Talk:Hoon

Original research

This article is beginning to suffer from the same problems as chav used to suffer, before editors started requiring sources, and that Chav vehicle modification (AfD discussion) suffered. I am going to employ the same solution. Please cite some sources for this to prove that sections such as the "Hoon discourse" and "Common vehicular modifications" aren't original research, or I will remove them. Original research is forbidden here. Uncle G 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Someone is having a joke, I don't think the so-called "references" even exist... while the "categories" are sort of recognisable they don't represent any genuine research, just somebody's personal observations. The last time I edited the article, October '05, it seemed about as much as you could realistically say about the subject. I'd suggest a revert to one of the versions around about that time. Graham 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I am responsible for the content changes you see on this page. Please refer to other non-disputed wikipedia articles I have already referenced. These articles exhbit strong similarities to the content I have referenced. Please be fair, here. My descriptions are near identical to those found in street racing and the import scene, but Australians use the term 'hoon' as opposed to street racer (et al) and thus must have their own wikipedia entry that they can browse.

This is not a joke at all. All information I have provided is factual and widely accepted in street knowledge. I have tried to keep bias to a minimum, too. This article in no way represents original research or lies. All information provided is indeed 'realistic' in the way of describing the subject. This content deserves to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.184.120 (talk • contribs) .

The problem is that much of it is highly POV. Where references to "studies" are mentioned you'd have to back it up with a reputable source. Statements such as (to pick one of many entirely at random) "hoon parents are likely to have hoon kids" (I'm paraphrasing), you have to back that up with a reference to the statistical genetic scientific study that came to that conclusion. I strongly doubt if there is one... so in other words, that's just your personal observation/view. Therefore it's original research, and highly unscientific at that. 'widely accepted' isn't adequate. The article is currently full of many similar statements. I'm not saying they are lies at all, I recognise some of what you're saying, but it's just hearsay and unencyclopedic. Other articles may be just as bad, that doesn't mean they are good role models. No doubt in due course they'll come under the microscope too. I'm sure plenty can be salvaged, but the whole form of the article needs to be put on a more serious footing, rather than just using it to make humorous stereotypes. Graham 11:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but why did you delete areas where citation was expressly given? This encyclopedia's anti-original research scheme is going a few steps too far here. I have cited my resources in the references section. Unfortunately these informatve sources don't always cite their "scientific study", probably because there wasn't one. However, the information I have gathered is based on authorative viewpoints on the matter, which are backed by their own substantial evidence reserves. In some cases I was able to cite roughly the statistical data. However, I don't have access to all of the precise evidence backing these authorative claims, nor the "evidence behind the evidence"; most people don't. However this is not to say information is uncyclopedic. If this were the case you would have to cut down tens of thousands of articles. You have to work on being consistent, here. I urge you to do that or I will condemn and defamate your encyclopedia for its apparent lack of integrity. Secondly, this is not a joke. Such categories and stereotypes have been identified in the street racing subculture shown in popular movies and games. As discovered by the Queensland Government and the GC Bulletin, this subculture, along with its inate characteristics, is widely emulated in real-life applications of street racing. I am not, repeat not, making humourous stabs in the dark. I have provided you with citations, or at least references, to very authorative texts that have made such comparisons and created subcategories. This is just an example; indeed, the lion's share of information I have supplied to you is simply reworded text from these sources. I really don't appreciate your sweeping accusations that I am speaking from a personal viewpoint.

The entire article I had posted was nothing but an accurate portrayal of the modern street racer in Australia. It deserves to be available for the public to see; and not in the history section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.184.16 (talk • contribs) .

Hi.

I deleted the sections of the article that were unencyclopedic in tone and unsourced.

Please attach references to appropriate parts of the text so that individual statements can be verified. There are numerous reference styles. The easiest way is to add an external link after each datum:

Foo is Bar according to Baz. [1] ([http://the.referenced.url])

Alternatively, you can prefix the existing references (at the bottom of the page) with {{note|foo}} (for a reference that discusses Foo (the name is arbitrary)), {{note|bar}} &c. Then you can link to that reference from the body of the article with {{ref|foo}}, {{ref|bar}} &c. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more details.

chocolateboy 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything (yet). So be clear who's saying what. May I just pick up on one or two points.

