![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)