Talk:Gratuity

Acronym as origin

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)

gratitude

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)

Tipping by region

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)

What should happen with this article?

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Excessive citation requests

"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)

Etymology

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".

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." 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."

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 Dictionary 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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

US Taxation

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)

The taxation part shouldn't be here. This page is a disaster. We should focus solely on the concept of tipping not the taxing of it, or any of the other fluff. Chigibby (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased websites as sources

I don't think the "how2tip.com" website should be listed as a source. It is not, as is described in the article a "tipping etiquette" website. It is poorly written, based on someone's personal opinions, and clearly CLEARLY biased in favor of the service industry personnel. It's rather ridiculous actually. Anyway, if it stays it needs a balanced POV, but I really think it's just not good information.Njsustain (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reading, this website is not only biased and Las-Vegas centric, but also disreputable. I won't elaborate, you can see for yourself. It's out of the article. Njsustain (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Njustain for your editions enhancing what I wrote. I also agree with your opinion about that webpage.--Garcilaso (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuke

I deleted most of the unsourced material from this page, per the RFC above (What should happen with this article?), and various policies including verifiability (see the five pillars) and the boldface text directly under the edit window. The article included source requests that were displayed for over two and a half years. Based on all of this, and frankly ignore all rules above all else (unsourced, unreliable hearsay does not improve the encyclopedia), this was the only reasonable move.

This was not a "slash and burn", as the article's previous state, and all unsourced contributions, are forever available at this URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tip&oldid=311344336 if anyone wants to restore them with sources. Until then, we press on and hope for better. —Noisalt (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this action was completely inappropriate. You blantantly stated that a rule was your reason for doing this, and that another rule was just not a good rule. You can't have it both ways. I think it would be more appropriate to concentrate on certain sections to be reasonable and fair to other editors. Well, if anyone restores any particular section, please give reasonable time to allow sources to be found.Njsustain (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What did I say was not a good rule? —Noisalt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

>> " and frankly ignore all rules above all else (unsourced, unreliable hearsay does not improve the encyclopedia " - I have never said that IAR is a catch all excuse for everything. It has appropriate uses, and is indeed valid when the catch all "sources" reason is blindly thrown out as an excuse for deleting what are positive contributions to an article. As you see, I did not revert any of your changes. Sorry if I'm a bit defensive about the IAR rule, but I am tired of people using "I have a right to delete anything without a reference" as a reason for making articles worse. Anyway, I hope we can move on from here. You might want to check out the bizarre "Tipping by region" article. I have no idea why it was created or why people are editing it when this article exists. If it's any consolation, this article gets much more traffic. Jack Sprat (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does search for "tip" not go to the disambig page?

Because a "tip" also means a dump in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It clearly states in the title that this article is about gratuities. It says "Tip (GRATUITY)" and there is a link to a disambiguation page at the top. With all due respect, I don't know how much clearer it could be. Njsustain (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. What happened is I put "tip" in the search box & it sent me straight here, rather than to the disambig page. And then somehow I guess I didn't notice the disambig note (perhaps I was so outraged by the missing meaning I couldn't think straight; haha). But shouldn't a search send one to the disambig page?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Links do not always go to the disambiguation page, hence the note for "other uses" at the top of many articles. The most common usage for "Tip" in English, at least for which one would want to consult an encylopedia, is about gratuities, not dumps, or other uses. Therefore "Tip" redirects to "Tip (gratuities)", not to "Tip (disambiguation)." Njsustain (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, so how is 'the most common usage' determined? If it's a wikipedia policy do you know what the policy is called, please? (It seems more balanced and objective, to me, to send people to the disambig page and let them decide for themselves what kind of information they're after, but if it's a matter of current policy I suppose there's not much point discussing it here.)--Tyranny Sue (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tip (Gratuity) page receives about 500 hits per day. About 20 people a day find it necessary to go to the disambiguation page. You may look at these objective numbers and decide if everyone entering "tip" should be automatically be directed to the disambiguation page and then 24 out of 25 have to click the link to Tip (gratuity), rather than having the 1 out of 25 people interested in something else to redirect themselves to the disambiguation page. By the way, "landfill" receives up to 1500 hits a day, while "landfill (disambiguation)" receives about 5. Would you suggest making "landfill" also go automatically to disambiguation, as well as every single article on all of Wikipedia with a disambiguation page? I appreciate your interest on how WP disambiguation works, but perhaps you should gain more experience with this subject before being so critical of standard practice. Njsustain (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that searchers are being automatically directed to a particular page increase that page's hits? --Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. The point is that if people were really looking for information about garbage receptables, then you would see them clicking the disambiguation page, because this would be the wrong page. Instead, they enter "tip", get sent here, and only 20 out of 500 think they are in the wrong place. That means the 96% of them wanted to be here.—Kww(talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny Sue, the guideline you are looking for is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It suggests looking at pageviews, incoming links and Google searches to determine which of two or more articles with the same title is the primary use for the term. In fact, since this article is the primary use of "tip" as an article title on Wikipedia, it should really be directly at Tip; there's no need for a qualifier (gratuity) when tip redirects here anyway. Station1 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Tipping

