Talk:Pieing/Archive 1

This article is about pieing as a political act

This article is about throwing pies as a political statement. Why would anybody write an article with the focus as a slapstick comedy routine? In that case, you could write an article about slipping on bannana peals or an article about pulling the chair out from behind someone. Pieing is a political act, in the context of this article. As for your changes on the "List of people who have been pied" page, I don't understand them. You categories are arbitrary. You don't know the motive as to why these people were pied. Was Calvin Klein really pied for political reasons, as you have categorized him? Let's just leave it as a simple list. I'm reverting you there, too. Griot 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been used (and is commonly used, when appropriate) in more generic sense. There is no political connotation to the word itself.

And why would the article be written? Well, to include backstory to the political point, if nothing else. To entertain the minds of trivia-buffs, if you want another one.

I don't see much of a reason behind an insistence upon this, and think there's little harm in having an amalgamated page. But if you want to resurrect the political page, and transfer material there, I wouldn't mind.

Let's not engage in a revert war when a conversation hasn't even begun. Remember Wiki etiquette, please. Lucidish 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the articles under "External links." You will see that every one of those articles discusses pieing in a political context. That is the point of this article too. I see no reason to rehash the humor of pieing in the original silent slapstick movies of the 1920s and before, except to note them as the idea for where pieing as a political act originated. Again, please read the articles cited under "External links" to understand the purpose of this Wikipedia article. Griot 05:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of the article is contained in the title, which equivocates. And since you admit the background information is permissible, I don't understand what exactly the problem is with the edit. Please clarify? Lucidish 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to understand the spirit of this article. Griot 00:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an argument. If you don't provide reasons, or even barely make any attempt to reply to my comments, I can only continue reverting. Sorry. And I must confess being quite confused: you agree with me, and said as much above.Lucidish 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But, again: if you feel so strongly about this, I'd also be happy with a split of the article and transfer political pieings away from this one. Would you prefer that? Lucidish 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this article initially because I was interested in the phonemenon of pieing as a social protest. Please respect that. That is the spirit of this article. If you want to write about forms of humor in slapstick comedy, do so, but do it on your time, not mine. I do feel very strongly about this. As for "transfering" this aticle, that is not a consideration. You may write a second article on the subject of pieing in slapstick if you want, but this article stays. Try this experiment: Search for "pieing" with Google. You will chiefly find references to "pieing" as a means of social protest. That is what the word means to most people. Therefore, this article stays; it won't be "transferred" anywhere.Griot 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Wikipedia is a leisurely activity; the time you put into it, is voluntary. I, similarly, am acting "on my own time", as is every other member.

Now, I've replied a bit more on your talk page, and I don't want to repeat myself here. Suffice it to say this article is arbitrarily narrow. Google is nothing on this matter: what matters is the word, and meaning, and whether or not you have a misleading heading. See OED.

If you cannot see the point of the argument, or budge on any option or alternative, then I will tag the article. Lucidish 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard your argument. I listened carefully to it. Again, I request you to understand what this article is about. Pieing in this context is a political act. I believe "Googling" the term is valid, because it shows very clearly what "pieing" means to most people.

Here are the first two articles you get when you Google "pieing" (as of 3/30/06): this and this. Both these articles are about pieing as a political act. The wiki article is not "arbitrarilly narrow." The Google search clearly proves what is meant by the word "pieing" today, and this article addresses that. If you object to "pieing" as a form of political protest, why not find more examples of people's objections to it and put them in this article (as is done with the David Horowitz quote in the current article.) Griot 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A word on its own has no context; idiosyncratic intentions are of no significance against the weight of conventional (and, indeed, popular) meaning. If you want to supply a context, you need to label it properly. My suggestions would make that happen.

Again: Google is irrelevant when it comes to this issue. OED is relevant. And even if Google WERE relevant, the fourth mention on a Google search is seemingly unpolitical, and merely humor: http://www.misterpoll.com/4071457649.html. So your argument doesn't make any sense even on your own terms: it is both not the popular understanding, or the formal one. Lucidish 20:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My argument makes good sense in that Google can give us a portrait of how words and ideas are defined at present. Something else: I looked up "pie" as a verb in some of my dictionaries to test your idea that I am using the term "pieing" out of context. If you are correct, the verb "to pie" means throwing a pie at someone for comic effect. However, in none of my dictionaries is "pie" defined this way. As a verb, "to pie" can mean "to make jumbled or disordered" (see here for an online definition of the verb "pie").

