User talk:Beverett54

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Teabagging. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Verbal chat  17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Beverett54. I'm hoping to resolve our disagreement concerning the clause in the teabagging article, and I want to know whether you had read the discussion page's section on the political usage. I'd like to have a dialogue there rather than simply edit-warring, if that's OK with you. Yours, Elvestinkle (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your post on my talk page: Indeed, but the clause is worded thus: "latching onto language and accoutrement used by some of the protesters themselves." It is not necessary that they have called themselves teabaggers for the term to have originated from their use of the language. The fact that the phrase "teabag" was used as a verb by some of the protesters is sufficient evidence toward their contribution to the propogation of the term by critics. I have no horse in the support/sympathizer/critic race; my concern is the linguistic spread, and there is clear prior art by protesters. The term was not simply created out of thin air by critics, but drew on the protesters' own usage. I am happy to work with you to craft a more neutral POV wording, but simply removing the fact from the page is a step too far IMO.

Again, I invite you to have this discussion on the actual article's talk page, where others can contribute constructively as well. Cheers, Elvestinkle (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The clause in no way mitigates the fact that it's a derogatory term--that is not the point of the article. The article's purpose is to document the phrase and its origins, and its origins are inextricably liked with Tea Party protesters' usage of the terminology. Omitting that fact in a discussion of origins is incomplete at best, and revisionism at worst.Elvestinkle (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Teabagging, you will be blocked from editing. Verbal chat  14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)