Talk:Teabagging/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Which use is dominant?

Google[teabagger political term] 794,000 hits

Google[teabagger sexual term]. 298,000 hits

-74.162.151.204 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been used for much longer. Your google search is flawed. Try just "teabagging". Also, WP:RECENTISM applies since it is new and news. The use of it in a political sense is also based on the sexual act. Do not delete the lead of an article in the future.Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how the term's usage has historically been applied when the question is one of contemporary dominance. Reviewing the term "fag," any Wiki article covering the term would be remis to not make note of the fact that the term is dominant in the United States as a quasi-purgoritive term for homosexual and, as a side note, that "gay" is a politically acceptable term which itself has an historic religation.

This particular article would better serve to focus on the contemporary usage of the term "tea bagger" and "tea bagging" and religate the older term to a secondary, historic application of the term inasmuch as any other term one might consider -- eg fag, gay -- likewise notes the primary, contemporary usage and then provide an historic context. Fredric Rice (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alex Koppelman is not WP:RS?

Hmm. I was reviewing some of the discussion here because of some major changes afoot over at Tea Party Protests,2009 and Tea Party movement, which have had a significant amount of information split off from the main article and a logical attempt was made by another editor to relocate some of that content here per {WP:SS]]. I see the change was not greeted with immediate acceptance, notably resulting in the removal of the Salon.com story that attempted to explain the synthesis of the appellation, "Teabagger". Given the relationship of the other articles with respect to this one, it seems important that more detail on this particular matter remain here rather than on those other articles.

So I find it confusing how a decision was reached to invalidate a generally accepted reliable source, the Koppelman story. I know it's a no-no for editors to speculate, but I was always under the impression that, if properly noted, the "speculation" (or as Koppelman writes, "I think I've traced the meme") of a professional journalist (identified as a "Staff Writer" - not a "columnist" - meaning he is presumably paid for his reporting for Salon.com, not his opinion) is recognized as WP:RS and WP:SOURCES. I'd be interested in thoughts otherwise. --Happysomeone (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind some info (someone else blanked it completely) but the section with so much info is a fork given too much weight on recent events. This article should not be a dumping ground for info fount to be unsuitable for the other article. That is the main article not this. Perhaps if the sexual act was given more body through some good expansion it would not be a concern.

In regards to Koppelman, his article was speculation and his thoughts on it. Since it is already to long we don't need to add commentary nor give significant space to a story like that.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary and Historic Usage

It seems reasonable to amend the Wiki article to detail the full, legitimate use of the term as it relates to how it has historically be utilized and how it's used in contemporary times. The dominant usage, the usage which more world citizens understand the term to mean, is right wing lunatic Republican extremism, with the meaning of sexual behavior being understood to be ironic when applied to Republicanism given the Republican Party's core ideologies of hatred against gays and the Party's hypocrical stance on fucking.

The Wiki article would greatly benefit from actual research in to the growth of the term inasmuch as historically the term will appear in history books about domestic terrorism and its causes within the United States in the 2000's and 2010's. It would be good to have a definitive Wiki article which provides some actual research which can be utilized and referenced to lend context as history books covering the Republicanism of today is discussed.

Also the article's list of categories should include political ideology. Fredric Rice (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RECENTISM. Just because it has more headlines right now it doesn't mean that teabagging has not been about balls in mouths. The poking fun at protesters was based on the balls in mouths connotation making it subservient chronological and weight wise here. Please go work on Tea Party protests if you are interested in that subject.Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

so npov it aches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.215.43 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples since complaining in general does not help.Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Political use

