Talk:Teabagging/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

the lead

I don't think this information should be in the WP:LEAD because of WP:RECENTISM but if you insist we can leave it there. I did edit it a little to be more clear. Sandeylife (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

why tea party members are called teabaggers

I added the information on why tea party members are called teabaggers but it was removed I guess because it was not sourced? Regardless we need to find a source that explains the Tea Party activists wore tea bags dangling off their hats and that is how the pun emerged. We do not need to discuss how this happened, that is for the article on the Tea Party movement and that is why I removed the information on CNN/MSNBC. First of all, that is information for those articles and second journalists did not originally used the term "teabagger" The Tea Party activists themselves first used the term. Anyway, and I reiterate, I don't think the details about why the pun emerged are appropriate for this article, just that the pun exists, because the whole story of it is #1 politically charged and #2 contains too much detail for this article. Sandeylife (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article about it on the National Review's site (conservative perspective) link Let me know what you think we should do. Sandeylife (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also it is not a Pejorative at all. As stated above they call themselves that, and I'd argue they are more than well aware of the connotations and are okay because it causes people to talk about them more often than not. Its a publicity thing. I've changed the introduction such that it no longer labels the term as a pejorative. it is more accurate to simply say that it is used because it is used as both a pejoration and as a melioration. Aramilalpha (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "The activity has been discussed in the media as the term is used to refer to those in the Tea Party movement." in the introduction is clearly WP:UNDUE. The fact that it has been used to mock this particular group of people is just a WP:COATRACK to get another cheap laugh. Mention in the body of the article maybe. In the introduction, it would only be appropriate if this was an important fact about the activity itself: this article is about the activity, not about the word. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So your real reason for removal was not as you stated in the edit summaries? This has been discussed at great length on multiple pages. Efforts were taken to remove WP:RECENTISM. At one point it was a couple paragraphs in its own section. Mentioning it in the lead is both inline with WP:LEAD by improving the summary and necessary to increase this articles rating on the assessment scale from past precedent at GA discussions. As single factual line in the lead that is in no way a cheap shot should not be problematic unless you just don't like it. Furthermore, the sources verify that it is noteworthy as a "word" related to the "activity". Efforts have been made to not make this a dictionary definition.Cptnono (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My real reason for objecting to the sentence "The activity is prominent in the media as the term is used to refer to those in the Tea Party movement." was summarised as "unsourced material, looks like original research" which is quite accurate: there is no source that states that the activity is prominent and indeed I rather suspect it has never been seen at all on mainstream media: I expanded this summary as "The _activity_ is not "prominent in the media", the _word_ stated later to have been used, "prominent" is OR" and I still see no source for the term "prominent", which looks like an original opinion.

The sentence "The activity has been discussed in the media as the term is used to refer to those in the Tea Party movement." has the merits, unlike the previous version, of reflecting accurately the later discussion and sources. So it is now reasonable to raise a second question, whether this statement about one particular use of the word is sufficiently notable to merit a position in the introduction. Seeing this as "necessary to increase this articles rating" is quite misconceived: I deny the necessity. Where on earth does that come from?

Since Cptnono allows themselves the freedom to impute some kind of concealment of my motivation, I suggest they remind themselves of WP:TPG#YES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Apologies for that. It just appeared pretty blatant that you were looking for any reasoning to remove the line as made evident by continued removal over rewording it and changing arguments to remove it . If you say you are actually interested in improvement than I am happy to AGF.

Regarding the line, it is common in article quality discussions to ensure that the lead touches on prominent aspects of the article. It barely brushes upon it which is fine since there is only a short mention in the body. However, there are numerous sources asserting its noteworthiness not being used. I whittled it down as to not engage in citation overkil but we could add another dozen sources if you need proof.Cptnono (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is there a reliable source stating that this use of the term is the most prominent use in mainstream media? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It no longer says "prominent". It is a line at the end of the lead simply saying it was discussed.Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE calls for "the most important points covered". Is there a reliable source stating that this use of the term is one of the most important points of this activity? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The amount of sources alone points to its noteworthiness. Some editors even called for a separate article on the term so the line is one way of merging that into this article where it is certainly related. If it is good enough for mention in the body it surely is good enough for a simple factual line in the lead. Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a sexual act. WP:LEDE: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". It seems most unlikely that the most important thing about this sex act is that one of the terms for it has been used to mock a certain political movement. Hence this sentence is inappropriate for the introduction. If there are reliable sources stating that this is indeed the most important thing about the sex act, by all means produce them. Otherwise the right place for discussing the use of this particular term by the media would be where it already sits, namely towards the end of the body of the article.

