Talk:Multicultural London English

This article stinks of namby pamby sociology

This article is clearly POV based in favour of namby-pamby liberal sociology. I demand that a counter argument be presented that offers some counter evidence that Jafaican is just a natural merging of existing diverse language cultures in London. I am quite aware that many of these little punks ARE trying to 'be cool' with this stupid little gangster talk.--CaptainSurrey talk

The article is not POV, it's simply based on an article which referred to research done by Queen Mary College. If you want a counter argument to be presented, find a reliable source and put it in the text, but don't delete a verifiable source just because you don't like it, that's censorship. If you remove that section again I'll report you to a moderator. Also, if you're gonna put something in, it had better be a damn good source and not some random blog or guestbook. Mackan 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude totally stinks, Mackcan. And don't think that, just because you're some sort of bleeding heart liberal, that your thuggish behaviour will seem any less degenerate. Left wing thugs can wield pick axe handles and go round beating up Xenophobic Party members in Sweden, just as much as fascist thugs can commit brutish acts of violence. The way you accused me of vandalising this article was, not only childish, but ridiculously unfounded. - CaptainSurrey

I never altered the page. Don't accuse me of doing that; I'm certainly not that stupid. I may have gripes about its twisted-liberal theme, but I'm no vandal.--CaptainSurrey

Sorry, I assumed you were the anonymous user who twice removed a part of the article without stating any reason. Mackan 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article has been properly researched. The word list is completely incorrect, as it is mainly Jamaican Patois. Jafaican is not strictly patois. It is a blend of many different dialectical sources. Also. Siting the Daily Mail article, is also a bit foolish, as it is also mainly incorrect... Perhaps get on the streets of London and do some stronger dialectical research into the subtleties of it... Thanks. Ash - 13th Feb 2007

A counter argument to what? It's an inner-city dialect spoken by lower class scum of all races, it's the result of the melting pot in inner-cities and this dialect can be seen not only in London but also Birmingham and Bristol, to say that people that use it are just "doing it to be cool" is like saying people that speak with received pronunciation are "trying to be posh" which is rarely the case, it is the result of one's upbringing and the social environment around them. -

AngryAfghan(Are you talking to me?)