User:Mbhiii, Lets not turn this article into a warzone for the origin of the term "Tea Party". The use of teabagging was popularized in the media as an perjorative term. Previous uses by a handful of people doesn't rise to the importance for an article and is a distraction. Also, your use of a google search for a cite isn't proper. Use a cite directly to a reliable source. 68.25.103.189 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Any reference to the political usage of this term is egregiously incomplete unless it includes the facts that (a) the Tea Party movement was first referred to publicly as a collection of tea baggers on the left-leaning Rachel Maddow show, (b) the term was indisputably used in ridicule by President Barack Obama, and (c) that it is highly offensive to the vast majority of the members of the movement (the ones who seemed not to be offended were oblivious to the sexual meaning of the term as evidenced by my HuffPost reference). Unless this information is included, the political usage reference under "Ridicule" should be removed or the article should be listed as disputed.(Konastephen (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

Whether Maddow is an "extreme leftist" can be debated. I won;t argue that since that has nothing to do with the article. What does have to do with the article is that people associated with the movement have come on to this page and disputed that a)Maddow was first and b)that it is as offensive as you say.

Since you do not appear to understand several guidelines or the full scope of the debate in question I will be ignoring what can only be taken as a demand. Feel free to flag the article to be checked for neutrality.Cptnono (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not members of the Tea Party movement embraced the derogatory term "tea bagging" can be debated too. So I'm new at correcting the disinformation of people like you on Wikipedia. Don't worry. I'll get the hang of it soon. I dislike the tone of your remarks. I find them offensive and tinged with ad hominem undercurrents.(Konastephen (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

This is the only warning you will receive for making a personal attack. If you do it again I will seek a block on your account. I was not the proponent to add that they embraced it. However, several other editors presented sources so it was put in.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is better to strike out your personal attack instead of rewording it to aid in outside reader's understanding of the conversation. You implied that I was attempting to brainwash people. That is not acceptable. Now do you have a suggestion to make it clearer that it is insulting without going into fine detail (WP:UNDUE) or not? Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your angle is. You're the one making threats and shifting the focus from the substance of the article to a debate over whether or not my insinuation that you seem to have a vested interested in keeping the bias of this article is an ad hominem attack or not.(Konastephen (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

It isn't a threat. I am required to give you a heads up on BLP and NPA violations before reporting you to administrators. And I don't have an angle and I fail to connect your accusation of ad hominem attacks with anything I have said. Please feel free to present an example but it appears you are using the wrong term. Ah... saying that I was ignoring your demand probably did it. To clarify, if you don't understand the guidelines I am going to disregard demands but reasoning backed by sources that do ot contradict other sources is of course appreciated.

So I have added a sourced line that says it was insulting. I will not add a line (and will remove) any lines saying that it is rejected by all teapartiers or that Maddow was the first to use it sexually since this has been disputed. I recommend that you go through the sources presented here and at the Tea Party movement article along with the article history if you do not fully understand. It is easy to assume that it was only used by commentators to ridicule them but that has been previously disputed.

I have added a line that should address your concern so that should be that. This isn't my article though so feel free to present additional sources. I ask that you limit the urge to revert, blank, or add undue weight to the paragraph.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine that's a start. For the record then, my suggestions are (1) Flag the entire article with a POV tag so long as there is reference to the Tea Party movement in the locked header of the page, and (2) if the connection between the term and the movemnt must be made here, a proposition I dispute, then add full information about it's use including (a) Maddow popularized it as a pejorative for the Tea Party Movement, (b) the president has used it as a term of ridicule and mockery of his political opponents and (c) the majority of members of the Tea Party movement find it offensive as found by Jonathan Alter during research for his book "The Promise: President Obama, Year One". Using the fact that a minute number in the movement "embraced the term" as a reason not to state that it is offensive to the majority or even to say that "some" approve is unacceptable. To clarify the concept, compare to other offensive terms. (i.e. Some African Americans have embraced the term "x". Therefore it cannot be described as an offensive term.)(Konastephen (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

