Talk:Scanger

message: You know the term Scanger/Scobe ((which is re-directed here}} is not just used in Dublin.It's used in Nearly every Town and all the City's in Ireland.When said typically from  a Dublin Working class.Well I don;t think of Scobes/Scangers like that.I think of them  typically from working class family in the area I am from.
So please don't change it back just to Dublin as it is blatantly wrong.
 Mikel-Fikel 82 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the term may be more widely used in Dublin but it is understood across most/all of the Republic of Ireland and while in other cities local terms (e.g. Scobes in Cork) may be in more widespread usage A Scobe is effectively a Skanger with a Cork accent. 
Skangers are a nationwide phenomenon so when the article is edited accordingly why do people insist on reverting it? Do Dublin people really WANT to claim exclusive ownership of Skangers ? Somehow I very much doubt it ! 80.229.222.48 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just Dublin

message: Why just Dublin? They're all over Ireland!
 
   The vast majority out side of Dublin are mostly Skulchies (a culchie-scanger hybrid).
I have lived in various parts of Ireland (including Dublin) and have never heard the term "Skulchies"  Skangers are everywhere though (unfortunately) 80.229.222.48 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a stereotypical member of a youth subculture group in Dublin" 

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

message: To people who say that putting down scangers is classist: Shut up, it's not and saying that is, quite frankly, offensive to honest unemployed people who are trying to work and do the best they can in life in difficult circumstances. To be a scanger, you have to conform to the "stereotype". You have to wear the gel, the cap, you have to be violent, abusive and envious of people who are in a better situation than yourself. The only way it's classist is if you think all unemployed people waste their dole on pointless Civic mods and only a few idiots think that. There are plenty of good people who can't get a job and scangers aren't among them. --193.203.134.22 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. In fact it is honest people from what another contributor has refereed to as "a low socio-economic group within Irish society" who have most reason to be disdainful towards Skangers 80.229.222.48 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no classism 

message: The inclusion of the material about spides and their support of loyalism/republicanism is informative, but I can't help feeling that it doesn't fit in the "scanger" article.  I don't know much about spides and millies—is there  anyone who thinks they would be able to start an article on them?  Or would a separate section in this article about "Spides and Millies" suffice?
Also, since people keep adding more bullet points to the part about the scanger accent which are not related to it, does anyone agree that I should create a separate section entitled "Distinguishing features of speech" to avoid confusion?
— Doshea3 20:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spides, millies &c. 

message: Do skangers say knacker drinking?  why would they.  Also why the reference to Chavs.  The word skanger has been in use since the last century,  the word chav has been widespread since 2004.  
Also we need a source for alot of this. If it isn't sourced I am going to delete chunks of it.
159.134.228.151 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I've just asked an admin to  due to anon editors constantly removing the NPOV/orig tags - Ali-oops✍ 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection 

message: Aye - and, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a "feckin joke" when it's editorial policy allows the inclusion of utterly inane topics - such as Scanger.
Hobo chang ba 08:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Editorial Policy too lax 

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

text: The picture that was put back in was originally in the article. It was removed twice by User:Davie jamestow so he could insert his attacking pictures here and here. When I removed his picture after the second edit I forgot to put back the original picture, which is acceptable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: This articial is pov from start to finish, i was tempted to norm for delete but the numberious  reference from the irish press has turned my away from that course of action (Gnevin 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of delinquents in deny this artical shows your inherent negivate pov (Gnevin 13:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it would be a tiny encyclopedia that doesn't have people with certain prejudices and biases contributing. Anyway, being a delinquent is part of the scanger stereotype unless you count pseudo or wannabe scangers (that phenomenon is covered quite well in the article) and the article's purpose is to describe the stereotype. By the way, you wrote that I have "inherent negivate[sic] POV" as opposed to positive POV? So the article is supposed to glorify the scanger "culture" or something? Besides, I don't think I'm biased towards scangers. I've only occasionly come into contact with them; I'm naught but a simple country lad :) --Onias 14:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Given that 'Scanger' is a derogatory term, should it be used in the narrative text? Is this kind of sentence correct: "Scangers have a reputation for anti-social behaviour."? The Nigger article wouldn't have a sentence like 'Niggers are known for laziness'. 
Know whorramean? Curtains99 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word 'scanger' in the narrative

message: The article has been marked as unreferenced for several months, yet not one single acceptable source has been provided, and there are no signs of any. Therefore I have removed the uncited information from the article, in accordance with the WP:CITE policy. Please do not readd this information without sourcing it. Demiurge 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Unsourced statements can be removed on sight. Where clean-up tags have brought attention to unreferenced information for some time without effect then unsourced information should be removed, regardless of how many media sources have mentioned the article, how long the article has been around or that the information is empirically obvious to people wandering the streets of Ireland.
If you're adding or restoring unsourced information, please include a reference. If you don't then don't get upset if it gets removed. Including something because you "know it to be true" is primary research which is not an acceptable source of wikipedia information. No-one is saying that all the information in every other article is sourced but there's tons of it here.
There are plenty of articles similar to this where this leads to revert warring. Those including the unsourced information without referencing it tend to lose those wars, often resulting in a much shorter article. Hope you guys can find some references. Deizio talk 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All unsourced material is gone. Two references added to prove that the term exists. Curtains99 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For the people who were adding the unsourced material back in: I've marked the word "howiya" with a  tag; can we start out by trying to find a reliable source for this term? Once we've found that, we can then see about sourcing the rest of the removed material. Demiurge 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: Sorry, but this is clear-cut. No sources = WP:OR. IAR does not excuse any article from complying with content policies. Please ensure any further additions are reliably sourced. Deiz talk 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR does not excuse any article from complying with content policies. Ummm surely WP:IAR. does exactly that ? As in this instance does WP:COMMON. A full article is far better than a glorified stub more suited to Wictionary. Ideally it would be nice to have fully cited material from verifiable sources but clerly this is not always practical An full article (suitably tagged to make the reader aware of potential issues with the content) is clearly the best option until sufficent citable and verifiable material becomes available to replace it.  194.165.161.222 (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR and WP:RS largely trumps WP:CON 
Where exactly does it say this ?
99% of this is WP:OR
Thats still leaves (at least) 1% that isint so why revert when editing would be a better (or less worse) option) ? 194.165.177.159 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is sourcing really the issue here though ? Or is it being used as a fig-leaf by those misguided liberals (above) who object to the article (on "classist" grounds or somesuch nonsense) but having lost that argument are now using WP:OR as a red herring to destroy it by butchering it to a stub. Even if their obsessive behaviour is clearly not in line with WP:OWN 159.134.233.64 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, sourcing is really this issue here. The whole thing you reverted to is completely unsourced made-up conjecture, with nary a cite to its name. I've no idea where you're going with this "liberals" thing, other than to note that it's usually used as a throwaway phrase to attack a person who you happen to disagree with - Alison ❤ 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we get back to discussing the real issues here namely WP:IAR, WP:CON WP:COMMON. and all the other points above which havent been addressed ? 194.165.160.139 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: IAR allows edits which, although on shaky ground under an generally sound reading of one or more policies, improve the encyclopedia. However, IAR never allows editors to lose sight of the fact that WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such should contain accurate, reliably sourced information. Without getting into any of the nonsense above, the issue remains: If something is unsourced, it can be removed by any editor and should not be reincluded without appropriate sourcing.   Deiz talk 04:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: This used to be an excellent article with great length, humour and information. What happened? Why has so much of it been taken down? Iloveamerica2much (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy happened this. WP:V for a start. Deiz talk 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened this?