Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation)

Reverting

I am currently reverting edits by the same editor using different IPs. The editor has previously been disruptive in the topic area so I feel that it borders on correcting vandalism. The reason the piping is not correct is based on the following:

• Although there are some exceptions, "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages". WP:PIPING
• Teabagging/teabagger is mentioned in more than one section at Tea Party movement
• The term is not necessarily "humor". It can also be ridicule or even neither of the two. Therefore the section is not synonymous.
• Previous edits had other MoS concerns such as the raw section "#".

Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misses the main point of concealment which is avoided by using standard English, thus making it no longer a pipe.
• Teabagg* is used only once outside the Humor section, and in passing only.
• Perhaps so, but only that section contains information about its meaning and origin. "Humor and origin of 'teabagger'" would be more descriptive.
• Fixed by using standard English. -74.242.254.51 (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue of it not being synonymous. Since it currently is not synonymous that is reason enough. Also, it is reasonable to expect that the reader would enter "teabagger" to navigate to the main movement page and not the section so there is no "concealment".Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:PIPING#Piping, either "teabagger" is "more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic" or "teabagger" gets its own article. Decide. You trying to impose additional search steps is unacceptable. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I;m not tying to impose additional search steps. Feel free to edit the Tea Party Movement article but until that is fixed there is no reason for this to be against MoS.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to Tea Party movement article

Should the article link to the Tea Party movement article or should it link directly to a section there titled "humor"?WP:PIPINGCptnono (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, "humor" is not synonymous. A section titled "Entomology" has been discussed but it currently is not in. The label is not necessarily humor according to those at Oxford American Dictionary. Navigation wise it is reasonable to expect some users will not be looking for a section discussing the origin of the term but the main article.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Origin and uses of 'teabagger'" would be OK. -74.162.153.141 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, what exactly do you want the section heading to say? Do we even really need the section?Malke2010 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what the section heading is or even if it gets an independent section. I just want the link to go to the article itself instead of a section under "controversy". "The Tea Party movement, a movement that protests United States tax and spending policies, whose members are informally referred to as 'teabaggers'" or something.Cptnono (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So the section "humor" was retitled so I decided to go back to the previous version. This was again changed by IP#12 (one of the #74 socks). It is again not Mos compliant since the link does not clearly say where it is going.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PIPING in the MoS(dab), from the "Delta Quadrant" example under "Where redirecting may be appropriate", a Teabagger article would be most appropriate, like Delta Quadrant in the example, but this editor fought to make Teabagger a non-specific redirect to Tea Party movement requiring additional searches, in that long article, for information on origin of the term "teabagger". He should choose between the former article on Teabagger or the specific redirect in Tea_bag_(disambiguation) to Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_teabagger using better English to avoid the "#". -74.162.153.141 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would leave any mention of the Tea Party Movement off of this page, as it seem unlikely that someone would search on "Tea bag" when trying to fit info on the movement. "Teabagger", however, is a more likely search term, since this term is actually used to refer to Tea Party activists. So I'd suggest turning Tea bagger--which is currently a redirect to this page--into a redirect to Tea Party movement#Use of term teabagger, since that's were the term "tea bagger" is actually discussed in this context. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• As a conservative who has little regard for people who use the term, I do think it is appropriate to have the link go to the article itself. The people who use it, are using it to describe the party/movement. I also disagree with Yillos, while most would not look here directly, some might. It is a valid link.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think the redirect should be at "teabagger" not "tea bag", and I think it should link to the top of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tea party needs to be removed. This would be the same as adding Liberal to a "blow job" page. Sexual assault is not funny and should not be used in a political manner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors (some who support the Tea Party even) wanted a Tea Bag (term) page but it was deemed not needed since it was discussed in the Tea Party Movement article. Some do call them Tea Baggers and it has the sources to back it up. So we make the link here for editors looking for what would be in the page Tea Baggers (term) article. As long as it is worded correctly it is just a navigational link and your POV tag appears t be a knee-jerk reaction.Cptnono (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a mention here is justified. Although at present the description is too much, it should be short and to the point. Id support something like..

• Teabagger, a derogatory term used by some to describe members of the American Tea Party Movement.