1)The lead needs to summarize the article 2 and 3) This article is not about the Tea Party movement. There is a separate article where you should go into detail. Such details here would be giving it too much weight and focusing too much on recent events. Giving prominence to details about Maddow and Obama would open the door to prominence to every other person who has commented. This article does not say anything about "embracing". It simply says that puns were made by both commentators and protesters. The additional line clarifying that it is insulting should be sufficient to make it clear. We simply d not need all of the details here since it is not the place for it.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And do not add bare URLs. Format your reference.Cptnono (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news or a tabloid. Stop bloating the article.[1] Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If your position is that the article should make mention of the connection to the Tea Party movement, then it should include a fair sample of that coverage. This is a short article. It's far from "bloated". I say, remove all mention of the Tea Party altogether. This article is about a sexual act. Period. That's how it should stay. Are you "demanding" that I format my references?(Konastephen (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

I have tagged it for recentism. The line about one book is not needed. And if you do not format your reference I can only assume you are going out of your way to be disruptive which gets another warning.Cptnono (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the recentism tag. I think that even mentioning the Tea Party in connection with this term is "recentism." I formatted my references in compliance with your demands and despite your constant stream of warnings and threats. Any further tampering with this entry now to create a more favorable impression of the pejorative use of the term by the Left I will have to consider evidence of unacceptable bias. That's a warning, btw.(Konastephen (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Well I do have a problem with the recentism tag since tags mean something is wrong. I will be removing the line about the book sooner or later unless someone chimes in with reasoning to not.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove all mention of the Tea Party and problem solved. You clearly resent any information here that puts the spotlight on critics of the Tea Party movement for their "low brow" (aka disgustingly vulgar) mockery by use of this sexual term. (Konastephen (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Why do you say that? I clarified that it was considered an insult at your request. I have also bent over backwards to limit vandalism and efforts by other editors to ridicule the movement in this article. Are you sure that you are just not assuming the worst? Your comments about the editors at the Tea Party movement, accusing me of attempting to brainwash people, and your harsh label for Maddow are all things that are not OK here. For my part, I apologize if I came across as biting a newcomer but your behavior is totally unacceptable and needs to stop. This article has had many vandals and many people from both sides of the political spectrum making disputed edits. In fact, an editor with a right lean recently attempted to make it appear that the term was widely accepted by those in the movement. Since it is so disputed and easy to manipulate, a concise factual paragraph is all that is needed.00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I only say that because all day long, you've blocked my efforts to make the reference to the term as it is used to describe the Tea Party more fair and more complete. I trimmed that last paragraph to make it more concise as well. I've stated the three essential facts I feel must be included to be fair. There is no dispute that Maddow viciously ridiculed the Tea Party movement. There is no dispute that the President got on that bandwagon himself. And there is no dispute that to the vast majority of folks who attend those events or identify with the movement, the way Maddow and the President have used the term is highly offensive. As my HuffPost reference points out, in the beginning no one in the movement, at least none of the non-gaming adults, had any idea of the sexual connotation. My in-laws were shocked earlier today when I explained what I was doing. They still had no idea and I'd bet that's probably still true of most people. You have been harsh although I don't care. I've learned a lot about this process today and I'll take that and use it in the future. But I wouldn't have bludgeoned you with warnings and threats the way you did. See my comments about use of NPA rules on my talk page. I removed a discussion on my talk page about the danger of using NPA rules as a form of censorship and disempowerment as has become common practice on many mainstream newsmedia blog sites. I did so because this discussion is clear evidence that WP is already there.(Konastephen (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Just because your family didn't know about it doesn't mean other people did not. So since editors have provided sources saying that members used it themselves then it should get some mention. Since it is widely seen as an insult (Maddow was one of many) then it should be (and it is now) mentioned that it is seen as an insult. I'm a little embarrassed that the article was clear about that before. And although it is not disputed that Obama made a mention of it, it is a weight issue and could be seen as scandal mongering (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) . Sources discussing that are not needed for an understanding of the topic. Feel free to bring it up at the other article but only a very brief mention of the insult is needed here in relation to the Tea Party movement. And if I crossed the line as far as you did I would expect several warnings.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Dude. Whatever.My point is that if you are going to use the statement in the lead that some members of the Tea Party do not find this term offensive without clarifying in the lead or at greater length in the article both that the term is intended as a derogatory by folks like Ms. Maddow and the president and that those who embrace the term are only a small minority who may not really be part of the movement then you are creating a false impression. The name is a clear reference to the Boston Tea Party. The kids holding "Tea Bag" signs may well have been pranksters or worse. There is no evidence that they weren't. Show me something more than anecdotal evidence that the vast majority of Tea Party members are not offended by the term. There haven't been any statistical studies of the opinions of the majority of the members. There is nothing but anecdotal evidence on either side of the argument. For lack of something more "objective" I offer my own anecdotal evidence, mock it if you will (have you even been to a Tea Party rally yourself??). I do so with full awareness of the worth of anecdotal evidence (see? I even know that's what it's called) and I have a great deal more that gives me good reason to believe it is worth mentioning.(Konastephen (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I totally agree that the majority are offended and they should be. The problem I am running into is I just spent a month trying to limit another editor who was trying to portray that the group was on board with the name and embracing it and that there was no ridicule at all but just humor. So I am looking at some mention of it being OK while others (maybe most?) say it is offensive. I hoped the balance was good with the recent edit.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Must be nice to have that kind of time to spend on something like this. Did you consider the possibility that the editor you mention was an activist with an anti-Tea Party agenda?(Konastephen (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I've tried to remove this discussion a few times because I feel it has not been productive. Also it is extremely long and disproportionately dominant on the discussion page. I would welcome any clarification of how and under what conditions this can be done. There are apparently people who sit around and watch for people who want to make discussions more concise....  ??(Konastephen (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I'm removing the word "conservative" to describe the Media Research Center as per whatever WP rules prevent anyone from calling Maddow left-leaning. (BLP, NPA, BLABLABLA) Cheers.(Konastephen (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Split / Move / Trim?

