This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gratuity. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gratuity at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Talk:Tip/Archive 1: Old and off-topic threads - August 2006

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hengoi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a story on National Public Radio in the USA - many years ago - which indicated the word 'tips' originated as an acronym for "To Insure Prompt Service." Anybody have any idea whether there is research to support that etymology?

Similarly, though not relevant hear, a presenter on WJR radio in Detroit (sometime in the 1970's) indicated the word 'cop' also originated as an acronym - "Constable On Patrol". No idea whether that one is true or not.

The story that the slang "Wop" originated as 'W.O.P.' for "Without Papers" is definitely not true; rather, 'wop' and 'woppa' are phonetic corruptions of Spanish "guapo."

50.115.74.132 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The word "tip" did not originate as an acronym. This has been addressed previously on this page -- just scroll down to "Etymology". Canadian2006 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

says not giving one means give told off and considered rude for that it means its not gratitude or a thank you but mainly cause you get made to also note that they get payied less in salary and that customers have to pay extra for there meal drinks to be deilvered even though its part of there job do service us and other people who do there job you gets extra money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennyann89 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a Tipping by region section in this article and a different one at Tipping by region ? Either the separate article should be merged into here or the section in here be removed. As it stands there's differing and contradictory information. 121.45.49.48 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to merge Tipping by region into this article and redirect. I cannot see any reason for a separate article covering the same subject. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think merging is practical. It would require huge amounts of editing. The other article should be blanked and redirected to here.--Njsustain (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reply

I love it how there is no New Zealand on the map! ZL3XD (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply

This article contains an enormous list of descriptions of how tipping occurs in each country. Almost all of these are unsourced. Those that are sourced are to non–reliable sources such as DHL, a postal company that has no editorial process and no real expertise in the area of tipping customs. The article has been tagged with "needs sources" since August 2007. During that time someone split the page off to Tipping by region, a page with the same problems, but the section has remained intact. A lot of arguments have ensued, but this page hasn't seen any progress.

My questions here are:

• Should all the unsourced material be removed?
• Should material sourced to unreliable sources like DHL (and other travel websites) be removed?
• Should "tipping by region" even be included, since there appears to be a dearth of accurate, peer-reviewed information on this subject?

Noisalt (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)reply

1. Please request citations for specific material you want removed. Set a definite deadline here on the talk page after which unsourced material will start being removed. 2. Please put an "unreliable source?" tag on ones that you feel are inappropriate or non-neutral sources. These can be deleted after the same deadline as in #1. 3. Tipping by region is the bulk of the article. All of the material in that section should not be considered for an "all or none" delete. There are sections which are well written and with sources. I don't see any reason why it should be considered for deletion "en masse".

Regarding the "Tipping by region" article... I have no clue why someone cut that section from the tip article and made it a separate one. For whatever reason it happened, leave that one alone until or unless someone is willing to do the work to re-merge the articles, including all of the ensuing changes which occurred. Njsustain (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)reply

I do not see the need to get too heavy handed. 'Unsourced' tags seem to be already in place. After the deadline perhaps you could start by removing any material that you think is incorrect. If you think it is correct but unsourced you could always try to find a good source to support the statement.

I think travel information sources should be considered satisfactory and this information left in place. Maybe better sources can be found later. Even a bad source allows the reader to assess the reliability of a statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply

I agree that travel articles are good since they strive for accuracy, not to support or deter tipping. Anti-tipping sites, and service industry sites are obviously biased, and should not be used as a soul reference for any statement as that obviously is not NPOV. --Njsustain (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)reply

• I recommend removing unsourced content. First, even the reputable travel guides only scratch the tip (pun) of the iceberg; what is acceptable practice in places frequented by tourists will be unacceptable elsewhere. Second, right now the economies are changing rapidly, and tipping habits srink; I doubt that wikipedia can promptly react to such changes - worldwide? no way. Ideally, there should be a set of detailed info on the US, UK and other well-documented national habits, cull the rest. NVO (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)reply

• Anything that is not sourced maybe subject for removal. We cannot have an encyclopedia article written by WP:OR. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)reply