Clearly, your definition of "pieing" -- throwing a pie at someone in the course of a comedy sketch -- is wrong. It is not backed up by dictionaries or common usage as defined by the Internet. I have as evidence that I am using the term correctly for the title of this article the following: Google searches and a half-dozen magazine articles (see the "External links" in the article) explaining that "pieing" is a new phenomemon that means to throw a pie at someone as a means of protest. For this article to be presented outside of a political context, as you suggest, you would have to demonstrate to me that "pieing" in common usage means to throw a pie at someone for comic effect, and you have not demonstrated that, nor can you demonstrate it, I believe. Griot 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Again: Google use is invalid when the question has to do with meaning; and it is unsound on its own grounds anyway, since your selective sample hardly fits the whole population of Google results.

2. You have misunderstood my point. The purpose may be for comedy, or for politics, or anything at all. The word itself equivocates when it comes to the goal. I have said this. Read. Lucidish 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I see we're going to have to disagree about Google. If you can find another means of guaging the popular idea of what "pieing" is, I'd like to know it. My sample of Google hits was hardly "selective." Seven of the top 10 web sites found by Google take you to Web sites concerning with pieing as a political phenomenon. (Try this: Entering "pieing" in Google and click the I'm Feeling Lucky button. What do you get?

2. "The word itself equivocates when it comes to the goal." Huh? Are you trying to say that the word "pieing" doesn't have an established meaning? It doesn't, which is why someone might come to Wikipedia to find out what this pieing thing is all about. Hey kid, have a good weekend. Griot 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. My first point is semantic. If you care about meaning, you don't begin from the standpoint of popular use: you begin with the dictionary (OED). Google shows that people use the term in a popular way, but that doesn't indicate that its meaning is exhausted by those popular uses. Think of this analogy: if I say to you the word, "birds", and were to show to you that popular uses of the term are more likely to refer to robins than penguins. Does that mean that penguins are not birds? No; it just means that people want to talk about robins more often. Whatever the content of a wiki, it doesn't get to fly in the face of the lexicon. My second point is that, despite the use of Google is invalid from the getgo, it's also unsound, because you are being entirely selective by ommitting those other three from the top 10.

2. No, the word "pieing" does have an established meaning. It does not have an established meaning with respect to the target (or goal). Lucidish 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Your first point is pedantic, not semantic, as are most your points.

2. You're right it doesn't have an established meaning, except insofar as it is understood by the vox populi and the hoi polloi. As evidenced by Google (since you can come up with no other way of finding a common meaning for the term, we'll have to go with Google), that established meaning is to throw a pie as protest at a powerful person. Again, I refer you to the numerous external links in this article in which this meaning of the word is used. I give you Google, I give you newspaper articles pointing to the use of the word as I understand it. You object to this use of the word, but you offer nothing in return. Did I offend you or something? Is this personal? Is that what this is about? If so, I apologize. Griot 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes? And?

2. It does have an established meaning. You may find that meaning at the Oxford English Dictionary: OED. It equivocates with respect to target, goals, intent. For that reason, an article that is named with an equivocal name, must either disambiguate, or incorporate all. I have given all these things you claim that I haven't, which reaffirms the idea that you're not reading, let along reading with a good will.

I am irritated at your behavior, not at you. I go into conversations with the expectation that both persons will be happy to understand one another. But you are not at all trying to understand the points I am making. Lucidish 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're not explaining yourself well. Honestly, I can't understand what you're getting at. Again, I've brought to you dictionary definitions which you ignore. Again, I ask for the OED definition of pieing (I don't have an OED). What does it say in the OED, if it says anything, about "pieing"? If it says nothing, I would like some other vechicle -- dictionary definitions, Internet searches, newspaper and magazine articles -- that helps us understand what "pieing" means. I have brought all this stuff to the table. So far, you have brought nothing. Griot 02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have not understood me, it is because you have not tried. Please read.