Linking to the correct section of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't an accurate term. At least one conservative radio personality (the White House Brief) regularly refers to members of the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. He knows what the critics say it originated from, but he disagrees, so he consciously uses it to reclaim the term.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

because "someone uses it" is not a valid reason the ta party to appear here for this to appear here. also not also of the tea party is conservative. regardless this does not belong here. Finch590 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because you do not like it is not a reason to remove it. There are multiple editors endorsing the line and this was discussed both here, the Tea Party Movement article, and a merge discussion. People may look up "tea bagger" and therefore it is appropriate. So unless you can cite something at WP:DISAMBIG, you need to stop edit warring. If you prefer, we can always go back to having a complete article on the political term. That might be fun.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

just because the majority of editors don't like it doesn't make it true. unless you can cite something where the tea party uses this term in an official capacity its just a slur and doesn't belong here. Regardless its not a political term. Finch590 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if it is an official capacity or not (even if there could be for the movement) but secondary sources discuss the term in reference to the movement. And it being a slur has even been disputed (although I do not). So do you have a policy or guideline based reason for removal or do you personally just not like it?Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

its not neutral POV. its a word used by detractors that they would like to catch on. its the equivalent to adding "libtard" to the democrat page or "repugnant" to the republican page. there are a ton of secondary sources for both of those. regardless listing all possible derogatorily terms on the disambiguation page is not encycopedic. Plus i can't imagine that being a slur is "disputed" in a neutral manner 68.82.143.169 (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Finch590

Then you haven't read the sources on the associated pages. It is often used as a slur which received significant coverage (enough for its own article according to some but not me) while some in the movement have embraced it. Again, if the only argument is that it isn't liked I will be removing the template.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

its not encyclopedic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia

in addition its a derogatory term from one focused point of view Finch590 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia differs from many print encyclopedias and your definition of "encyclopedic" differs from others. And as already explained to you, it is not necessarily fpom one focused point of view. Secondary and independent sources discuss the name from various perspectives including pro, neutral, and con. It was even a finalist to be included in the New Oxford American Dictionary. That smacks of appropriateness right there. So again, IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove it.Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. not my definition of encyclopedic its wiki's 2. ILIKEIT is not reason to keep it. Regardless its still from one focused point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this against Wikipedia's definition of encyclopedic? It meets all criteria for inclusion to the point that it could almost have its own article (it did at one time actually, would you prefer if we reinstated it?). The New Oxford American Dictionary even said it was not salicious.[1] And since it is sourced (which is what we go off of here) and since multiple editors after months of discussion have supported inclusion: you are simply not editing in accordance with consensus. There really is nothing more to say about that unless you want to open an RfC to seek its removal. Until then the tag needs to go. Apologies if it upsets you. And I don't like or dislike it. Makes it much easier to edit that way.Cptnono (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is more of the discussion for ya[2] Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

huffington post only furthers that its a focused POV Finch590 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we not just say...

Teabagger, a term used by some to describe members of the American Tea Party Movement that emerged in 2009.

Linking Teabagger to the section on Teabaggers at the tea party movement article. That is neutral, accurate, short and clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Direct quotes from the makers of the dictionary have nothing to do with you not liking the Huffington Post. Is the Independent OK?[3] Is NPR to liberal?[4] Hopw about this?[5] Or the New York Times?[6] We even have stuff from Italy![7] There you go. And you still have not addressed that you are against the consensus so time to remove the tag. Feel free to open an RfC.

Post edit conflict: I don't like using the pipelink simply based on MoS. That is why I threw it in the "See also" section. But agree that it should be a simple and short description.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There has been no response to this. There is a clear link between the term "teabagger" and the Tea Party movement. Most of it is ridicule but at times (and maybe even initially) it was used by the protesters themselves. Originally, all of the information was in the Teabagging article. This was WP:RECENTISM and had POV issues. Other ways of addressing it included making it its own article. A whole article on the term "teabagging/teabagger" and how it was applied to members of the movement was also problematic and was something that could be merged in easily to the main article. So that page as deleted. which I fully supported. To make it an easy fix, this disambiguation page was created. There were other uses of Tea bag so it worked out minus some bickering about if it linked to a section or how detailed the description was. Now it has been tagged for not being neutral since any link at all is not appropriate. The protesters mailed tea bags to the white house. They were called "teabaggers" by both supporters and critics. It became a finalist term in a prominent dictionary for reasons that were not salacious. It is well sourced in other articles (does not need to be here since it would be against MoS). Readers might type in "teabagger" to get to the article. It is related in numerous ways to "tea bag", the sexual act, and the movement. No one else has complained that any link at all is not neutral while several have supported some sort of link. Can anyone offer an argument besides it being a controversial term for its removal? And would any such editors rather it have its own article instead? That was the alternative and it was not a good one.Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with finch adding teabagger to this page is just and effort to smear the tea party at the very least this should be labeled as a pejorative term i've reverted this until its resolved 173.122.117.215 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Gatorted