The hatnote at the top of the page says This article is about teabagging in a sexual context. For further information related to the political movement, see Tea Party movement.. Clearly the Article does (now) not reflect this statement. I know nothing about US politics (and do not wish to do so), but the article needs amending to be correct - either

1. Split into 2 articles Teabagging (sexual) and Teabagging (political), and have Teabagging as a DAB page
2. Remove the hatnote and leave both sections on this page
3. Move the policital stuff to Tea Party movement and keep the hatnote

FWIW - I favour No.1 option - that way we should keep the content of the two ideas separate. Anyone else wish to comment?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the majority of the political stuff can go into Tea Party movement#etymology. See Talk:Tea Party movement#etymology. Another article should not be acceptable and it is mentioned over there. Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd favor option #1. It's not coatracking, it's using the summary style. Since one of the editors narrowly objects to a conflation of the two, there shouldn't therefore be a problem if we create a DAB page.--Happysomeone (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need another article. We already have Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and a section here. Teabagging (balls in mouth) is the primary topic (that is why the term is even mentioned here right?) so a disambig page would be against the guidelines.Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added the merge sections templates to both pages, to suggest Option #3. That means that all future discussions should be done at the templates combined target of Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Merger_proposal - thus editors of both pages can have their input. Thanks for the input.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my stance on this a bit. Teabagging (political) might be an OK page. I still believe it will be too much of a stub better suited for Wiktionary so a subsection at the movement's article might be preferred.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunh. And I was just getting used to the current arrangement. I thought you said a disambiguation page would be against the guidelines. Now it's not?--Happysomeone (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge Completed