Hi,

I'm a westerner living in Japan and people here often ask me why we tip in "our countries". This article explains me HOW we tip and WHERE we tip and why we CALL IT tip, but nowhere it says WHY at some point in "our" history we found the need to pay the waiters and other service-related job directly from the customer's pocket. Maybe the answer is so obvious it is not worth writing or something I'm missing but from a Japanese point of view that's where the article should start. Any expert on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.82.174.230 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is not obvious. Tipping originated in the west when very wealthy people showed off to each other by giving extra money to service people when they paid, thus showing they had so much money they could basically throw it at poor people. The origin of tipping is therefore very insulting to service personnel, and while it grew more commonplace it was still considered highly insulting to tip the owner of any business. The practice waned somewhat, but has obviously returned stronger than ever due to worker's sense of entitlement rather than wealthy customers' snobbishness. To be honest I don't feel like adding this in to the article right now. If someone wants to look up reliable references and add them in, go crazy. PS I don't claim to be an "expert." Njsustain (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to the States on Friday and I'm glad I found this article. I find it very difficult to understand where to give tips and above all, how much. What about diners or something like waffle house or applebee's? How much tip do you have to give there if you do not want to appear rude? As far as I understand at least 15 % because they have table service. Correct? --Mk4711 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! By the time I write this reply to your question, it will most likely be too late for your needs, right? But as a former food services worker, I can verify for you that your guess of 15% is correct. However it should be noted that not every customer is able to do mental math. (Yes, so hence calculators!)There are factory made cards that fit in wallets, with rates for tipping based on such percentage scales to also help out people who don't do mental math or have calculators and desire to base their tips on a math formula to seem right or fit in with such a notion. But from what I can tell you of my practical experience in both Oklahoma and Texas life, most food service workers are happy to get the usual $1.00 per customer per order, regardless of the actual ammount charged/billed/priced. I've tipped people with the few coins I had left in the theory that a small tip is better than no tip, to prevent spitting in the food, et al, while some felt sorry for me and let me keep my small change or even gave me a discount so I could keep more of my money! Then again I've also seen those one penny tips meant to be insults. (By the way, on school buses dummies have thrown pennies at me hoping to annoy me, but I was happy to have the income, so they stopped that, but I digress. My point is, I wouldn't be insulted, as money is money!) But anyway, waitstaff have been known to hoard half-dollar coins and one dollar coins and two dollar notes/bills as their way of coin/money collecting. But that aside, tips above $1.00, like with a $5.00, make them/us very happy! While a tip with a $10.00 or $20.00 makes them/us super happy! While a tip with a $50.00 or a $100.00, and this is if the amount doesn't apply, makes us/them nervous, that perhaps you're still under the impression that waitstaff are like ye ole wenches and sexual favors are expected! There, I hope my experience helped you all! Now as for me, I came here to look up how much a bellhop should be tipped, as research for a fictional story I'm trying to write right now. By the way, I read the article and there was no mention of "tipping the hat" or of the famous dog named "Tip" who used to play with the cat named "Mitten" and a boy named "Dick" and a girl named "Jane". So there! LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Restore the massive deletions

I would like to restore the massive deletions that a too zealous user has made... I think that it could be quite difficult to add references everywhere. For example, I contributed to the section for Italy as I'm Italian and resident in Italy, so I know quite well the commons. However, I don't have the faintest idea to how to add references. But it is supposed that on Wikipedia if some user finds some wrong information, will fix it. This is the way Wikipedia has been conceived since the real beginning and this rule is still valid, references are just a way to add more reliability when possible. --Wizard IT (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've had this discussion already. References were requested and weren't given. Therefore the material in question was deleted. It doesn't matter if you can't find references or don't know how to add referencess... if the material is in question it can and will be deleted. That is how WP works... the information must be verified if called into question.