So what is your suggestion and how do you plan to implement it? No one else disagrees but one editor and (sorry to assume bad faith to a certain extent) but I don't put much stock in an IP from a Sprint connection with no other edits that offers no explanation but that of mirrored cries of POV. So to not be a total jerkoff, if you can explain why it is inherently POV (although the New American Oxford Dictionary says it isn't), why the the wording is off (even though it has been nerfed to a bare minimum), and what steps would be better taken over hitting revert over and over: I would be stoked to hear it. If not, it looks like partisan editing that accuses another editor of being partisan even though my edits typically border on right-wing. So what do you suggest? Have you read the sources provided? DO you understand that it is not a swipe at the movement to mention it? Would you prefer a whole article devoted to it? Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to Tea Party movement at Tea bag (disambiguation)

Is it acceptable to link to the Tea Party movement at Tea bag (disambiguation) with a brief nueteral description?[8] There was already an RfC regarding this (where their were little objection to its use although the pipe link was in question) and discussion on multiple talk pages. However, IPs and new users continue to remove it.

The protesters mailed tea bags to the white house. They were called "teabaggers" by both supporters and critics. It became a finalist term in a prominent dictionary for reasons that were not salacious.[9] It was its own article at one point which proved too problematic.Cptnono (talk) 21:17 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned - someone looking for the term because they've e.g. read it on CNN could end up here and would benefit from the link, and it's mentioned in the article, even with it's own section to link to. But the previous way it was added was too long, did not match to the rest of the DAB, or conform to other DAB conventions, so I've added it back more in line with MOS:DAB.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think it should be in the see also section and just say:

• Teabagger, a term used by some to describe members of the American Tea Party Movement that emerged in 2009.

Thats all thats needed in my view. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was originally against the pipelink but am warming up to it just to make it easy. Agreed with the "see also" section based on MoS.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The manual of style for dab pages says "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." (their emphasis). Piping is OK to hide section links but the full title of the target article should always be clear. See also is for things that are related but are not uses for the main topic, which is "tea bag" here. And the line should not contain unnecessary detail, only enough to identify the target article and indicate how "tea bag" is related to it, so e.g. 2009 isn't needed unless there are two "Tea Party" articles with different years.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about the year. Easy enough fix.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there was the original tea party a couple of centuries ago lol, although it wasnt a "movement" it does seem helpful to just say this one formed in 2009, just to inform people its a recent/active movement. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall someone at the other article saying "no it was in 20xx". Not sure if it is still disputed. If it is not I really don't care that much. Seems like more than is needed but you do bring up a reasonable point.Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost ready to put this into WP:PEREN, but yes both supporters and opponents of the tea party use the term tea bagger. I have no problem with including in a see also section.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOO! :) The last RfC was about how to do it and this one is about if we should at all since I am reverting IPs and new users over and over and was starting to feel like an edit warrior. I kept on telling them to open an RfC but I figured I would do it just to have something to link to (assuming it stays) when i is removed. I also wanted to make sure I wasn;t smoking crack in my thinking that it should stay.Cptnono (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. Do we have any sources using the term 'tea bag' (not teabagger) as it relates to the party's movement or members? The Oxford article definitely swayed me to agree we should have a disambiguation at 'teabagger'. Maybe we could track down some of the 'citations...in legitimate sources' Oxford alludes to?
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The guideline allows for similar words "Different forms of Title, for example Splitting, Split, and Splitter"Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"humorous term" or "offensive slur"?