So what you're saying is that "because those who speak with RP are not playing it cool, then consequently, lower class scum of all races must not be playing it cool either. That reeks of left wing hopefulness, and pseudo intellectualism. What direct corelation do you cling to? Is there a corelation between aspiring intellectuals who speak with RP, and lower class plebs who speak in Jafaican? I don't think so. The intelligentsia may speak in RP through conditioning, but to the deduce from such, that plebs speak in Jafaican because of conditioning, is flawed logic. One could argue that people of lower intelligence are more susceptible to peer pressure and meme transfer. I've never seen a bespectacled Geek flicking his fingers like Ali G, and that gladens me. - CaptainSurrey
Captain Surrey could you provide a link to the counter arguments you talk about as you will need there evidence if this article truly is POV like you say (i personally doubt it is this sort of thing in languages is very common). There is also no need to demand changes you can make the additions and provide the links yourself. --Goatan 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't have those links that you desire. Yes, this article is very POV based, in favour of vangard propaganda sociology. Unfortunately, due to the tyrannical trends of namby pamby liberalism (Labour UK, for example), not much genuine research can be done in the subject, because it's quite politically incorrect these days. For example, when a university professor says that on average Black people score lower in IQ tests than white people, said professor gets voted out of tenure 600 to 1. So it's not good practice for libertarian capitalists to bother trying to counter argue against all this namby pamby left wing crap. Labour UK is a twisted experiment, which, although capitalist and ostensibly right wing, has introduced very bizarre left wing projects in to the political playing field: such as, teaching young children about homosexuality in schools, trying to make gay hate a crime like race hate, trying to make condemnation of monotheistic religions a crime, with use of the truth distorting term 'incitement to religious hatred' etc. We are on the losing side, those of us who love truth. Left wing politics can be just as dirty and obfuscatory as right wing politics. - CaptainSurrey
Um ok you do know that Tony blair is more right wing than margeret thattcher and that apart from a few old guard like roy hatersley (if he’s still alive) and tony benn Labour is very much a Right wing authoritarian party and those things you describe such as attemtps to block comdenation of religion and your other examples authoritarianism are usually the right wing style (especially to do so then blame the left who aren’t even in power) the only real exeption being communist states. Quite simply it looks like you can’t defend your views and instead attack those who are in power despite them being overtly of the same political ideals as you claim to have, for example I learned about homosexuality at school under the thatcher governemnt bet then she was more left wing than Blair is.
I'm also wary about the professor who has had there tenure removed again you proved no links (something like that would be on the news) The whole point of tenure is that it gives someone accademic freedom to say what they want because under the terms of tenure they CANNOT BE REMOVED unless they have commited a crime and even then it has to be serious or against the university/college itself or they lied about there qualifications to get the job. Even if they did have a vote on wheter they should be removed it doesn’t meen jack squat because they couldn’t, by the way that’s a huge university to have 600 proffessors (oxford had about 150 in 2005) as they are the only ones who would/could vote on such an issue. Of course if you can provide evidence of what you say it would help a lot to show good faith.
Calling this Article POV is like calling an article about Cockney ryming slang POV. People do talk like this and people do talk in Cockney. --Goatan 11:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know Tony Blair is more Right Wing than Thatcher was, at least in most public issues. But I never said otherwise. However, there does seem to be a new parallelism, with a staunchly rightwing regime introducing some leftwing policies.--CaptainSurrey 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To block condemnation of Islam, is specifically leftwing. Consider the BNP. They are authoritarian, and economically, centrist, but they are condemning Islam. Labour, which is a economically extreme-right but socially moderate party, is condemning the BNP for their supposed "incitement to religious hatred". None of it makes sense. But if you compare Labour's actions with those of the college-state in Sweden, you can see that policies protecting Islam against race-hate and religion hatred are leftwing in nature.--CaptainSurrey 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV
I've added the NPOV warning header, as I feel that this article does not have a neutral point of view, but actually is written in favour of the left wing flank of politics. I have not changed anything else.
Just because a bunch of professors at a university, produce a left wing theory that Jafaican is a natural language and not a trend, doesn't mean that this article should jump on the socialist band wagon.--CaptainSurrey 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually its a good indication. Unless you can provide a source to contradict it, the duty of the Wikipedians is to provide verifiable, sourced information, whether they agree with it or not. And a university study is a rather good source, whether or not you agree with its findings. -Tim-THobern 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Structure of article
I recommend that the element that diretcly makes a leftwing proposition that Jafaican is a merging of other speech styles and languages, be moved to a section on research, and then the content at the very beggining should merely state the facts about the bizarre phenomenon. A left wing piece of biased research is NOT evidence or fact, but opinion.--CaptainSurrey 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no NPOV in this article, it merely reflects what a study made by King's College says. If you want to dispute the neutrality of King's College, I'd suggest you give up straight away. You have no rationale, other than a conspiracy theory that they've jumped on the "socialist bandwagon", well that's deep. If you find another study stating it is fake, sure, but it in, put if it's just gonna be your opinion that all of the universities in England carry out flawed research, I recommend you to start elsewhere than this article to correct that problem... Mackan 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I don't think it's fake; I'm quite sure it's genuine. It's just that I think that this genuine scum language is being used to show off, and not because the people using it, don't have any control over what they do.--CaptainSurrey 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bizzare phenomenon of languages merging? it happens all the time You do know that English is a combination of Languages Saxon-Latin-Greek "The industrial and scientific revolutions created a need for neologisms to describe the new creations and discoveries. For this, English relied heavily on Latin and Greek. Words like oxygen, protein, nuclear, and vaccine did not exist in the classical languages, but they were created from Latin and Greek roots. Such neologisms were not exclusively created from classical roots though, English roots were used for such terms as horsepower, airplane, and typewriter"

Plus it has been heavily influenced by foreign languages

"Also, the rise of the British Empire and the growth of global trade served not only to introduce English to the world, but to introduce words into English. Hindi, and the other languages of the Indian subcontinent, provided many words, such as pundit, shampoo, pajamas, and juggernaut. Virtually every language on Earth has contributed to the development of English, from Finnish (sauna) and Japanese (tycoon) to the vast contributions of French and Latin."