Too much of this article's information is poorly written and/or anecdotal. If anything, more should be deleted from this article.Njsustain (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A discussion already? Where? I can just see a few random thoughts and opposite point of view in this discussion, and not a consensus about what to do. The only true fact is that the rule "what can't be referenced is automatically an original research and therefore has to be deleted" is pure nonsense, contrary to the original spirit of Wikipedia, and if applied to the whole encyclopedia would result in massive deletions (like in this page). The result of the insane massive deletion I've seen int this page is that now a user that want to know about the tip in, say, Italy, will found nothing. That's bad, and quite worse than finding unreferenced text. --Wizard IT (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you are misquoting me and are incorrect. I didn't say anything not referenced is original research, I said unrefrenced material which is called into question can be deleted. I'm also not interested in finding the discussions for you (it is on this very page... if you don't want to bother reading it, then you have no right to claim what is or isn't consensus), nor in discussing Wikipedia philosophy with you. If you want to say something in this article about tipping in Italy, you will need a reference in order to ensure that it will not be, rightfully, deleted by others eventually. If you restore the "massive" unreferenced text which was correctly removed by Noisalt last year, you will be considered a disruptive editor.

Again, anecdotal information is not acceptable for the article. What you are suggesting is indeed adding original research. If you restore or add such information it will be removed. I will not be adding more to this discussion.Njsustain (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion in this page is minimal and no consensus has been reached. Wikipedia is all about consensus, and that's not "philosophy", it is the common sense rule that has driven this project from the very beginning. --Wizard IT (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I really wonder how Wikipedia is supposed to grow. Or exist, at all. If you are so restless about unreferenced text, you can easily delete a half of Wikipedia. References are used to improve articles and prove that the edited text is not an original research. But it is insane to delete every unreferenced line of text. "I will not be adding more to this discussion." That's the bad way to contribute to Wikipedia. Please be constructive. --Wizard IT (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Article needs another shakedown

A lot of bad and/or unreferenced original research and anecdotal information has been making it's way into the article again.

This isn't a blog... it's an encyclopedic article. The recent addition on "Israel" was completely biased, poorly written, and had outright false information. Many of the sections need to be referenced or pruned, or cut.Njsustain (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tipping is described as not customary virtually everywhere. Would it not be more useful to indicate in the introduction that tipping is rare, and generally only an American phenomenon?101.98.155.186 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Another dubious statement

"A tip (also called a gratuity) is a voluntary extra payment made to certain service sector workers in addition to the advertised price of the transaction."

This isn't quite right. Tips often seem to be expected and given, to particular workers, where there is NO advertised price for the transaction.Eregli bob (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation where you tip someone even though no business is conducted. If you tip a doorman, that is in addition to his salary or the rent. If you tip a skycap, that is in addition to your plane ticket. If you tip a hostess, that is in addition to your meal. What do you propose would be a better description? How about "in addition to formally agreed upon costs." Njsustain (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip (gratuity) → Gratuity — Both of the terms in the title refer to the same thing, but 'tip' is ambiguous, and 'gratuity' is not. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 09:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The term "tip" is by far most commonly used to mean "gratuity" in English. Most people wouldn't even know what you were talking about if you said "gratuity". The other uses of tip are less common, except the use which means "tilt", which is just a verb, not a subject of an encylopedic article. This title is not the slightest bit ambiguous. Njsustain (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I agree, how is the current title ambiguous? It specifies that the tip it is talking about is a gratuity in parentheses. Since tip is the commonly used term, it should be used as the primary name. More people are familliar with the word "tip". What you are suggesting only adds confusion because gratuity sounds like it means "the act of being gracious". --WikiDonn (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: while that this is the primary topic for tip is largely true, (though a rubbish tip is probably the most extensive use in my country) the different uses are so extensive that it becomes ambiguous. I am afraid my comment was confusing but this was in preference to Tip (Gratuity).

At this present stage we have common term (alernative term), which WP:NCDAB disuses in favour of alternate term. To quote the dictating points (my bold):

1. When there is another term or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that may be used.

Number two is not relevant because both mean the exact same thing. This would apply if it were a title like Tip (gift), though.

Number three is also not applicable.