However, the information I have gathered is based on authorative viewpoints on the matter, which are backed by their own substantial evidence reserves. In which case you'll be able to provide references to those "authorative [sic] viewpoints" and mention what the substantial evidence reserves are. In other words, you need to be more like a journalist reporting various viewpoints rather than presenting them directly as if they were facts. If you don't have access to the evidence that you need to back up your claims, then the claim shouldn't be made. I suppose you could put something like e.g. "some sources have proposed that hoon parents are more likely to have hoon kids", but without backing it up with a reference to a reputable study or statement about a study, then you'll be in danger of having the statement removed on the basis of using weasel words. Even if the "sources" are in fact just your mates down the pub, you can still find a form of words that might work - many things in popular culture can't be readily backed up with studies, etc. But be honest about it.

If this were the case you would have to cut down tens of thousands of articles. Yes, there are many articles that currently fall short of the ideal standard we'd prefer to see everywhere. However, you can't use that to justify yet another bad article. We can only try to raise standards one article at a time. 'Let me write a bad article because everything else is rubbish too'. Uh, OK, that'll help.

I urge you to do that or I will condemn and defamate your encyclopedia for its apparent lack of integrity. Well, that's your right, provided you don't use that to vandalise other people's work. In addition, using (mildly) threatening language isn't going to get people to leave the article alone. 'Let me write what I want or I'll break your legs'. Doesn't work.

This is just an example; indeed, the lion's share of information I have supplied to you is simply reworded text from these sources. I really don't appreciate your sweeping accusations that I am speaking from a personal viewpoint. I strongly doubt that these references (RTA docs, etc) use anything like the same language that has been used in the article, for example drawing attention to the way particular "types" of people might dress, the brands they tend to go for, or their personal habits. I'm sure the serious references are only concerned with one thing: road safety. While it's probably reasonable to offer advice to ordinary motorists so they can stay clear of hoons and thus keep themselves out of a potentially dodgy situation on the roads, I doubt they'd go so far as to start categorising Hoons according to the types of cars, clothes, jewellery, etc... In other words your "rewording" has extrapolated the original sentiments to the point that they are unrecognisable, and are in fact, just stereotyping. However, if as you say they "have made such comparisons and created subcategories", then if you can provide chapter and verse references than I'll believe you. I can easily obtain the documents you have referenced, so let's see.

Maybe you were trying to write seriously about a particular social subgroup - but the effect is humourous, and unencyclopedic. Intentional or not, it looks like someone is just trying to poke fun (justifiably, in my view, but not appropriate to an encyclopedia) at a particular group of antisocial people. Maybe you should be a bit more honest with yourself about your motivations here. Graham 04:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia article Import Scene. The similarities are startling. Yet, that article remains unscathed by Wiki Nazis. Read everything from negative stereotypes onwards. A great deal of my information was reworded from here.

In that case, it should be easy to cite sources.

chocolateboy 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That article in fact doesn't go into anything like the same degree of stereotyping. Also, please don't call me a Nazi, even by implication. Read WP:NPA. Calling anyone a "xxx nazi" is a serious insult. We are only trying to improve the articles so that WP isn't just a depository for half-baked factoids and trivia. As I have already said, pointing out the deficiencies of one article to justify the poor quality of another is ridiculous. Graham 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• It does, however, require that the other be cleaned up for the sake of consistency. TydeNet 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

wtf??

Isn't "hoon" just a word used to describe someone who is a bit reckless, particularly in a vehicle? I can be just as much of a hoon in a go-cart as a modified import car. That's always been the context i have heard it in anyway.

Yep, the word hoon is certainly not derogatory or refering to antisocial nature... 115.64.159.41 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit

I removed a lot of crap that isn't relevant to the subject. The sections on rice mods for example didn't belong. I also removed the bias towards the import part of the community, you see as many australian cars as you do imports hooning. Clown666 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea

"People who drive highly modified Japanese imports tend to be referred to as ricers, while people who drive modified Australian cars are referred to as fully sick."

