Talk:Tea party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007

Recent entries have been done with 21st Century sensibility, and in some cases have completely changed the sense of what was intended. Some examples: 1. Put back WP style bold at first use of term. 2. can be-> 'is'. It either IS or it ISN'T. "Can be" correctly explained at disambig. page 3. political correctness ladies->"women". this is not the same thing. "Women" did not hold "tea parties", "ladies" did. perhaps needs to be explained in context? 4. discussion of other types of tea exist at specified topics. no need to discuss 4 o'clock tea, e.g. here 5. regional bias to be removed. It is in no way true that the baby shower is the best known example of a tea party. Quill 02:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tea culture

Someone might want to compare this article with the relevant bits of Tea culture and think about what belongs where. FlagSteward 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Check

This article shows a distinct US-centric bias. It starts with "in Anglo-American culture", which is not great. Surely it should begin with explaining the general concept of a tea party before diverting into regional variations. (The first sentence also makes a strange statement about male/female participants which has no reference at all).

The next paragraph is worrying as it only mentions British customs 100-150 years ago and nothing later, and then the rest of the sentence is told from a US point of view. I'm assuming the comment about "stay-at-home wives" is a global generalisation, but the comments about "debutante teas of some affluent American communities" and the "fancy baby shower" are both US-centric. Nothing is mentioned about modern tea parties anywhere else in the world at all. Once more these is no reference to back anything up either and I think most of it looks like WP:OR.

The last paragraph quotes an American woman on etiquette and briefly mentions a British author - not in reference to tea parties but as a way of backing up another perceived statement from Emily Post on being a hostess. Again this looks like more original research.

No mention of modern tea parties anywhere else in the world, or even just in modern day Britain. No mention of the history, just comments on what they used to be like before WWII. What about the Mad Hatter's Tea Party from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I know that the culture of tea parties spread to South America with the arrival of the British - this is even referenced in a scene from Evita. I'm sure more can be done to make this article more representative of different cultures and their tea drinking. Howie ☎ 16:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

poor writing

This article has numerous grammatical errors, reading like a faulty translation. Please get with somebody who understands both English and the writer's main language and rewrite it completely. 4.249.15.254 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

could you perhaps be a bit more specific? --Ludwigs2 18:52, 15 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved; with Tea party -> Tea Party, which seems to have broad support. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

– The primary topic for this common English phrase is the topic designated by its plain, surface meaning: a party involving tea. Please don't quote me raw Google results that attempt to prove otherwise; the currently popular political movement can in no way be said to supplant the basic, ages-old meaning, any more than Apple Computer has supplanted the simple apple, no matter what Teh Google says. Powers T 21:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I should point out that the article was originally at Tea party and was boldly moved without discussion in 2009. This proposal would restore the status quo ante. Also, I would accept moving the disambiguation page to Tea Party, since all of the uses outside of this one are proper nouns. Powers T 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the dab page should be capitalised. —  AjaxSmack  03:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The article does now. It seems to be notable, for weddings, 18th-19thC Britain and N.America, child play. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the citations. They certainly establish the existence of tea parties but not that they are particularly notable. As User:Kauffner notes below, the tea party as a social gathering is a self-explanatory phrase and is a marginal topic. —  AjaxSmack  02:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tea party the social gathering is a self-explanatory phrase, and quite marginal as an encyclopedic topic. It's not like anyone has written a history of tea parties, or tried to figure out when mankind first sat around and drank tea together. Readership for the social gathering went from 2,800 views a month back in 2008 to 7,500 now. Tea Party movement gets 160,000 views a month. So I suspect most of the current readership is looking for information on the political movement. Kauffner (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear primary topic (there is not even one topic on the dis page other than this that is lower case). Tea Party movement could probably be at Tea Party right now, but there is a lot of recentism there - in 20 years the Boston Tea Party and others could have equal traffic. Apteva (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear primary topic. A tea party, by itself, is a party where people drink tea, not an ultra-conservative political manifesto. And anyway, if the conservative political topic becomes as notable, it can be moved to Tea Party, as Wikipedia page names are case-sensitive. JIP | Talk 07:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments above. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Tea Party movement is a reference to the Boston Tea Party which itself was an ironic reference to the social gathering. Contrary to what one editor writes, it is not a "self-explanatory phrase", no one talks about coffee parties, wine parties, beer parties. Although tea is served, it implies a degree of formality and civility. TFD (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I note that we don't have an entry for coffee klatch, despite the fact that this phrase is common enough to appear in Merriam-Webster. It similarly self-explanatory, even if you have never heard the word "klatch" before. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. TFD is exactly correct about how the use of the phrase has evolved. The social gathering is clearly the primary topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The "Tea Party" - political party grouping movement whatever - is a regional (US Centric) which directly or indirectly points back to the 'social gathering' as a form of grassroots movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunitedfront (talk • contribs) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Tea party (social gathering is not only the primary meaning of Tea party (uncapitalised), currently it's the only article we have under the uncapitalised name. It would IMO also be the primary meaning if we didn't already regularly use disambiguation by case, but there's no need to even discuss that here, because we do. As to where Tea Party (capitalised) should point, I'm not overly concerned as to whether it points to Tea party or to a DAB or is a DAB itself or any one of many other options, just so long as there's a first-line pointer to Tea party if it doesn't point straight there. Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This discussion has now been going on for 12 days without a single oppose vote (there was one, but it was struck out). Isn't it time to close the discussion and move the article already? JIP | Talk 16:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't see the american rebel action or political party being a more primary reason, it makes sense to move it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In an encyclopedia (not a dictionary), I would expect the title to more likely take me to an historical event in Boston, or to something on recent political activity in the USA. That said, I agree with Powers T 21:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC) that the original version should be considered the default in this RM discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cassatt's painting

Besides it already being an appallingly poor article, Cassatt's paiting is just that: a painting. It cannot be taken as a representation of the reality after which it is named. Two ladies having tea is not quite a party. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tea_party/Archive_1&oldid=1137220716"