Ditto for four. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 07:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The other term is already part of the title, making it completely non-ambiguous. Further, as there is already a disambiguation page for "Tip" which is how most people arrive at the article, users do make the conscience decision to come to the Tip (gratuity) article. There is no ambiguity nor point to the move, which would ultimately be counterproductive.Njsustain (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: While the title is rather unambiguous, it is also redundant. That is my point. To reiterate: tip is ambiguous, gratuity is not. Both are different terms for the same thing. It makes as much sense as an article about a car boot/trunk titled Boot (trunk) if boot was ambiguous and trunk was not. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 10:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It is there as a clarification. Not for the purpose of being redundant. And so what if it is redundant? Is that so horrible, as long as you understand what the topic of the article is? Njsustain (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Gratuity is seldom used --km5 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mexico?

There's no Mexico listing on here! 66.189.168.57 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

Really, theres no criticism section? Especially regarding the United States?

There are huge problems with tipping, which is why most nations have completely removed it as an expected asset to a workers pay, since business', as in America, lower the minimum wage of their workers because they can legally say the worker earns their pay in tips. And some business' even go so far as to have no wage at all.

I could understand the lack of criticism for other nations. But the problem in the US with tipping warrants enough information for it's own sub-section. 124.148.198.244 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I would agree that this article doesn't adequately represent the case against tipping. Here in Australia, a lot of people object to the gradual introduction of tipping, they see it as something which could eventually weaken the minimum wage system. We have a decent enough minimum wage, which is enough to live on and we have a cultural expectation that it's a boss's place to pay their workers, not the customer's place. Introducing a tipping culture would be seen as a step backwards - as something which subsidises bad bosses and an inadequate minimum wage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.21.165 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

so ungratuity to ask for tip i find this article to pro amercia and fail to talk about there tipping and pressing there culture on others tipping is not done in others without amercia putting pressure on them also that it is not alway buy will — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another meaning of gratuity

Another meaning of gratuity not reported here or elsewhere in Wikipedia is the use introduced by Jacques Monod in the field of molecular biology. This usage is described in the scientific literature, for instance, "Gratuity in Nature and Technology".. Disambiguation is needed in the article. Parveson (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is titled "Tip (gratuity)" There is no further disambig needed. Njsustain (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Literal Translation

I suggest to rewrite the form of this article and add literal translations. Instead of writing "Tip (Trinkgeld) [..]" it should be just "Trinkgeld [...]" or better yet "Trinkgeld (lit. drinking money)" since this article has a sociological nature. Otherwise it is misleading and not useful: The Tip in "Tip (Trinkgeld) [...]" adds no knowledge since the article is about tipping.

By this I don't mean we should add etymological explanations (as suggested before) but i would like to follow typical styles and reduce misleading nonsensical structures.

Similar critique goes for "'es stimmt so' ('keep the change')" which would be improved as "'es stimmt so' ('keep the change', lit. It's OK like this)" or better yet "'es stimmt so' (lit. It's OK like this)" since again the equalization of "es stimmt so" to "keep the change" holds no additional meaning and is misleading. The surrounding sentience "saying XYZ informs the waiter/waitress you're rounding up the bill" already provides the same knowledge - that he/she is supposed to keep the change - without the misleading equalization.

Examples of other articles using the typical style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindergarden, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kn%C3%B6del, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#Kokuji

Here is the current text for Germany as a good reference and to trace changes:

Tips (Trinkgeld) in Germany are commonplace in restaurants and bars. Whilst a tip is not mandatory, it is always appreciated when left as a thanks for excellent service. It is the norm to give 5-10% as a tip (not in fast-food restaurants). In German, saying 'es stimmt so' ('keep the change') informs the waiter/waitress you're rounding up the bill.

Should be:

Trinkgeld (lit. drinking money) in Germany are commonplace in restaurants and bars. Whilst a tip is not mandatory, it is always appreciated when left as a thanks for excellent service. It is the norm to give 5-10% as a tip (not in fast-food restaurants). In German, saying "es stimmt so" (lit. It's OK like this) informs the waiter/waitress you're rounding up the bill.

PS: Since literal translations are not always easy, I do not need to see mine used - but that's not the dispute.

Happy writing, Moooitic 93.220.18.112 (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition is incorrect: "an extra payment made to certain service sector workers in addition to the advertised price of the transaction." There is no advertised price of a transaction for a doorman to open the door for you. The actual definitions are all very similar to "a sum of money tendered for a service performed or anticipated" (which I will change it to), and none of them include any mention of advertised prices or transactions.