It is anything but a bizarre phenomenon. And here’s a http://www.anglik.net/englishlanguagehistory.htm Link for more information--Goatan 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the correct amount of colons to nest your reply properly, Goatan.--CaptainSurrey 18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested layout
I have copied the text from the article and marked in bold sections which do not appear to be in the most suitable location. The first paragraph seems correct, however.
Jafaican, also called Tikkiny, is a fairly recent dialect (and/or sociolect) of English spoken mainly in inner city London. According to research by London University's Queen Mary College, Jafaican is gaining territory from Cockney/Estuary English.
The word (also written Jafaikan) is a neologism which became prominent in 2006, coined as a portmanteau of the three words "Jamaican", "African" and possibly, "fake".
Paragraph describing etymology, should be moved to its own section
It is said to contain many elements from the languages of Jamaica, West Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
That element does not appear to be correct location
It was popularized by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen as the gangster-wannabe Ali G.
That element seems as though it should be moved to a "trivia" section
Although the name "Jafaican" implies it's "fake" Jamaican, researchers indicate that it's not the language of white kids trying to "play cool" but rather that "[it is] more likely that young people have been growing up in London exposed to a mixture of second-language English and local London English and that this new variety has emerged from that mix.
That section is the non NPOV part, and for the time being should be moved to a "research" section
The Blank Slate
I've just requested The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Penguin Press Science S.) (Paperback) from the city library. When I've finished reading that and photocopied the necessary pages, I shall post some references for a counter argument, in order to make this article more neutral; this article clearly is biased in favour of the left, but that's okay, as long as a counter presentation for centrism, is presented as well.--CaptainSurrey 12:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has nothing to do with either "left" or "right". What gain could possibly Labour or Tories gain from this extremely minor article explaining a viewpoint of King's College researchers? What makes you, who's bulk of edits concern made up Star Trek entities and some vague edit on the "human penis size" article, think that you have higher moral standards, and as you stated somewhere, "love for truth", than those researchers? Please refrain from editing, and protesting about the state of, articles you know nothing about. If you still have an interest in Wikipedia, maybe you should keep on improving the article you wrote on Verterons "a fictional subatomic particle mentioned in (but not necessarily created specifically for) the Star Trek canon".Mackan 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, your leftwing personality is trying to goad me into getting banned again.
Labours and Tories would gain anothing. But, just think, a leftwing individual such as yourself has everything to gain! My edit choices are irrelevant, and to mention them here is a clear act of provocation with view to getting me banned aagin . My edit choices are none of your business, really!
If I believe that I have higher moral standards due to my centrist location politically, then that's enough for me; your own opinion is inconsequential.
You think I know nothing about this article? I hear kids talking in Jafaican, not only in the streets of my city, but at the university too. Work that one out. If I can witness people showing off and succumbimg to peer pressure, then I have plenty of business posting here.
Once again, I politely request that you refrain from using leftwing bully tactics and tyrannical truth distorting rhetoric.--CaptainSurrey 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not leftwing, for what it matters. No, it doesn't matter if you hear people talking Jafaican at your university, Wikipedia is not about your experiences as an individual See Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". Mackan 05:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nature of article
If this is merely an "extremely minor article explaining a viewpoint of King's College researchers", as Mackan has put it, then perhaps the article should be renamed accordingly.--CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Jafaican article should state the known facts, which probably shouldn't include fresh research outcome. If I don't get any significant objections, I'm going to start restructuring this article, but not actually remove any content. The part which talks of King's College research is going to be titled "Left Wing Research", because that's what it is. No amount of leftwing censorship can change that.--CaptainSurrey 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mackan
Mackan, your edit reverts seem very aggressive and tyrannical. You should discuss the Non NPOV issue with myself, before you show leftwing agression in your rash editing. Why should it be such a problem for you, that there is a Non NPOV message at the top of this article? Are you trying to censor any challenge to this socialist propaganda?--CaptainSurrey 23:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss with any honest editor, but considering the kind of stuff you write on this talk page it seems apparent you have nothing to contribute to a linguistic article. Mackan 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not requesting that you discuss it with me. You shall discuss it with me, regardless of your gripes. And just because you think I'm some sort of racist, and because you are quite seriously vexed by my political views (which incidentally are none of your business), doesn't mean you can use barely acceptable, agressive behaviour towards me. I have a quite serious Non NPOV dispute with this article.--CaptainSurrey 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I don't care if you're a racist, black, or indian. Your gripes with this article are ridiculous and unfounded and you have yet to make a valid point, and you have yet to make a comment without calling people names. That's why I can see no reason to discuss this page with you. Who's the one with a problem regarding political views? You have, for whatever reason, called me leftwing several times on this talk page.Mackan 17:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectics are not a political issue
The articles by newspapers I have read about this dialect have been poorly researched and suggest cultural snobbery, so should not be sited as neutral reference points. I am not saying this about the university research on the subject.
So perhaps leave politics alone in this discussion and move on to a better researched and more accurate definition of what "Jafaican" actually constitutes if anything. OK, socio-politics may have a bearing on the origins of this dialect and perhaps could be neutrally researched. I doubt it is the only factor in the evolution of the dialect. In fact that the term appears to be in itself a slang word, which has been mainly used in a derogatory sense in the newspaper articles sited and rarely, if ever, by the people who speak this dialect. Perhaps it doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia at all.
I do think that the term "Jafaican" IS derogatory. Regardless of if it is a blend of the words African and Jamaican (Which I see as tenuous at best), I have rarely seen it used in this context and it will definitley get picked up as a way to describe how certain people speak as a derogatory term (It already is by newspapers). I actually find it slightly offensive. In the same way I find the word "pikey" offensive or "chav". So in some senses I agree with CaptSurrey's standpoint.
I also totally disagree with the word list. Which someone seems to be rather tyrannical about editing back to simple Jamaican patois or cockney street slang which appears elsewhere. Whoever is doing this seems as though they "know best". Not the case. I live in South East London (Which is perhaps the best place to hear the dialect) and have rarely heard half the words in this list used.. "Jafaican" is categorically not simply patois or Cockney.
What is most fundamentally ignored in the Wiki is that "Jafaican" is a BRITISH STREET LANGUAGE (predominantly from London, but not strictly) - And not actually a dialect at all. Much like Anthony Burgess' "droog" language in A Clockwork Orange it is built up of codes and metaphors which are created to seperate one subcultural tribe from another. Not only that, but it can be (and often is) affected. People who use it can often speak in many different ways, to suit their surroundings. The same difference as between "Rapped" English and spoken English. See what I'm getting at?
I would put forward the idea that whilst "Jafaican" does have some origin in African and Jamaican accenting and word use, it has mainly sprung up from subcultural youth tribes as a way to belong and identify with each other. I don't believe that the stated fact in the wiki that it springs from "inner city" youth is correct, as it's usage is far more widespread, across many (sub)cultural groups and classes than this. Speculation of this kind is the sort of thing that you will see on "Chavscum" and is not relevant to the DIALECT, which, after all is what we are dealing with here. So should be revised.
Phrases that you will DEFINITELY hear in modern (especially London subcultural) street slang:
Ya Get Me/Ge' me - Do You Understand

