Talk:Sack tapping

Privacy concerns

While the news reports detail the boy's name and location, I have not included that in this article. I will leave that up to other editors to decide whether it should be included. --moreno oso (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. He is a minor and a crime victim, and it would not improve the article to cite his name and location. Voices, Private Eyes, and H2O (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit

As requested, basic copy-editing was performed. Some content are expressed poorly or incorrectly. I recommend that editors improve these expressions. I also inserted a tag with comment. Please read this. Copy-editing can be requested again by placing the {{copyedit}} talk in article or by contacting me. Davtra (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the clarification tag and am not sure the "to whom" applies. Several of the cited stories say that charges could be filed but don't go into depth. Since this is most likely a misdeamor at this point, it would be up to the parents to file the case because most likely the local D.A. will not press charges unless the victim/parents step forward. Since the child has been bullied twice, loss of scrotum and removal from school to avoid long-term bullying, I doubt the parents will proceed with charges. Since all the detailed facts were not present and my suppositions would be original thought, I did not include it. How would write what I just said to clarify it? ----moreno oso (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My comment should be dismissed. I wanted to emphasize who would/should be charged for the criminal offences: the causalities going into hospital or the attacker? The way it was written sounds like that causalities going into the hospital should be charged. However, Dr. Wheeler meant that the attackers could be charged (and also using common sense). I've added "against the attacker" in the sentence. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I asked a lawyer friend last night for an "unofficial opinion" based upon theoretical similar game involving injuries. While this involves a bit of original research, I will render his opinion. He surmised that the DA may have faced with with a quandry of whom to charge. In essence it becomes aggravation and escalation issues. The main questions to be answered would be how long were the individuals playing the game, did they understand all the ramifications to include intent to do bodily harm and was the injured party the result of retailation. He said based upon the similar words used in the article (he does not know about the article but I am speaking in a generalization), an assistant DA likely made the determination that there was not enough info to charge any or all parties and because of limited capacity of minors would be a difficult charge to convince a jury. Now, he said a civil matter/case would be different but it would be up to the parents to initiate the suit. Yes, they could go to the DA for criminal prosecution but that since there probably are not "laws on the books" about this type offense, the prosecution or charge would a general one using other precedence law. In essence, he opined that it would be easier for the parents to go to for tort offense but that they would need to be extremely sure that they had all the facts which he doubted could be obtained. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read a version that doesn't include the word "casuality" or the phrase "sociological manifestation of bullying", here's one. jnestorius^(talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, this article has had several copyedits already. Several were by admins doing the DYK review. Then, out of the blue, a copyeditor showed up - probably because of the tag. Minor copyedits or actual improvements to the article would be one thing but wholesale deletions are another. And, I think the copyeditor used or improved that term too. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I showed up because I read the DYK on the main page and thought the word "amputation" was in dire need of improvement. A limb is amputated; a testicle is removed. We have an article about orchiectomy. The prose remains full of spelling errors, ungrammatical, unidiomatic and awkward phrases, and inconsistencies.

There is no description of the practice. Does it have to be punching, or can slapping, kicking or a blunt instrument be used? If it is a game, how does one win? The assertion that there are two participants is unsupported and ambiguous. Does it mean two people set on a third, or two boys attack each other; in the latter case is this alternating or simultaneous?

What is "sociological manifestation of bullying" meant to mean? I couldn't find it in any of the sources. None of Adolescence, Parenting, and Sociology count as "main articles" for "sociological impact of sack tapping". The article reads like a news report, not an encyclopedia article; why do we need to know that the orchiectomy boy's mother withdrew him from the school? Did she find another school with a tough policy on sack-tapping? There are too many direct quotations and low-relevance wikilinks. The {{Bullying}} template is not appropriate because the article is not listed on the Template; Category:Template is sufficient. jnestorius^(talk) 10:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my concern as well. The "Sociological impact" section can be written in two or three sentences. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Endemic in Australia

I can't really come up with a source to back up my claims, other than I've been tapped, and have tapped others before. Its generally a high school/college type of thing, and it's more common in Catholic private schools than public schools, from personal experience. I don't think I can prove this to meet WP:V though. :( -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we all have experience this. However, today's school children are experiencing bullying on a scale most older people cannot imagine. Their escapades often are recorded on phone cams, emailed to others and end up viral on YouTube or other media sources. While this is part WP:OR, our generation may scoff this off; theirs have to live with dangerous stunts or games that being taken to a higher dangerous level with deep sociological impact. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's topic is not noteworthy

This article is stupid and pointless. You people should see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTABILITY. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a copy of urbandictionary.com (Huey45 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

I think I understand your view. Please note that this article was created on 2 June 2010. New articles usually lack quality content (and sometimes are poorly written and expressed). We agree that Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. This article will not solely define 'sack tapping' definitions. This subject is new to the media, and at this stage, reliable sources are scarce. I believe new studies will examine the physiological and sociological impacts of sack tapping. Once these studies are published, they will be added to this article. I also believe this article will improve and expand in future. If improvement and expansion does not occur, it may be processed for deletion. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Huey45, and as such nominated this article for deletion. Binarywraith (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion to earlier revision

The article has been reverted twice to a previous version of the article which contained unencyclopaedic material (which was sourced, but badly). In my opinion, the current article is in a much better state, so I've reverted the reversions. Claritas § 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that was missing is this, It has also been referred to as "Roshambo", a synonym for the game rock-paper-scissors, as a result of that name being used in a 1998 episode of South Park and its citation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37455920/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/). The msnbc.com article contains statistics and history. This is what Morenooso wanted to include in this article, and I think it should be included. But it needs to be somehow written in a logical order so that everyone will understand. Davtra (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is more than than and I explained to you on your talkpage. When this article first hit the DYK process, an editor tried to use a Slate magazine piece to debunk the article. However, the article chosen supports the history totally. While the article name may be new, the reporter stated he had taken "crown jewel shots" since the 1960s and how the LA Times viewed the fad. Bullying has been around a lot longer than 1960 and probably goes back to Cain and Abel or Caesar and Marc Anthony. It's a real shame how the DYK process has brought in edits that have "sack tapped" this article. I was going to do a rewrite but now drop that idea.----moreno oso (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing a rewrite? If this has something to do with me, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to kill your motivation. Davtra (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullying?

I take issue with the first sentence labeling this activity as bullying.

While it certainly can be used to bully others, it in itself is not necessarily bullying anymore than a "noogie" is. If noogies are listed under "pranks" and not "bullying techniques" (which they are, if you search for noogie on this very Wiki), then so-too should sack-tapping (tippers, as me and my friends call them). I have decided to fix the first sentence to reflect this. The previous first sentence seemed sensationalist at best.71.227.7.35 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a WP:RELIABLE source describing it as a "prank". Heiro 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)