By way of parallel, would it be one of the most important points about Milk that Margaret Thatcher was once attacked as "milk-snatcher"; one of the most important points about Monks that the Dalai Lama has been termed a "political monk"; one of the most important points about Whales that George IV was termed "the Prince of Whales"? No? Then it is not one of the most important points about Tea bag (sexual act) that the Tea Party movement has been sniggered at for having a name reminiscent of a slang term for a sex act. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I already answer this. No one said it is the most important aspect. It is an aspect that received significant amounts of coverage, though. It is an important point according to the breadth of those sources. Video games gets a mention in the lead. That certainly is not the most important aspect. Should that be removed as well? The lead should be a standalone sumary and at this time it touches on multiple aspects as it should.Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In summary, then, you think that one of "the most important points" about this sex act is that its name has been used to mock a political movement, and I think that this is not one of the most important points. Correct? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. I rely on the prominence it has received in the sources. According to your logic, the whole second paragraph of the lead needs to be removed which would degrade the article. Am I incorrect in my interpretation?Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not divert into what you think I might think about some other part of the article. Whether or not it matters what you think, do you in fact think that one of "the most important points" about this sex act is that its name has been used to mock a political movement? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not some other part of the article. It is the lines right before it. I think the video games and hazing (which have less sources) are also important aspects. The second paragraph of the lead is a quick summary of the second section of the article as is the precedent across higher quality articles on the project. And yes, it is important. That is clear in the number of sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. I'll take my summary of 19:08 above as agreed then and leave it at that until some other editors comment and a consensus emerges. What about Wikipedia:Third opinion? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well many editors edited around the line without removing so I assume consensus would be to keep it as is. But feel free to open an RfC.Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Bag (sexual act) lead

Should a line regarding the Tea Party movement be included in the lead since there is information about it in the body?

Currently (but of course open to modification), it is "The activity has been discussed in the media as the term is used to refer to those in the Tea Party movement." in the second paragraph that also discusses other aspects such as video games and hazing. The intent of the paragraph is to summarize the second section of the article. It is sourced in the body (WP:LEAD) but more can be provided if necessary. There have been issues with WP:RECENTISM over the last several months but at least some mention was part of the solution to fixing that.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The scope of this RfC is if a line should be in not the line itself. I personally preferred the previous line "The activity is prominent in the media as the term is used to refer to those in the Tea Party movement" (which is true) but "prominent" was not sourced. Any discussion on how the line should be handled should be another discussion.Cptnono (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I see nothing wrong with including it in the lead. It summarizes something that is discussed, with verifiable sourcing, in the body of the page. I wonder, though, whether the wording of the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the ways that this usage is satirical, rather than a usage widely accepted by the membership of the movement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: I can see the recentism objection here, and I'm not sure if this is lead material. I'd not be opposed to a mention in the article as this appears to be out there, meaning in RS. If the issue fades away then editors will probably remove the line in the future, which would be OK. --Dailycare (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: Keep in body, not in lead. As I understand it, the movement calls itself the "Tea Party", and that "Tea Bag" or "Tea Baggers" is used as a pejorative by those opposed to the Tea Party's goals and/or tactics. I am aware that early on some individuals in the Tea Party (I recall a sign shown on Bill Mahr's show) did also use the term (unaware of the sexual meaning), but such use ceased after the sexual meaning became widely known. Should we add pejorative use to the lead of every article in which it is applicable? I do not think so. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

When the sources give it prominence we should give it prominence regardless of the sometimes (or even often) negative connotation. Also, having it in the body and not the lead means this will never be a good article per that process.Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind saying that "having it in the body and not the lead means this will never be a good article"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because articles with insufficient leads to not make it past GA reviews typically. And if something this well sourced is removed then we might as well axe the whole second paragraph since those other aspects have even less sources. I wish editors would stop seeing it as mocking the movement and instead see it as something that was well sourced.Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But if, as I claim, this is not important enough for the lead, then the lead would not be insufficient without it. Your argument is that you want the lead to contain "the most important points", and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. What we are disagreeing about is whether this point is indeed one of those "most important" points. I say not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: Body, not lead. This article is about a sexual act. WP:LEDE: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". It is not one of the most important things about this sex act that a word for it was briefly used to mock a particular political movement. Hence this sentence is inappropriate in the introduction. The right place for discussing the use of this particular term by the media would be where it already sits, namely towards the end of the body of the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Inclusion in the Lead - I give this debate an 8 out of 10 on my scale of really really stupid arguments. The Tea Party shouldn't be mentioned in this article at all, much less in the lead. Wikipedia is not a place for juvenile, sexually explicit word association. Who cares if this tidbit is verifiable, is it notable? And more importantly, does it really give the reader any worthwhile information? NickCT (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

More of that? Not including it all goes back to past discussions. Please feel free to open a new one on if it is not acceptable in the body. Again, my reason for keeping a line in the lead is because it is in the body. I was hoping editors would want to discuss MoS and general structure and not have knee-jerk reactions to content. Also, why are you being a dick and throwing "stupid" around? Second, notability does not impact content but article creation. If notability did impact content, teabaggers would deserve more of a mention than video games and hazing based on the amount of sources.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you throwing "dick" around? (chuckle)... No seriously, you're right, my comments were a knee-jerk reaction. I did not take the time to review previous discussion on this matter, but I would find it hard to imagine any good reason to include this material in the article. I'd imagine whoever pushed for including this material has some itch to scratch vis-a-vis the Tea Party, and is abusing WP:V to scratch it.

