Talk:Teabagger

Change page to a list of links
There is a lot of re-ordering and shuffling going on. I would very much like to convert this to a proper WP:Disambiguation page. There's no need to restate the multiple definitions here, since links are provided to the various specific pages pertaining to teabagger. This will hopefully cut down on the vandalism whereby people insert and/or wikify the term "teabagger" in articles relating to the 2009 Tea Party Protests, associating the protesters with the sexual act of the same name. No content will be lost, as most of it is already covered in the articles this page links to. Anything that is only on this page, including references, will be moved to the appropriate article. — Mike : tlk  00:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to restate the multiple definitions here I agree. Is there anyone here who would disagree? The Squicks (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like an attempt to broadcast the slander of Tea Party folks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. This is nothing but a desire to make this a proper disambiguation page, without the phrase "place scrotum into their mouth" popping up in Tea Party Protest-related articles. I don't care about the order of definitions now that a description of the sexual act is on the page about the act, not on this disambiguation page. There was no information on this page that wasn't already in the pages that are linked to. — Mike : tlk  00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was fine as a redirect to the Movement article. The info should be merged into a god section but that has met resistance. So although there was some bad faith assumed up above, I can see why someone might see this as a coatrack (I doubt it was the intent though).Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has acquired much more information since 11 September 2009, and The Squicks "is no longer active on Wikipedia as of November 2009." -12.7.202.2 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter how much it has changed. About a third of the sources aren't even RS anyways. Articles for deletion/Teabagger was no consensus to delete but redirecting in some form was clearly the preferred option. There were two discussions at Talk:Tea Party movement regrading the move. Although there were a couple who opposed it they did not provide sufficient arguments and the editors who agreed stayed on topic. Then two more editors agreed at the only somewhat related discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814. And the edit history shows that at least another two editors are removing your redirect. It is clear that it should be a redirect for now. If you want to change that we can discuss more but until those discussions are complete you need to stop edit warring the info back in because you alone should not be holding this article hostage.
 * So forgetting your sockpuppetry (it appears that you are a blocked user. Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight or at least abusing IPs), the following is what was at the merge discussion a couple weeks ago:
 * Teabagger recently had an article for deletion discussion that was closed for a lack of consensus. Merging the information was discussed. My reasoning:
 * There are currently three separate articles discussing the Tea Party movement. Teabagger and Tea Party protests are the others. That is too many to comfortably navigate, is redundant, and presents upkeep concerns. The fact that Teabagger is a dictionary definition for members of the movement can easily be discussed in a short paragraph here.
 * As sourced "tebagger" may refer to a man having his testicles sucked. It could also realistically refer to a video gamer who mocks the act. There is now a disambiguation page. Teabagger can redirect to that page and it can be modified to mention that "teabagger" is an informal name for Tea Party movement protesters in the See also section.
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary."
 * So until consensus is to overturn the redirect you need to stop.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a footnote: It doesn't appear that 12.xxx is a blocked user, as you suggested above.  Just swinging that ol' "innocent until proven guilty" addage. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. But agreed those two edits from TX do change things.Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No "opinion" about it. Either an editor is blocked, or he isn't. It is a simple matter of fact, not opinion.  12.7.202.2 has never been blocked, and Mbhiii has never been blocked for sockpuppetry - neither are blocked now.  He did have some IPs and accounts he used blocked over a year ago, for possible vote stacking.  I'd recommend keeping an eye out for breach of 3RR by multiple accounts, or influencing consensus with multiple accounts; but until such violations actually happen, you guys should focus on resolving your editing differences here. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You believe he isn't I believe he might be. So "belief" then. And it has been discussed by many (with little input from the IP) here, at Tea Party movement, a deletion discussion, and ANI. It is time for the to stop reverting. I am happy to continue discussing and he can even do an RfC but until consensus says otherwise he is being disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been plenty of time for a response. Even if there wasn't, he is the only one holding this up after numerous people have supported. Making the change again. Hate slow edit wars but I am looking at this more of reverting disruption. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "insult" NPOV ?
Mike says that the tag "insult" is NPOV. I strongly disagree that it is an NPOV violation to say that "teabagger" is used as an insult. The term is not used by by tea party folks, and is used by anti-tea party folks in an effort to deride the tea party folks. Note that it's quite typical for insulting terms to be labelled as insults or pejoratives. E.g.: Faggot "a pejorative ", Nigger "a pejorative term", Spic "an ethnic slur", Wingnut "Wingnut (politics), a derogatory American slang term". Labeling pejoratives as such is the norm in Wikipeda, and is not an NPOV violation. TJIC (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't feel as strongly about this now as I did earlier. Go ahead.— Mike : tlk  00:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the term has been used by the tea party folks. There are many examples, and even protest signs that use the term - with no mistaking the intentional connotations. Some Tea Partiers have even embraced the term - just look at the comments at the end of that link. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)