I just reverted a change from

• "Teabagger", a humorous term for Tea Party movement participants

to

• "Teabagger", an offensive slur for Tea Party movement participants

as 'humorous' better reflects the usage as described in the article, by both the press and the activists – neither group would use it if it were offensive (the press especially are very careful not to offend large sections of their viewers/listeners). Or 'humorous' could be removed altogether if it's contentious. Thoughts ?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

it's definitly not humorous. I think its offensive there is a least one artical out there calling it the "new n-word" however that might be a little much166.137.11.44 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC) usairslater

a term both could apply and no reason to go into this much. Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Should just say "A term" yes. That is neutral BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

a term is not neutral. It sugests vailidity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.44 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with 'term' as it is more neutral. "humerous" was based on the article which uses "puns" to describe its use, including by the protesters. No-where does the article indicate it's a "slur", and DAB pages are based on what's in articles, they are not themselves sourced. But as it's clearly contentious the neutral and more concise form is best.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Words fail me regarding #166's comment so I'll just be happy with the change. So separate from the RfC and if the term is kept, should it go back into the "See also" section or is it better where it is?Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tea bag protests? I thought it was tea baggers. Has it been described as the tea bag protests? I am still surprised this issue is still going on, over a simple sentence linking to the tea party movement article. sheesh BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Try again. By chance when navigating back here to see where we are I noticed that tea bag protest is a redirect to Tea Party protests, and that article mentions "tea bag" far more than the other mentions teabagger. This seems a more natural way to connect this DAB page to the US protests so I've made the change, as it also avoids the contention over humour versus slur (which seems to be derived from this usage). So I've changed it. The capitalisation is as in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh ok, first time ive heard the "tea bag protest" mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it myself. Can you provide some sources here on the talk page for verification? Also, there was no reason to remove the other link since it is two different articles with slightly different meaning.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me now with both lines, under a heading which helps with the context a bit. Not sure why there are two articles but there are and either could be the one a person visiting this page is looking for.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The way this reads now it literally says someone who puts puts scrotums in others mouths is a member of the tea party. I think this really needs to at lest be a "slag term" or a "pejorative term" also why was the POV tag removed before this was resolved Finch590 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But it i more than a slur. The protesters used it on signs and reffered to themselves as teabaggers. And the tag was removed when an editor removed the line. You made no further efforts to resolve the issue so I did not reinsert the tag when adding back the info. YOU should have opened up this RfC. This is the second RFC regarding the line (otherone was more how it was written though) and there appears to be consensus to keep it in some form. Again.Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it may be offensive to some but the article suggests it's used more for humorous purpose by both the protestors and the media. And the latter are not in the business of gratuitously offending anyone, for fear of losing viewers/readers or even being fined. But it's a "term" in each case, as well as if you find it neither funny nor rude, so it's accurate and neutral now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No its not. A teabagger can be both some who puts their balls in someones mouth or a member of the tea party. This page suggests only one answer Finch590 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a wiktionary page: the point of a DAB page is to help readers find the article they want, given they've e.g. gone to Tea bag but are more interested in the sexual or recent US political activity. I think the DAB page makes it very clear which is which.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary so why is the link even here? That said i think the "its used by the protesters" augment is a bit weak just because a handful of protesters use it doesn't mean its not a slur. Finch590 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The links to wiktionary are in case anyone is looking for a dictionary definition. As for whether it's a slur the article doesn't say it is - quite the opposite. If you think the article is wrong then raise it there. A little viewed DAB page is not the place to introduce a POV that doesn't appear in any article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

teabagger re-directing to the tea party is far from neutral Finch590 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Again raise it at the article if you have problems with it. All this page does is link to the article, and in this case to the section where it's used, saying briefly how it's used. The article describes it as a joke: we can't have it saying something different here (though we don't need "joke" or "humorous" either).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The main article refers to it as slang and later a pejorative term. this should be a "slang" "pejorative" or "controversial" term you pick Finch590 (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

all of this reverting of this page to try to make it seem like teabagger isn't offensive needs to stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.81.16 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

all of this reverting of this page to try to make go into too many details and politicize it needs to stop. Go work on the Tea Party movement article. This isn't the place for it.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the place for it. DAB pages follow articles, and right now the article in the linked section says '[the term "teabagger"] has prompted additional puns by commentators, the protesters themselves, and comedians', with nothing about it being offensive. That some people might be offended by such humour can't be helped as wikipedia is not censored, and has a lot of probably much more offensive content if you look for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

References