The political data has now been merged by User:Cptnono into Tea Party movement, and so is therefore removed from the page. The Article can now be edited from just one perspective (the sexual one).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do that last paragraph and have never advocated ignoring ti altogether.Cptnono (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a majority of the content that was here has now been lost into the edit "History" memory hole. I would have liked to have kept it but couldn't get consensus so it was removed. So the present content on the Tea Party movment page is the main page for this but is written in a reduced form as an attempt to conform to WP:SS.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images are no good. They overpower the article and until one is provided of a nutsack in someone's mouth there really isn't any need. The protest one can be used at the other article just as easily and will not be against the image MOS.Cptnono (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, teabagging isn't just about a nutsack in someone's mouth. A previous version of the article had a whole second paragraph in the lede about it being a sexual practice with relatively low risk. Onto the images: the article is about a sexual practice presumably named after dipping a tea-bag into a cup of tea, the image clearly is of a tea-bag being used in exactly that way. It would be nice if the article clearly showed some of this etymology and development of the term/usage but that has seemingly been deleted over time. It likely should be restored and cleaned up. The second image, both freely usable on any article BTW, shows the term being used in the political context at a political rally. That would seem to be a perfectly suitable use. I would also like to see a video game usage illustrated as it was shown on an episode of The Simpson's and elsewhere but it is shown more as facesitting although some games maybe it's presented in more detail. -- Banjeboi 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have explained this before. The reason video games are mentioned is because it is mimicked. The reason the political term is mentioned is because they were ridiculed. This is not a disambiguation page or wiktionary. The topic is balls in someones mouth or on the face. The political sign is agains t MOS because it does not fit. It is also given undue weight. Someone just removed the whole section again. I doubt this would have happened if we were not cramming the political part down people's throats (pun half intended). And after realizing that Oxford claims it is not based on the vulgar term (they are silly since that is why it took off) I am not so against you going and making a TeabaggerTeabaggin (political) page. I think it will be very stubish and wiktionary like so it would be better at the main article as a section. I really don;t care too much as long as this page stops breaking the style guidelines. A disambiuaiton would also not be appropriate sine this is the primary topic. I have restored a portion of the section that was just removed but it is clear of anything not related to the sexual connotation. I have trimmed the refs since they were overkill. I have cut the dictionary line because of that sources surprising disclaimer that the vulgar bit has nothing to do with it. You can open up an RfC if you want but several editors have recently removed the section per the guidelines. Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cptnono, this article (as it clearly says in the hatnote) is about the sexual usage. It's clear that the use in a political sense should be elsewhere - A Teabagging (political) page would be fine with me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And apologies if I came across like I was edit warring. I was aiming for the correct balance between what it looked like you and Benjiboi were going for.Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine if it just stayed at the Tea Party movement page, as long as it's somewhere. I think what you've currently got under the "Ridicule" section and like how you structured the redirect just under the header with short explanation. Perhaps the same can be done at Tea Party movement below the "Humor" subhead.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

I just did a few reverts. One of them appeared to be vandalism with the alt text and caption being changd to say a cop of tea was a man with a man doing it.

The other section was an indiscriminate list of unsourced TV shows and the like.Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And teabagged during a water sport (to be violently dunked int he water) is now at Wictionary. Here is a source that someone should have found sooner.[2] It does not appear to be related to sex but I could be wrong. Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Image (newer one)

The image continues to be removed. Wikipedia is not censored. It is also currently not scheduled for deletion but has a Personality rights warning. My only concern is that the flickr account it was brought over from is no longer active. That leads me to believe that there is at least some possibility that it was posted by an angry ex or something. Another editor has said that he would do a drawing if it was deleted but until it is deleted it is the best we have.Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we have illustrations rather than photos for most subjects like this. We don't need to set a precedent encouraging people to contribute homemade "personal" shots here. (I.e., our surplus of penis pictures). In the case of this particular photo, it's debatable if it even depicts that actual topic; it looks like nothing more than oral-scrotal contact, versus what the article actually describes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well illustrations are not something we should expect or need. And the user that provides them has said no. The image is good enough as is (oral-scrotum is pretty much right on or the overview section needs to be reworded). I still have concerns with the whole ex thing but to be honest it is assuming bad faith (not on the uploader to commons since he did the bot). So unless a better image is provided this is well with in the means of Wikipeida's guidelines. There really is no argument against it unlesS it is deleted (something I would be onboard with discussing).Cptnono (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything else? I can throw it back in, open an RfC, get the roommates drunk... what's next?Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit the picture so that the focus of the picture is no longer on the person e.g. her face at the center, and then focus is just on the bottom part of the picture. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. That is a good idea! Anyone good at cropping with a good eye on what bit should be in? There are two versions available: Color and B&W Cptnono (talk)