• While anything not sourced is subject to removal, it's customary and reasonable to request that a source be given for anything that one might doubt, and if none is forthcoming after a reasonable amount of time, then to go ahead with the edit. If the person that had originally written something wants to back it up with substantial references, he should have the opportunity to do so before the slashing and burning of perfectly good information occurs. Njsustain (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)reply

I agree. It would be more helpful to look for a good supporting source, unless you think the material is incorrect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)reply

OK, policy is pretty clear that original research is unacceptable, and no one's stepped up with a reason to ignore that guideline in this case. I've put up "citation needed" tags. Anything that isn't backed up by something will be deleted. Let's say September 1. There's no "slashing and burning" – everything stays on the history page forever, and this discussion will always be here, and so anyone who wants to work on it will always have access to it. Verifiability is a policy, it's not a suggestion. Verifiability is what we do here. Anything else belongs on some other website. —Noisalt (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't see how giving people one month to find references for basically this entire (quite large) article, "or else," is improving it. Can't you just focus on certain sections. What you ask is unreasonable, non-standard, and will not result in improving this article long term. Pick a section for your relatively short deadline, then move on. Njsustain (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

I don't agree with such simple and aggressive "need citation" rule. I'd say that it resulted from the fact that tipping in the US and some other countries are very complicated and its acceptance by people varies. However, there are countries or societies in which common tipping rules are shared, partly because they tip in limited circumstances. Since tipping is a custom, I'd say requiring citation for all descriptions of all regions is a hindrance to Wikipedia. The former description of tipping in Japan was well written with little subjectivity. Hrkoew (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Hrkoew (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply

"Noisalt" has recently added a citation request for virtually every non-cited statement in the article. While he has a right to do so, I do not see what the point of this is. He (or she) has not added a single thing to the discussion page about it (though did bring up a valid discussion point a while ago). Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to focus on certain areas that need improvement? Again, while people have a right to request a citation, it is not mandatory that there be one for every statment made. For example, it is widely known that most states allow servers to be paid less than minimum wage, and I don't see how finding a reference stating such improves the article. That is the top priority rule in wikipedia... if a rule does not actually help improve the article... ignore the rule.

Though they look ridiculous, I don't care personally about all the "citation requests". But I will care if someone uses them as an excuse to start deleting information willy nilly. That is not going to improve the article. I still agree that much of the article is off-hand or dubious, but I don't think the recent tactic is positive.

Also, please note that finding one reference does not mean you can delete a bunch of other referenced information. Add your point of view... don't replace that of others (especially if it was referenced.)Njsustain (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)reply

In response to Njsustain's disagreement: I added the definitive etymology, as best as researchers can tell, from the Oxford English Dictionary to the article.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word tip originated as a slang term, and its etymology is unclear. The term in the sense of "to give a gratuity" first appeared in the 18th century. It derived from an earlier sense of tip, meaning "to give; to hand, pass", which originated in the rogues' cant in the 17th century. This sense may have derived from the 16th-century tip meaning "to strike or hit smartly but lightly", but this derivation is "very uncertain".¹

I then removed everything else in that section because it was either wrong or unnecessary. Here's why.

The word originates from the 16th century verb tip, which meant "to give, hand, pass" and "to tap", possibly being derived from the Low German word tippen, meaning "to tap."²³ The modern German term for a tip is the unrelated Trinkgeld, literally "drink money."

The Oxford English Dictionary is the among the most authoritative sources on the English language. A website, aimed at schoolchildren, of a single department of the Michigan government has no authority on that at all, and it's not at all clear where they got their information. The German term for a tip is irrelevant, obviously every language on earth has a different word for it. So I removed those.

The notion of a stock tip is from the same slang, and "the expression hot tip, as in a sure winner in a horse race, also comes from the act of tapping. In the old days, during card games, gamblers would have an accomplice in the room. This accomplice would signal the player regarding the contents of an opponent's hand by 'tipping the wink' - that is, by 'tapping' out a code with his eyelid."²

I have no idea what this has to do with this section or this article. The article's about the practice of tipping, this slang has nothing to do with that. So I removed it.