In addition, "Though by definition a tip is never legally required" is completely false, as there is nothing in any definition that addresses legality or requirement, and many restaurants require a certain tip for large parties, the notification of which I believe constitutes a legal requirement. Keyesc (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Court rulings have found that gratuity is gratuity and that it is discretionary and prosecutors denied to uphold theft of service charge. It's just better to avoid contentious claims for something that is in the grey area. It might not uphold under criminal law, but it could be upheld under contract law as a civil case, but if the reason for non payment was that customer felt the service was inadequate, then the restaurant maybe in breach of its end of contractual obligations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Germany

The paragraph on Germany is full of contradictions: Are tips “reserved for very good service”, usually 5 to 10% or rounding up to the next euro? In my experience it's mostly the third option (even if the tip amounts to only 1 or 2% of the bill and the service was not particularly good) but in any case this needs to be clarified or nuanced. GL (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As a German I have to disagree with the criticism. I think, the paragraph on Germany is fine as it is. It represents the situation. Small numbers like 1,80 € are being rounded up to 2 €. If you had a meal and were happy with the service, you probably would tip a bit more (5 to 10% depending on how to reach a number without digits). And it is very common to hand over for instance 20 € and to say something like "twelve", if you have to pay 10,50 € without the tip. You will receive 8 € as change and that's it. And if you are not satisfied, you can express it giving no tip. Yes, no tip. anonymous (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Tone

The informal tone of this article needs to be addressed. "Tipping may be considered weird" and the frequent use of personal pronouns "you would tip..." This is most apparent in the US section where I found "Why are you eating out in the first place if you cannot afford the tip?" Shocking. Clearly written by a few angry waiting staff in some sections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.168.180 (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

possible addition

Several states and cities in the United States now allows restaurants to automatically put a gratuity charge on you bill. Where i work it is a 20%, Olive Garden is 10-18% depending on the location. Here in North Carolina min wage is $7.25, but if you work a tipping job you make $5.25 regardless on if you make enough tips to cover the difference, and with Pizza Delivery you rarely get that.

Added by-tlarseth- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.84.3 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tipping in North America

I moved contents around and made significant edit to tipping in US and Canada. I removed anecdotal and unreferenced entries. I went through references and removed some contents and associated references when the factual claim was based on anecdotal comment that merely personal anecdotes from letter to editor column.

"average" generally refers to mean average based on calculation, or median if explicitly stated. Though data from 1991 is severely outdated, that is about the only reference I can find that has objective data on average tip. The claim of higher average is only supported by author or editorial opinions, but not by data. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

wedding service/event

In response to request for comment on inclusion of this uncited sentence in lead: " This etiquette applies to bar service at weddings and any other event where one is a guest as well. The host should provide appropriate tips to workers at the end of an event." A reliable, neutral source that is not some site ran by severs that say we should tip them is expected.

Did you look for a reliable source? Or perhaps consider tagging the sentence so someone else would know to look for a source? GaramondLethe 07:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added the cite. GaramondLethe 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

North American Bias

OK so unlike most articles this article does make out that there is a world outside of the USA but it does so in a very strange way. Why is there a section for North America and later a section for other regions. What a condescending attitude. --ЗAНИA ^{talk WB talk}] 22:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a valid concern for objective POV. To help the article have a globally neutral presentation, I adjusted the headings. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of Pictures/Graphs

How much activity was involved in using the pictures and graphs you have incorporated? During the presentation, you stated that a certain amount of interaction was needed before the use of pictures was accepted. What did this involve? MComitor (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Graphs uploaded based on data from self-published about.com author

Several bar graphs have been uploaded purporting to compare tipping percentages in different regions. One such region is "Latin America and the Caribbean" which has four bar-graph entries. While classification into regions I believe is convenient to divide up the world simply to locate an area of interest, I think this presents several problems when taken a step further with the bar graphs by region without an exhaustive study to insure apples to apples comparison by experts rather than self-published and random numbers. 1) What relationship does Mexico have to the Dominican Republic, "St. Barth's" and then the "Caribbean" as if each of the four were countries? Is anyone serious about this? Caribbean is listed as 17.5%, yet St. Barts and Dominican Republic at much lower levels, yet both are in the Caribbean. Mexico, on the other hand is the largest Spanish speaking country in the world with diverse industries and problems. 2) Mexico is listed at 17.5%. This is demonstrably false and misleading. The source is the same: a helpful editor simply uploaded what essentially is a non-expert travel writer's blog from about.com and considered it authoritative and reliable. Neither are true regarding the author. 3) I feel the problem is a severe bias for US vacationers comparing vacation spot experience at certain resort cities, and based only on personal experience not reliably. This runs against the entire concept of this article which IMO explores tipping customs in different countries among the vast population. It is especially ridiculous in a country as huge as Mexico where Tourism is only one industy and not the overwhelming source of GDP. As such this article has developed a systemic bias to being a travel blog (thus the info in the graphs was misappropiated for the wrong use).