So I cannot figure out any way to make the guys balls more prominent. Even with cropping the girl's forehead her eyes are in center frame. Consensus on the project are that it is not censored. It is an explicit image but it illustrates what some sex experts call teabagging. I don't want to continue adding it in since a few people have removed it but an image would be nice. The only other option I see is having the image deleted (I am not sure if the reasoning is strong enough though) and getting a drawing. RfC opened for any ideas.Cptnono (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Image RfC

Resolved

Disclaimer: Not safe for work
Is this image (or its color version or a new cropped alternative) acceptable for use on the Teabagging article? Any input would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of some of political points

Why was salient fact removed concerning the fact that "teabag" for Tea Party began after several Tea Party groups organized sending tea bags to members of congress? As it stands now it makes it seem like critics and the media just offhandedly thought up the pun from tea party, the pun was first triggered by the tea party activists using teabags as a symbol themselves. Reference to that seems to be repeated removed by one active poster. Jenston (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there is another article discussing the movement and its history. This article is about testicles in the face. The pun was made but you can follow the links clearly spelled out to get to the other article.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

NO offense but that is a non answer since here in THIS article a discussion is made suggesting *origination* of the term for tea parties began with testicles in the face pun/insult, when in fact it does not appear so.Jenston (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It says puns were made. Cptnono (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes Puns were made AFTER the Tea Party activists sent tea bags to members of Congress in promoted and organized program. It is injecting a political POV the way it was worded implying that opponents simply created the pun, when the tea bags originated not with opponents or media but with the Tea Parties themselves.Jenston (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the origin of the pun is disputed but it doesn't matter. Both protesters and their opponents made puns based on the sex act. What's the problem with leaving it at that?Cptnono (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The timing isn't disputed. The TEa parties began sending tea bags with their inceptionm. I do NOT disagrree with removing the photos of this activity by the TEa Party activists (which were in this article at some point) and discussion of the organized program top send tea bags which occurred before the pun "teabaggers" appeared in the press or as an insult. IE I agree all that weighs down this particular article. But the way the text reads, just mentioning the insult, it implies the opposite timing. SOME reference to the sending of teabags, whcih I did in five words, needs to be there if all the rest is there as well.

You yourself know the pics were removed. why claim no supported references?Jenston (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have a reference. The image was also against MoS since it overpowered the text. Also, it does not matter. The details like that are not for this article. If it has nothing to do with testicles it is better at Tea Party movement.Cptnono (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Feel free to create the dab page as discussed. You should wait for the job queue to clear the cache for all of the references from the template. Alsosome of the current inbound links might need to be redirected to the dab page. If the one protected page needs modification, leave a note on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Teabagging → Tea bag (sexual act) — "(sex act)" or something similar could also be considered. I have been a proponent for not changing the name. However, "let's go tea bag him" "they were teabagging" "she was teabagged" got me thinking. I also noticed that the sources do not match. Tea bag, tea-bag, are probably used as much if not more than teabag. This would also make it clear that it is about sex not politics or a beverage.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC) This is pretty trivial but consistency and style are important. Should it be ...(sex act), ...(sexual act), ...(sex), ...(sexuality) or something else. See: Bareback (sex), Facial (sex act), Creampie (sexual act), Pearl necklace (sexuality)?Cptnono (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Change is just fine, and may stop excessive political movement data being added. I would suggest that if the move goes ahead, then Teabagging should be changed to a DAB page with entries to here and to the Tea party movement. As for the suffix - I think you have opened up a can of worms, I would suggest all those pages should have the same suffix, but which one... My preference is for "(sexual act)"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty stoked about the disambig page. It can be Tea Bag as the primary but Tea bag (screwing) and a decent See also list for T-Bag, Tea Party movement, and so on. I am pretty confident it can be done with in the MoS for that style. It will make Tea bag cleaner since that huge list the the hat note can be replaced.