The word "tip" is often inaccurately claimed to be an acronym for terms such as "to insure prompt service", "to insure proper service", "to improve performance", and "to insure promptness". However, this etymology contradicts the Oxford English Dictionary⁴ and is probably an example of a backronym. Moreover, most of these backronyms incorrectly require the word "insure" instead of the correct "ensure."

This is called original research, taking something someone "often" claims and analyzing on your own why it's probably wrong based on existing sources. That's something we only report if other sources have done so. The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't say anything about this fake backronym or its spelling. In any case, we don't need to list false etymologies, just the real one. Obviously if one is real, all other ones are not.

Some claim that the origin for this term is a concept from Judaism, in that it was a chiyuv (obligation) for a seller to "tip the scales" in favor of the customer. The Torah says, "Nosen lo girumov (Give to him a tip)." For example, if your customer has asked for three pounds of onions, you should measure out the three pounds plus one extra onion, tipping the scale in his favor.⁵

The Oxford English Dictionary takes extreme precedence over one rabbi's anecdote. Where did he get his information? He's not paid to research etymologies, I'm assuming. Read undue weight. When we have competing views, we present them proportionally to how prevalent they are in reliable sources. We have the most authoritative source in the English language that says nothing about the Torah or onions, and some other source that does. We don't need to present the latter view as equally valid because it can safely be assumed to be wrong. —Noisalt (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

While I am the first to admit the OED is of immeaurable authority, it is ONE point of view and not the only authority, and no one has a right to claim it takes "extreme precedence" over something else. Presenting two POVs doesn't mean they are "equally valid"; ultimately it is (or should be) up to the reader to decide that. If you believe a reference is questionable to the point where it should be deleted, I suggest you mark it as such (there are codes available for that) and add something to the discussion (which you did not initially do), and give people reasonable time to respond before going ahead with a deletion. I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but I don't think the way you have been doing it is appropriate.

Please also see the following. I'm sure we can get through this without lecturing each other on the rules and common practices of WP: Wikipedia:How to break the rules and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means

Njsustain (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

Fine, I removed the irrelevant stuff and left in the two alternate theories for now. —Noisalt (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

I guarantee that if you remove the fact that "To Insure Proper Tipping" is false (and this is not "original research" as the infallible OED says otherwise), someone will within a year add "TIP stands for 'To Insure Promptness.'" This is one instance where the "rule" should be ignored in order to improve the article and why "It's in the history" is not a valid reason for deleting things as people rarely if ever read through it before making changes. Njsustain (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

Yes, someone will probably add it, which brings up two important points:

• People add stuff that's false. All the time. That's why we should delete information that's not sourced.
• Information that's sourced can still be wrong. That's why we should only use reliable sources.

This one section, etymology, proves what I'm saying about the whole article. If it's not backed up by a reliable source, it shouldn't be in the article. We don't go by hunches, we just report what reliable sources say. Ignoring rules contributes nothing to this article, it just continues to spread myths and random people's hearsay. —Noisalt (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

I disagree. I believe the section proves what I am saying. In your discussion, you are leading the question. What reason do you have for claiming a source is unreliable? Because a source you like says otherwise? And where are there "hunches"? It specifically says in the section that certain things are not true or are unlikely sources of orgin, therefore dispelling myths rather than spreading them... which is one of the points of creating WP articles in the first place.

Mindlessly repeating rules or throwing them in people's faces without reason does nothing to prove one's point. Obviously if it did we wouldn't be having this discussion. Njsustain (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)reply

The paragraph about the onions is ridiculous. A religion-centric website with a rabbi claiming that this is the origin of the word tip is hardly a reliable source for etymology. While I agree that different views on the subject should be included if they exist, they would still have to be from reliable sources, not a site that really has no authority or even -relation- to the matter (etymology). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonoris (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)reply

While the recently added text on server wage is well written, it is completely unsourced, of questionable relevance to the readers of the article, and is clearly one sided. If not altered for references and NPOV, it should be severely cut back or removed. --Njsustain (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)reply Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Gratuity
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.