Furthermore, North America's graph only has Canada and the US. Yet Mexico is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Most of Mexico including its capital Mexico City, Acapulco, etc. is in North America prompting even the CIA Factbook not to question Mexico's status as part of North America - yet another telling example of the US-centric bias in this article.

Please remove the graphs, the about.com souce is doing more damage than good and is unreliable. The bar graph concept would be interesting - completely agree in theory though. But without uniform criteria is is very confusing. Would it be meaningful to put "Anglo-America and the Caribbean" as a category, and make a bar Graph of the United States, Caribbean, Jamaica and Aruba (when the Caribbean includes Jamaica and Aruba)? Of course not. Is the cited 17.5% tip rates in the US and Canada established such that it belongs in a bar graph? Most all the folks I know pay 15% in the USA, unless inm large groups, just saying, this is not a travel blog, it is for detailing tipping customs throughout the world by residents.

As a thought for contemplation, listing precise tip rates for travelers seems a job better left for travel guides, and this article might do better avoiding to much precision on them at all. Describing the customs when they are typically varied based on countries regions, socioeconomic status, and a myriad of other factors make it infeasible IMO to attempt to make this an authoritative compendium of "acceptable" rates which unless carefully researched by controlling all variables are wide open to disagreement and everyone's individual experience causing implicit bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.128.211 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, but as you stated, they're based on self-published data, which do not meet our requirements for WP:RS WP:SPS and WP:V.I don't know who made which portions of posts above, but anecdotes like "most folks I know" is not a valid evaluation. We need hard statistical data that is verifiable through reliable sources before we can claim as average and we can not extrapolate it to read beyond what the source confirms. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cantaloupe2, I wrote this entire section of comments including the "most folks I know" comment which was intended as more of an introspective comment. This reminds me of the study comparing the cost of Big Mac's across the world done by The Economist magazine, which controls exactly to minimize all the biases and come out with a statistically reliable overview of world Big Mac prices (which they theorize is related to purchasing power of the currency in every country). That was a mammouth study by a leading peer-reviewed journal, just for Big Macs. Unfortunately, to do the same for tipping is not feasible for the general case and IMO we ought to drop the idea as you point out the shortcomings of the data, and concentrate on improving the references for the more basic info that the article is still lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.149.79 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and reliable sources

Let's just make it clear that anything we have here needs to be verifiable. This means that others can go and prove it through what we consider reliable sources. Websites that are self published, user generated materials such as forum posts, news story comments, and self published YouTube videos are largely unacceptable. Even news stories need to be carefully evaluated if the comments are not merely the columnist/author's personal opinion.

A neutrality concern arises when sources are gathered to advance certain position, such as gathering sources that predominantly side with servers like sources that encourage tip rates self-advocated by service workersCantaloupe2 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, you nailed it. I wrote the current version of tipping in Mexico, as within hours a previous attempt I made including what Logical Cowboy rejected as self-published by me, and lo and behold, an hour later the reverted previous version was then replaced by another user with a large copy-paste from another columnist sort of website, but largely presented with a personal agenda to be sure US travelers to Mexico be generous in their tipping to support the poor salaries in that country. Both my version (which I took pains to make neutral without any morals) and the good faith attempt by the other user contained valuable information unfortunately not previously here. But it quickly got into trouble due to the clashing of neutral and biased agendas. The only reasonable solution is to improve the reliability of the sources and be a little stricter. In the end I'm ok with Logical Cowboy's deletion of my prior material, although I think I should have gotten a temporary "[citation needed]" rather than a deletion and request to redo it with citations since at least I had a bonafide attempt at neutrality. The new version I put up is referenced profusely by the Mexican Government initiatives reviewing the traditional meaning and how to give tips in the Mexican culture vs. a rampant and growing tip fraud problem in that country. I hope that this can be a model for improving some of the other countries which have nothing or just severely biased, unrealistic tipping information due in many cases to the belief of some users confusing basically what US tourists tip in resorts, from the countries' tipping traditions in general which are almost always two very different ballgames. The difficulty I had in the Mexican citations is that since Spanish is the official language (and only language allowed by law for statements by government agencies) most of my citations are in Spanish, including the government television commercials for public education of tips (it is a really interesting video since it begins by picking 10 random citizens and asking them about tips, and showing none agree with each other). I just put those citations in without further explanation, although I was a bit concerned that they are by necessity in Spanish, but I think to get country specific information, we must allow for native languages on authoritative websites (though more dubious non-English citations ought to be avoided - a fine line)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.149.79 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tipping out