Sexual act it is then unless someone else disagrees. I made a mention at the Sex Project so they might have some ideas if something is going to change across all of the pages mentioned. Not a big deal really (hopefully).Cptnono (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Strange edits against consensus by user "Cptnono"

I note user cptnono has removes source information added by several editors then removed relevant text by claiming no source. How is one editor constantly doing this?

Simply look at the history pages. He has removed source references and then removes the relevant text stating claiming there is no source!Jenston (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion already for this. Why open another one? Also, make sure to add references when adding material. I would have removed it without the reference anyways since it is not needed here.Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also: --Happysomeone 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC), Ronhjones 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC), --Happysomeone 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC), . Ronhjones 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC), Ronhjones 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC), and 68.25.103.189 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC) all point to it being OK. There are also discussions at the other page if you want to check them out. And see the vote of confidence at Epischedda 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC). Read the talk page before complaining about consensus.Cptnono (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see multiple removes of multiple authors text by YOU. You are the only one removing this. See DVDJUNKIe addtion of trhis as well. I see way MORE ditors seeing this as appropriate. You keep removing multiple editors text on this. Re moving reference as well and saying there are no references is not something that will make people take you seriously.

also it doesn't seem to look like you checked the editors you yourself cited as you are misreporting their views.Jenston (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the discussion page. Also read the other pages. It doesn't matter who said it first. People edit warred over it and it was obnoxious. Why are so so bent on this? You are wasting your time and going against consensus. You are also edit warring since it does not need to be 3rr to be disruptive. You should feel bad. I have also tagge dit for being dubious since it now reads like that sign was the reason. It frankly doesn't atter who said it first and since that is disputed it is silly to make it read one way or the other. There is also a whole other article for this so I have no idea why this is o important to you.Cptnono (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How could Wikipedia be so wrong?

Teabagging does not mean "placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner", it means scrotum across the nose, one testicle on each side of the nose. The second section refers to teabagging as a practical joke. It is true it's a common practical joke, and it is done as balls across the nose, not in the mouth. If the article stands this way for long, the incorrect meaning probably WILL become the common one, and WP will have influenced the language. I'm sure it's easy to find sources that back up the article's current definition. That is because those sources are mistaken as to the real meaning just as the authors of this article were mistaken. I'm sure you'll also find sources confirming the correct definition. If the Google fight shows more hits for the article's definition, that only means more people are mistaken. Take it from a teabagger from way back, the article is wrong. I'm not touching the article because it will just get reverted and I don't care to waste my time on something that will disappear tomorrow. I hope someone with some pull around here straightens it out someday. -24.144.61.80 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about Reliable Sources, rather than Truth. When the Reliable Sources get it wrong, so does Wikipedia ... and then the Reliable Sources consider Wikipedia to be a Reliable Source, and so it goes. htom (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Image is too graphic

The image at the top of this article is too graphic and is unnecessary. I realize some people will say it is fine and Wikipedia is not censored. My input is that it is too graphic and should be removed. Remus.c (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have see the last one.