If this is actually a serious piece- how on earth do you substantiate this rubbish? Who determined the use of "Fully Sick" meant someone who drove an Australian modified car? I have been reading modified car magazine publications since around 1989 (most editions of Street Machine, Fast Fours, High Performance Imports, etc. etc.) fully sick has never meant Australian modified car exclusively.

60.241.59.112

Agreed, so its gooone.

Clown666 02:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK This is from the horses mouth from 1970's (slang)

I can cite this word as an original slang, use from 1970's to present. This slang word (Hoon) was originally used as yet another slang word for Marijuana. Now anybody that was in high school in the 1970's can tell you is everyone talked about drugs and had so tons of names for them. Well this is another one, and I know how it originated too. Hoon coms from combining 2 similar names to make 1 new nickname. Hooch is the first nickname, which means a flask of alchohol usually carried in the back pocket...Hooka is the second nickname, which means a big community pipe with a big bowl to smoke out of. Again if you went to High school in the 70's you know what I am talking about. The N in Hoon was added cause it is the last sound in marijuana. Now this originated in a High school in NY Williamson High school, and was first used by a cliche of hockey pucks...Yes that is what they called themselves...Hockey Pucks and they were all numbered h/p1...hp2... all except the one that started the word in the first place..And that was the Head hockey puck.

 The nickname stuck and every pot head has heard and/or used it since...Wanna know how I know this?    Just call me The Head Hockey Puck...

(Hoonman420 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)) (Hoonman420 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

The "horses mouth" does not qualify as a reliable source. If material cannot be verified, it cannot be added. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

hoo[ch] + the N from marijuana is a ridiculous stretch, when u can get the whole thing from marijuana itself, i.e., cutesy pronunciation like "marihoona".

not saying this was the source of the hooligan or pimp meanings, but in terms of any marijuana meaning? a lot more likely than "hooch+". 2601:19C:5280:5BA7:D89D:F387:456C:D97C (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

1985?

I would query the "it has been in common use since 1985" business, and I've tagged that part as such. It was definitely in widespread use to mean anyone who behaved in a slightly antisocial way - including "boy racers" as they're now known - when I was iin high school in New Zealand in the 1970s. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to edit

Regarding the 'Anti-hoon legislation in Australia' section , I propose to add Tasmania, and to reorder the section chronologically (and alphabetically in the case of Tas & WA) in order of the years in which the legislation was introduced (as follows: Qld 2000, Tas 2004, WA 2004, Vic 2006, SA 2007, NSW 2008).
Any objections or corrections?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary vs encyclopedia

The beginning of this article is focused on the word "hoon" rather than on the idea of a hoon, giving the impression that it's more like a (long) dictionary entry than like an encyclopedia entry. I don't have time to rework it right now, but I'd like to see it reworked to focus on the concept; see the Chav entry for the kind of approach I'm talking about. (Instead of starting with "Chav is a derogatory term..." it starts with "A chav [...] is a stereotypical rough young person in the United Kingdom.") --Elysdir (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoon is always pejorative

As a proud Australian HOON, I can safely say that it is not ALWAYS pejorative. None of the hoons that I know (and I know a lot of us) consider it as such. saying that it is Always considered to be pejorative is frankly, offensive. Yes it is true that in some circles it is - but it is far from ALL circles 120.146.203.210 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Houyhnhnm

how does one get from "a fictional race of intelligent horses" to car punks or ruffians or (earlier sense) pimps?!

seems to me a contraction of "hooligan" is far more likely. any linguists proposing THAT? 2601:19C:5280:5BA7:D89D:F387:456C:D97C (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@2601:19C:5280:5BA7:D89D:F387:456C:D97C hoonigan is combination of hoon and hooligan. Hoonigan is a much newer word. 124.170.117.240 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@2601:19C:5280:5BA7:D89D:F387:456C:D97C Hoonigan is a brand trademark which seems to have become a slang term in the US. 124.170.117.240 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing "onomatopoeia" claim

Someone a few years ago made an unsourced claim that "hoon" could be onomatopoeia. If that was true, the people and the car would all need to be literally making a noise that sounds like "hoooon".

Well they aren't. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)