Talk:Pabst Blue Ribbon

Defining tweet terms
, your point is well taken that the word "anilingus" does not appear in any of the sources. But the slang term eat ass redirects to the page. What I am adding I see as a definition for readers not familiar with the term, versus any sort of interpretation of the original tweet. The phrase only refers to that one thing, so all my previous edit is doing is defining the two phrases (Dry January and eating ass). Perhaps better phrasing that doesn't overclaim a definition would be "'Not drinking this January? Try eating ass', referencing Dry January and using a slang term use to refer to anilingus." --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Slang expressions are not always meant to be taken literally. When Bart Simpson says "eat my shorts" he does not expect someone to start chewing his underwear. Likewise, telling someone to "eat ass" does not necessarily mean that oral-anal contact is expected. I don't agree with the redirect to anilingus, which appears to be the unchallenged opinion of one editor. We don't need to interpret tweets, that would be WP:OR. Just let the tweet stand by itself, and let the readers draw their own meanings. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure your comparison tracks. "Eating ass" is a very well defined term in modern slang (including in the parent article anilingus, and is the entire crux of the incident: the fact that a brand made an "X-Rated", "NSFW" (as the headlines say) reference to a sex act. The general reaction to the tweet doesn't make sense unless the reader understands the meaning of the term "eating ass". The addition should at least read "'Not drinking this January? Try eating ass', referencing Dry January and using a slang term often used to refer to anilingus." I also found a source that makes the connection between the term and the sex act. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the article should not mention anilingus, it's an unwarranted interpretation of a tweet that was not meant to be taken literally. Going a step further, it seems to me that the material about the Dry January tweet can be removed from the article entirely.  While I admit that I personally found it to be of some interest -- I believe I even chuckled briefly --  I think this is a case of recentism, and not important enough to mention in the article.  — Mudwater (Talk) 22:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I'm outnumbered on this one, I will drop the inclusion of specific prose, but the significant coverage from several reliable sources seem like in the scope of the Marketing of PBR (the section where this is included), this is a significant event. --Cerebral726 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)