OED. Oxford English Dictionary

[I added the subsection heading. --Timeshifter 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)]

OED: "orig. and chiefly U.S. The act or practice of throwing a (custard) pie at a person, esp. an authority figure." The 'esp.', of course, means 'especially', which indicates that it is a contingent condition, while everything that precedes it is necessary to the meaning of it. Lucidish 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The OED agrees with me. "Esp" means especially, nothing more and nothing less: Especially authority figures, but also politicians and celebrities. End of argument. I'm adding "authority figures" to article introductory sentence, as per OED.Griot 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The OED does NOT agree with you, for the reason I already laid out: it is a contingent, non-essential condition. That means it deserves inclusion in an encylopedia article, certainly, but does NOT merit taking up the entirety of the introduction. Lucidish 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro currently says "In recent years, the term has also acquired a political dimension and has come to mean throwing a pie at an authority figure." This implies that the term "pieing" was previously used for non-political pie/face interactions; but the OED doesn't support that - the earliest examples it gives, from 1977, relate to public acts of pieing, not staged comedy routines:

1977 Washington Post 20 May C3/2 Schillreff said that two teachers have been ‘pied’ in recent months without the perpetrators being punished.

1977 Bandwagon (Howland, Ohio) 9 Nov. 2/5 The line was written two weeks before the pieing incident at the opening ceremony.

Perhaps this is nitpicking, but while it's probably true to say that the act of pieing has only become political recently, the term "pieing" does not appear to have a pre-existing, non-political use. I'll have another go at expressing this in the intro. VoluntarySlave 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PNOV Notice

Why? Griot 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See above discussion. You are POV pushing. Lucidish 01:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You posted the PNOV. You're obliged to explain why. Griot 02:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have. Lucidish 02:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to stonewall you or anything. Can you just briefly explain, say in 30 words? Griot 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pieing" just means "hitting someone with a pie". It does not necessarily indicate anything about the target, or about the goal of the pier. Intros should explain the meaning of a word before going into how it is popularly used. Lucidish 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The recent edit is better. But still, there's nothing in the word that says anything about the goal. Lucidish 22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I won’t get into the full discussion you two are having about pieing, to pie, or whatever the f%ck, the purpose of such a statement is political and comedic in nature not linguistic. In context it is done to people who become too full of themselves, in other words they bear a torch and require that everyone follow. A hint of “schadenfreude” is in every pie thrown and some of the reactions by the less gracious only compound its comedic nature. They bitch and moan about their dignity or some take on free speech but revel in the legal ramifications for what is truly a harmless and classic act of comedy. The simplicity in viewing the act as effecting any real change doesn’t escape anyone. Pieing a person is meant to be derisive enough that people have a chance to laugh at a person so pompous in nature. Pope-Tart pretty much says it best regarding the idealistic and political purpose, "The pie gives power back to the people because so many feel powerless in the face of big politicians and industrialists." So don’t forget to mention Bill Gates in your article. Agent Key Lime Pie (Alpieda)

I don't understand your opening statement. Nobody throws a pie to make a point about the lexicon. As for the rest, it's just agreeing with what's already been said: comedic, political, whatever. Lucidish 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comedians Names

I removed the list of comedians names. It would be endless. The number of comedians who were pied in film and TV would go on and on. If someone really wants to construct such a list, however, they are welcome to do it and submit it as a list. Griot 00:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

Man, you gotta relax. :) Don't you see the irony in such a dispute on a page about pieing?

After looking at the edit history I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

I and others have added some info and links to this article too, and so we understand you not wanting things changed. But far as I can tell no one is deleting your stuff. We are adding to it.

