not claiming this but at the moment 2004 is as unsourced and inaccurate as 'early 2000s'; if not more so as its specifity gives an impression of accuracy and authority that it does not have. Robdurbar 09:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC) actually, strike that, I see your point Robdurbar 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Acnowleged, delete this, I appologise for wasting your time. Joe Mariachi 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The earliest mentions on Google Groups I've found are from 1998:

• "I was born in Brompton so am I a Chav or what?" [28]
• "me and My Lot don't generally fit into the chav image" [29]
• "we call them that too, but chav is the actual definition of 'em. :)" [30]

Note that the last two were written by the same guy. BillyH 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added the cleanup tag because of horrific sections of grammar and spelling, in particular the Commercial Impact section which I have attempted to rewrite. --^pirate 16:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

except for that section - which had been added under 24 hours previously and which you cleaned up - the tag is completely unwarrented, so I've removed it. Robdurbar 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was lost

When first someone (at my school) used the term 'chav', I was lost as to what they meant. Many may say that the term is understood by everyone, but I am still a little unsure of the meaning despite the informative wikipedia article. I am a bit surprised, considering this, that 'chav' is recognised as part of the English language. Does it really merit recognition as a word when it is more of a slang expression than the (cited) substitution of 'fink' for 'think'? CMIIW 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the difference is that 'chav' describes something unique but 'fink' is an attempt at representing a mis-pronunciation. Robdurbar 08:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of word chav

Please see Talk:Chav/Archive 1 for my reversion of the charver thing; its unproven and sepculation. Robdurbar 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't see it. I don't express an opinion on charver; but I do remember it being in use in Edinburgh certainly as far back as the 80s. Guinnog 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

'But it seems that the word is from a much older underclass, the gypsies, many of whom have lived in that area for generations. Chav is almost certainly from the Romany word for a child, chavi, recorded from the middle of the nineteenth century. We know it was being used as a term of address to an adult man a little later in the century, but it hasn’t often been recorded in print since and its derivative chav is new to most people.'http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-cha2.htm

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chav

Well I agree that charver is a word possibly deserving of its own entry, but it got merged into chav long before I came here. I think the best we can say is that charver and chav have similar origins and that it has been suggseted that the latter dervies from the former, as one of many theories. Robdurbar 07:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cassandra's comment on Doctor Who

I was wondering about Cassandra's comment about Rose Tyler being a chav in the New Earth episode of Doctor Who, as I am not sure what to make of it. In my opinion the joke was on Cassandra being a snob for thinking Rose (who is working class, but does not protray some of the more negative aspects of "chav-ish-ness" like the so called "yobbish" attitude) was a chav. GracieLizzie 20:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this was more likely an in-joke aimed at Billie Piper on the grounds that she was (considered to be) a trashy, chav pop-star before she was Rose Tyler. A lot of people objected to her playing Rose on the grounds that they didn't like Billie (and, to be frank, anyone who's been forced to listen to 'Because We Want To' has a point!), so I think a big part of it must have been tongue-in-cheek self-deprecation on her part in order to help endear her to more of the critical fans. Kantiandream 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

86.13.3.18, I think the Doctor Who reference should stay in for the simple reason that it shows how the usage of the word Chav has entered mainstream popular culture. Kantiandream 12:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Acronym

I'm pretty sure that Chav originates from an acronym of "council house and violent". I've heard this mentioned in several articles and it would also make more sense (to me) than the historic language-links that are shown, but maybe the eytimology (spelling) is more accurate?