Ait - Alright/hello

Blud - Mate

Cuz - Mate (This is most certainly an Americanism)

Big ups - Respect to
So therefore it could be stated that "Jafaican" also constitutes American street slang, British (Dance culture) street slang and not strictly simply Jamaican and African blended as seems to be asserted in the article.
It is also worth noting something about it's grammatical usage. Rather than just stating individual words out of context. (Perhaps from some conducted field research - of which there is absolutely nothing sited)
EG.
"I was seein' my blud 'uvva week, ya ge' me cuz"
However you cut it, this above phrasing, whilst it does have a tinge of Jamaican phrasing to it, in the way that the words are spoken phonetically is most certainly more based around Cockney or Estuary English. But also has some origin in American Street slang and the phrasing used in Rap and Hip Hop music.. I think what we are really talking about here is a subsection of British street slang, and as such should be in that section of Wikipedia and not have it's own section at all.
That newspapers have called something "Jafaican" as a derogatory and rather middle class term to describe the way people they (a) don't really understand and (b) seek to put down by pidgeonholing them into a quatifiable entity, in order to then ridicule is not, in my opinion, a good enough reason to put it on Wikipedia. I'm not going to go into a political standpoint here, as CaptainSurrey has hit the nail on the head elsewhere. If we were taking about the STRUCTURE OF THE DIALECT, some ACCURATELY RESEARCHED ORIGINS, GRAMMAR, PHONETICS and other such useful and unbaised material it would be a lot more valuable as an article than it is in its current state. As it stands it is nothing more than speculative and innaccurate and as an Wiki entry is pretty uninformative.
Thanks

199.229.190.200 16:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Ash Whiting[reply]
I can't be arsed responding to all of your comments, but I'll just respond to this, in case it's me you're referring to when you say "the word list. Which someone seems to be rather tyrannical about editing back to simple Jamaican patois or cockney street slang which appears elsewhere. Whoever is doing this seems as though they "know best"."