I put back the material you deleted. Let us not start an edit war. There is plenty of room for more material. --Timeshifter 03:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to show there's encyclopedic value to the list that you're adding. It's not about article ownership, it's about showing that there's logic/reason to the list you added. I think either starting a new article of comedians famous for pieing or showing why the subset you picked are relevant is in order. If you do one of those, you'll avoid an edit war. -- Craigtalbert 05:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about pieing. The list is not a subset, and I did not pick it. So since it is not a subset it doesn't need any special justification. The article with the list is more encyclopedic than an article without it. It is also more NPOV. See WP:NPOV. All significant viewpoints on a topic. The topic is pieing. And pieing just for the sake of silliness is a viewpoint. As I said, you gotta relax. You need a pie in the face. You and Griot are way too serious and ideological and political. Smoke a fat one, and then eat the pie. :) --Timeshifter 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did write the original article, but geeez, this isn't a question of "ownership." Do you really intend to write a comprehensive list of comedians who've been pied? The list would go into the thousands. Everybody has their favorite pie gag. A list of comedians who've been pied in this encyclopedia article would just amount to everybody listing their favorite pie gag comedian. What's the point of that? A year ago, the World Wrestling Federation wrestlers started pieing each other and this article got saturated with wrestlers' names. Do you want that kind of thing here? Griot 16:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Griot, I think proselytizing for political pieing (PPP) is great. And it will be even greater if the article covers more aspects of pieing, because more people will visit the page. As long as the political section is clearly marked people will be able to find it using the table of contents, especially if the political section is at the top. Aron Kay would approve. MMM for PPP. :) --Timeshifter 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Timeshifter, I'm still with Griot on this one. If the list is comprehensive, I don't think it is but that seems to be what you're implying, then the obligation is on you to provide the appropriate sources and citations. Otherwise it's just an arbitrary list of comedians who have pied. I also don't see how the list represents a point of view. I've also seen in the past that personal attacks also don't look good when administrators review edit wars. -- Craigtalbert 17:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Lighten up. I believe that wikipedia requires these other aspects of pieing to be covered. Of course we can't put every person who has pied or been pied. We need some history of pieing, some modern examples of pieing just for silliness, some actors who have pied, and so on. That is how it is done on wikipedia. I think I am over a thousand edits now, so I know a little about this. I am not a newbie. --Timeshifter 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you should be equally as good at researching to produce information that has encyclopedic value and providing relevant citations and information to show that it is. -- Craigtalbert 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously better than you since I created the references section here, and converted external links to references links. I also added details to the reference links. So I am good and you should pay attention. I just added another reference link. For The Three Stooges. Your comments are uncivil and annoying. I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Civility. --Timeshifter 10:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The list this started over still lacks citations or reasoning/logic for it's place in this article. -- Craigtalbert 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the comedians on the list are discussed previously in the article. The logic for the list is obvious, and already discussed over many months on this talk page. It is the history of pieing. I will add some "citations needed" tags. {{facts}}

Comedians famous for the technique of pieing

• Bugs Bunny
• The Three Stooges
• Soupy Sales
• Monty Python
• Charlie Chaplin
• The Marx Brothers --Timeshifter 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need a list. Rather, we need actual prose, only when we're talking about historically influential figures. In that regard, the influence of Charlie Chaplin, the Stooges, and Soupy Sales need treatment here. Also required: the Keystone Cops, Mack Sennett, and Mabel Normand. Bugs Bunny or Monty Python aren't especially memorable or historical when it comes to this area, so they don't really deserve much mention.

A topic so serious as this requires the utmost diligence and scrutiny from sensible persons. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"A topic so serious". Was that satire? I can't believe that another wikipedia page has been overrun by ideologues. About pieing!!! OK. I am outnumbered by list-phobes who need a pie in the face. I put the comedians in the article prose. --Timeshifter 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ideologues about maintaining the quality of wikipedia and not allowing it to be overrun with uncited arbitrary material. -- Craigtalbert 03:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Ben to TS) I was kidding, dude. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whew, I was worried. :) --Timeshifter 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The comedians have pieing cites in their wikipedia pages and also in the article itself. In fact I added some of the cites. Cites can be copied from the other wikipedia pages. It is not arbitrary material since most of them are well-known for pieing. The arbitrariness is in your annoying invective. All talk and no action. From the history I don't see that you have added anything to the article other than a section title. --Timeshifter 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just ask that you make sure they're noteworthy in the history of it. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)