Re "Second, notability does not impact content but article creation" - Shenanigans! The principle obviously applies. An article about Tea bag (sexual act) is not an invitation to include everything ever written about the subject. Some bits of information simply aren't notable. WP is NOT and endless collection of trivia and minutia.

Re "reason for keeping a line in the lead is because it is in the body" - Again, I'm not really looking at this closely, but not everything in the body needs to be summarized in the lead. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, every key point needs to be in the lead or else this will never make GA. Ever. That is the way that process works. So by the logic provided, the whole second paragraph will be removed (since the teabagger thing has dozens if not hundreds of more sources than the other aspects) and we will have an insufficient lead. Thanks for screwing this article up by having a knee-jerk reaction and not looking into it (not just you, Nick, but everyone else who bottled this). Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono - The fact you suggest that the word association between Tea bag (sexual act) and Tea Party movement is a key point to be noted in the lead suggests to me that you are wildly wildly off-base. I'd encourage you to re-examine your motives and the logic behind your proposal. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to reexamine. I think it is worthy of notice due to the number of sources. Others had a knee-jerk reaction. So it was removed. I also removed the rest of the paragraph since those had much less sources. Either you want an article that is going to increase in the assessment scale or you want to remove information that seems unfavorable. You can't have both. I say screw it, let it stay at C class. The body is intact and it is way better when paragraphs of information were devoted to the teabaggers. I can't believe I whittled it down to 2 lines and people still moaned about it. Should we go back to that? I'll revert my edit done months ago that removed it all. Like I said, it is a shame.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC comment This article should be eliminated in favor of a simple wiktionary definition. There is no "phenomenon" here, this supposed act has a clever metaphoric name so everybody likes to say it (at least when mommy is not around). Compare with the article on French Kissing, and eliminate everything from this article that is not in that article, and then consider the relative importance to society of the two modes of oral stimulation and reduce the article of lesser importance to even fewer words. Would anybody suggest resolving this question by creating a disambiguation link and putting the Tea Party usage in a different article? No, and you know why? this entire article goes through the motions of being encyclopedic about something that is of interest to smut-stage adolescents only 96.246.172.37 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tea-Bagging in gaming.

I know it's an amazingly minor note, but the practice in gaming predates Halo and by far. I remember it from games as early as Rainbow 6, and I'm sure that it existed before that.

68.49.92.69 (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

What's up with the image? I know wikipedia isn't censored, but last time I checked, most sexual articles contained images that were not censored, but were purely academic ('normal shape' people without expressions or an excess of detail) or historic (Karma Sutra images, old paintings, etc.). The current one looks distinctly like it's from one of those virtual reality porn sites. Surely the article can do better than use an image from virtual porn? The article only needs an image that shows what it is, it doesn't need details. Xanofar (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It compliments the text just fine. It is on par with the images in other articles so I surprised you would say otherwise. But feel free to create another image. Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the image depicts a straight couple, while teabagging seems to be more often considered an act between two men nowadays.74.89.78.187 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a source for that? Anyways, it would be interesting if you created the image so that it could be included.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point on the caption for the image. I don't think that "a woman teabagging" is quite correct. I would think that the woman being the "teabagee" would be in the position of being "teabagged", and that the man should be the one described as doing the teabagging. However, "a man teabagging" seems to exclude the participation of the woman! Perhaps "a (heteresexual?) couple teabagging" would be better?Nelliejellynoonaa (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done.Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the image should be removed completely. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of the sexual act as described in the article. I also think it's slightly offensive. For instance I wouldn't dare opening this page at work, or sending this wiki article to family. I've discussed this with other mates and they all agree. --- JB 31.54.67.56 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 31.54.67.56. It's not like the act is so detailed and complicated that readers won't picture it in their minds from the description alone without a visual aide. The drawing seems to be there for it's salacious impact and not because it was necessary. 24.47.173.120 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

[I'm sorry - this is me. I didn't realize that my log-in had timed out. Wordreader (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)]

The image depicts the act described in the article. I see no reason to remove it. The "NSFW" argue doesn't work as most articles related to sex or genitals have some illustration of the topic: e.g., pubic hair, vagina, scrotum, anal sex, futanari. Wikipedia does not censor. It is neither intended to be safe for work nor protect delicate sensibilities. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is correct. Generally. I state "generally" because Wikipedia indeed does take readers' sensibilities into account with regard to images, per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point Flyer22. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@JB: Why would you send this article to family at all? And if you did, the subject would be no less intimate than the picture... --2A00:C1A0:4886:C00:ED20:BA20:2F92:D8F6 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Female version?

There should probably a mention in the article of the female version, but I can't really pin down what it is. The UD has a list of possible terms [1], but Wikianswers says clambagging [2]. --Auric 16:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Find RS then go for it.Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably facesitting. -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teabagging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150103061618/http://www.savvymiss.com/love-advice/sex-advice/sex-sex-sex-archive/article/eight-unique-oral-sex-techniques-6522.html to http://www.savvymiss.com/love-advice/sex-advice/sex-sex-sex-archive/article/eight-unique-oral-sex-techniques-6522.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915174452/http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=6927&issue=950 to http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=6927&issue=950

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)