Well, no. The reason I've been reverting the many additions that have been made to the list I made because they were all entirely unsourced. Also, this article is not supposed to be a list of every word that "Jafaikan" consists of. I have had no direct experience of jafaican, nor have I ever claimed so. As for the words you mention and added into the article, I'm not gonna delete them, but you do need verifiable sources to support that those words are actually used, your personal knowledge in the question is unfortunately not enough. (The original list of words was taken from a newspaper). See WP:V for further information on verifiability.Mackan 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, but seeing as that Daily Mail article is stuffed full of innacuracies and misrepresentations I would say that it isn't a particularly accurate source.
I would say that university DIALECTIC research would be a far better source of information.
And stop taking this so personally. I don't think you have researched this subject very well. And I think you maybe ought to before adding a WIki entry which is predominantly based on a Daily Mail article, which is almost certainly a scathing, middle class view.
199.229.190.200 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about, I'm not taking this personally. I've never claimed that I've researched the subject very well, but nor should I have to, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and if there's something I've missed, anybody else is free to add that information. I haven't been actively contributing to this article since I started it, basically, nowadays I only remove some spam from time to time. I'd also like to add that I've never acted as if I own this article (see W:OWN. Any well-founded, verifiable edit to the article is more than welcome. All I'm saying is you need verifiable sources for any statements you include in the article. Instead of wasting time arguing that the article is of poor quality, feel perfectly free to improve it. Mackan 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:199.229.190.200, don't go sticking words like dialectic in capitals until you understand them. Dialectic is a Hegelian term used in philosophy, and has nothing at all to do with linguistics. For future reference, the word you mean is "dialectal". 80.254.147.52 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to remove the examples all together
The example list has been a problem ever since it was first included. While I think that there at some stage probably was a source included for the few words which were first included, it has apparently been lost somewhere along the road, and even though I put a disclaimer before the list, unsourced additions have continued. Not only is the fact that the sources are unreferenced a problem, but the actual list is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. I propose, in accordance with the official policy, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary, to remove the entire list (even if a source were presented). As stated in the official policy;
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: 1) Dictionary definitions. (...) 2) Lists of such definitions. (...) 3) Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. (...)
(see the link for further information) If nobody opposes, I will eventually remove the entire list. Mackan 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading Words
"Used completely" by young inner-city working class Londoners? I think not. Those not of white-british extraction perhaps (and a fair amount that are), but completely? No way.
Changed it to "mainly", but I think the intended meaning was "exclusively by...". Mackan 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
African And African-Caribbean Dialect
The language did descend from West African and West Indian creoles, which descended from West African creoles anyways. If you study the etymology you will trace alot of the words back to African languages. I suggest a section on lexical structure, grammar and vocabulary denoting the many words used. This is, after all, an encyclopedic article and, as such, warrants thorough research. This, for black people, is actually an easy adapatation. Speaking their mother toungues BEFORE school, and incorporating them into English once they go to school. White children often pick it up to be cool (I, myself, with my own two eyes and two ears, have actually WITNESSED them doing this on many occasions), this is not the case for many black people, however, which explains the hostility a lot of black people have towards other ethnicities speaking this language. The full "Tikkiny" language is NOT understood by "all races", for they speak a standard and much watered-down version of it, with the English sentence structure IN TACT (as it changes, using an African structure, sort of like a sentence structure calque). A more approfondated version would completly fly past them, although they use some like "you dun know sey" which, grammatically, is African, but, translated into European languages, takes that form (see creole languages, and Gullah Creole, which inspired African-American Vernacular English a.k.a American Hip Hop language). I think that, for a language stub, this article needs a LOT of work as it seems like the author is either bias or misinformed, or both. The author does not go into detail about what LEVELS of the language are used and by who. It is not used by "all races", that is just the standard dialect. I would suggest further revision. And the term "Blockney" is totally inappropriate. Cockney has its etymological roots steeped in France, and denotes it's milieu. As for Asian languages being infused in this language, unless it is from the Asian words established in the West Indies, which aren't that numerous, that is false. Most of the words are of African descent. I will be happy to state some if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.95 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]