You are correct that Wikipedia is not censored and I have provided the appropriate links at your talk page. Illustrations like this have support on similar pages and even the specific author's user page. My input is that the image is used in an appropriate context.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the image, but not purely for the reason above. The illustrator argues on his talk page that images enlighten where text alone cannot (citing the Eiffel Tower as an example) and this may well be true sometimes - but here it is not. The constituent parts of that image are all around us; we know what they look like and the image is not needed. It is true that Wikipedia is not censored, but there is a requirement that the potentially offensive material be justified, which it isn't. The main problem, IMO, is that the image confuses the issue: the male partner is not actually performing the act and there is an inference that this is only a male-female act, and I would venture to suggest it is not. Rather than enlighten, this image has actually clouded the article. I42 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are reading too far into it if the way the couple in the article swings is a concern. And it matches an image found in a source pretty well[3] So it might not meet your definition but it shows the broader one. Please feel free to produce an alternative image.Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, my "alternate image" is no image at all: I just don't see any need for it and, frankly, it's a bit rubbish. I42 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

At least it's only a drawing. This has to be one of the milder ones in the Category:Sexual acts series.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image is too graphic and should be removed. Some people will find it offensive to be confronted with a drawing of a penis when doing research and there are minors to consider (there are many parents who don't want their children prematurely sex-educated by other adults even if it is via Wikipedia). They might even consider this a "personal attack", which is very much a NoNo on Wikipedia these days, Captain. Legally, I could see how this might qualify as battery under the right circumstances. There's a difference between censorship and responsible self-government.(Konastephen (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Good thing Wikipedia isn't censored even under the guise of responsible self government.Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The image is unnecessary and only adds shock to the article. The article is perfectly understandable without it. For example, the article on Infanticide is written well enough that it doesn't need pictures of dead babies on it to explain it. There's been enough group consensus about this and the only objector is Cptnono. While Wikipedia isn't censored, it's also not a soapbox. I am removing the image again. - Team4Technologies (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing the image without establishing a consensus here. There is strong precedence for retaining similar drawings in other articles (photographs graphically depicting sexual acts are another matter). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture is not needed and the article is better without it. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. I see an image that is not overly graphic that portrays some context of the topic. A similar image is good enough for a source (that is far from pornography) used in this very article. Images improve articles. It appears that you see it as shock and can't get over that part. Some people do not find it shocking but see it as being a fine illustration of the topic. Again, feel free to try to change the standards at the Wikiproject devoted to sex and see the village pump to change how images are used on Wikipedia. Also feel free to provide a less graphic and quality alternative to visually describe the subject if you don't like it.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tea bagging (sexual act) does not need visual description. Rotten.com has a Rolodex of Love that requires almost no pictures yet paints a vivid picture. Enjoy. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring and removing the image against Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. It is bordering on being disruptive. Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but keep holding a torch for the tea bagging picture there, Cptnono. - Team4Technologies (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotta have something for the spank bank. And your last couple comments are bordering on being uncivil. Consider chilling out on what might come across as rude.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I was only pointing out that (at least on this discussion) you have been the most vocal about keeping the picture in (holding the torch). I wasn't making a vague sexual reference or anything. I honestly have nothing against the material in the article, the picture just takes away from the article and provides nothing but shock. Anyone with a functional grasp of English could likely understand "Scrotum in another person's mouth" without needing a visual aid. I find that the picture is detrimental to the article and you clearly don't. Since I am being threatened with censorship (ironic), I'll have to defer to your judgment. - Team4Technologies (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure so I was just saying. It looks like the admin was more concerned with disruptive reverting and not censorship but I can see the humor kind-of irony in that. There are many articles that don't need images but most editors and readers appreciate them. But if this is something you are adamant about, I am serious when I say take it up with WikiProject Sexuality and at the Village Pump. Such images are common as pointed out by Ronhjones and I assume there is always an ongoing discussion on how to handle the issue.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, most (maybe all) of the sexual activity articles are illustrated by a drawing, not dissimilar in style to the one on the Article page. Many have had actual photographs (and there were plenty to choose from on Commons!), but the consensus has been that a photo was just a bit too graphic, the permission from the participants was not certain, and that the drawing type was a far better option.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)