I think I might have an authoritative statement verifying that "tipping out" occurs in Canadian restaurants. Concerns were raised about my earlier use of an editorial from a student newspaper. This is much better:

According to Wendy Leung from The Globe and Mail (a major Canadian paper) "[a]s part of a common [restaurant] industry practice called “tipping out,” many restaurants and bars require their servers to fork over a portion of their gratuities. While these tip-outs are typically meant to be divvied among hostesses, bussers, cooks and other staff, the practice is also abused by employers who take a cut for themselves."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV concern Who is the party stating meant that it is "meant for service sector workers" and who is proclaiming that employers taking a share as "abuse"? If its from a columnist who sympathize with tipped servers or consensus amongst tipped servers, there's an obvious conflict of interest. presenting partisan view is not permissible. server sympathizing phrasing like employees having to "fork over" is unacceptable and has no place here, just as wording like business owner view like "employees are claiming additional income which were generated through customers of employer on employers premises using resources which are paid for by employers" don't have any place here. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have learned something new from Cantaloupe2: I did not know that WP policies did not allow placing of contentious material in quotes. I thought putting material in quotes made it OK, because then it is the source having POV, not the wiki editor. thanks to Cantaloupe2, I now know that contentious language needs to be edited out or paraphrased. I have eliminated POV language such as "forked over" which shows pro-server bias.

See the latest revision I made to New York case. Also, the statement tips are not legally wages is highly contentions.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Economics

For this sentence: A number of economists have suggested that tipping is economically inefficient[citation needed], it is not clear that the reference that comes three sentences later backs up this sentence. Someone would need to find this journal article to see if it states that "A number of economists have suggested that tipping is economically inefficient." The wording makes it sound like OR/synthesis of a novel viewpoint.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

cherry picking

I find the allegation of cherry picking to be amusing. In fact, to find the sources I added, I simply searched Google using the terms "tipping out kitchen", and duly reported on the articles that I found. Most of the articles from good quality sources seem to be critical of restaurant managers for taking servers' tips. That is just what I found out on the web. I did not find much evidence of restaurant owners' point of view on the purported practice of taking a portion of servers' tips. The one example of the managements' side of the argument (that taking a portion of servers' tips helps to pay for broken dishes). I'm not sure if that part of the recently added material has been retained in the subsequent edits. I will check to see if the broken dishes statement has been retained.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Questionable edits

I am finding the edits that occurred in between these revisions extremely objectionable. First of all, this is misleading. Video citation from popular press is highly sided using appeals to pity and emotion like "single mom server".. vs "successful multimillion dollar restaurants"

The first part of paragraph is about New York law and second part is about extremely server sympathizing popular press video put together to make it seem like there is some sort of relationship between the two. Please see original research and WP:EDITORIAL. Your opinion does not go into any part of the article, period. We as wikipedia editors are not to make analytical or interpretive research. Keep in mind that this is an encylopedia. I have cut the biased contents and replaced it with factual statement, backed by official New York state source. The statement that this ordinance took effect in 2011 is also wrong. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Principal agent theory

The following sourced material was entirely deleted by an editor. Are books and newspapers not permitted as sources? Has there been a change in Wikipedia policy that I am not aware of?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue of tipping is sometimes discussed in connection with the principal-agent theory in economics. "Examples of principals and agents include bosses and employees...[and] diners and waiters." "The "principal-agent problem", as it is known in economics, crops up any time agents aren't inclined to do what principals want them to do. To sway them [(agents)], principals have to make it worth the agents' while... [In the restaurant context,] the better the diner's experience, the bigger the waiter's tip."

"In the ... language of the economist, the tip serves as a way to reduce what is known as the classic "principal-agent" problem." According to "Videbeck, a researcher at the New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation [,] "[i]n theory, tipping can lead to an efficient match between workers' attitudes to service and the jobs they perform. It is a means to make people work hard. Friendly waiters will go that extra mile, earn their tip, and earn a relatively high income...[On the other hand,] if tipless wages are sufficiently low, then grumpy waiters might actually choose to leave the industry and take jobs that would better suit their personalities."

Canadian material removed

The following material about tipping in Canada was removed. This material is sourced from the Globe and Mail, CBC News, and The Toronto Star, all respected news sources. This material was all removed by an editor, even after a new edit was proposed which removed contentious language such as "fork over":OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Leung from The Globe and Mail states that "[a]s part of a common [restaurant] industry practice called “tipping out,” many restaurants and bars require their servers to fork over a portion of their gratuities. While these tip-outs are typically meant to be divvied among hostesses, bussers, cooks and other staff, the practice is also abused by employers who take a cut for themselves."

According to CBC News, in British Columbia, a "restaurant server has filed a complaint with B.C.'s Employment Standards Branch against a high profile Vancouver restaurant group because management required her to hand over her tips at the end of shifts."

Mintz states that "[e]very restaurant divides tips however it deems fit. For example, some collect all the tips per shift and put them into a pool, dividing them later equally among servers. Some tip-out the kitchen, bartenders and other support staff. Sometimes it's a percentage of tips and sometimes it's a percentage of sales."

You're using a whole bunch of quotes that impairs neutrality. See See WP:Quotations. I am also concerned that your verbatim copy and paste of entire abstract of a journal written by someone else, which amounts to about a whole paragraph. It maybe a copyright infringement. We can discuss this in copyright noticeboard if we can not come to an agreement, but I think you're pushing the limit. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A quote of from the copyvio section of the quotations section on WP: "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. What constitutes a substantial portion depends on many factors, such as the length of the original work and how central the quoted text is to that work. In one extreme case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement.[3] Editors are advised to exercise good judgment and to remain mindful of the fact that while brief excerpts are permitted by policy, extensive quotations are forbidden." (my bolding added for emphasis). IN the current proposed edit, I use a 9 word quote.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased/Conflict of interest

I see you have not responded to my question on your talk page, which I asked to evaluate conflict of interest. I noticed that your sources and tone have been sympathetic with service workers. I am asking if you are a tipped employee who think from their point of view; which maybe a problem for you to be able to edit without bias. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not work in a sector which is tipped, and I have not worked in a tipped sector in decades. I work for the government. I look in Google for material of interest on tipping and I propose it for inclusion. I do not have a conflict of interest. I am happy to include managerial perspectives. I recently tried to include the managerial perspective (that requesting a portion of tips covers the costs of dish breakage and currency errors), but this addition, along with virtually all other additions was reverted. Thus far, an editor has reverted almost all of my changes, including material from major newspapers which would seem to qualify as reliable sources. The only material which Cantaloupe2 has not reverted is my additions to the etymology section.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed "a researcher said" prose

• a* researcher (from some institution) gave his own hypothesis that "in theory tip leads to hard work" is not the same as the statement of fact that "tip leads to hard workers" and that was improperly summarized. Since that source fails to establish that its a widely held remove, it does not belong here, which you can refer to here. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does a single quotation have to be a widely held view? I read the UNDUE sections you suggested, but I don't see how posting a scholar's opinion on tipping which occurs in an article needs to be reverted. On that grounds, the posting of all individual movie critics' opinions would be inappropriate, since any one journalist's views on a film are not a widely held view, but only the view of a single critic. I have never had this much of a struggle to put sourced content into any other article. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

highly contentious opinionated video

Also, regarding your concern about the removal of this news video that was aired about *a* server who filed a complaint against *a* restaurant, it is a video clip that basically quotes server herself claiming that restaurant did this, and a manager and the owner, also being aired "we did this" and "the manager is wrong". The contents are not generated by the media. It is heresy by the interviewee. See rumor mill gossips. This is not a significant issue in the overall matter of tipping in Canada. Having gone on air and quoted means they were given the chance to express their perspectives, not that it was published by the CBC. If you disagree, we can solicit for third party opinion, or take sources that you and I can't agree on inclusion to reliable source noticeboard and the contextual concern to neutrality point of view noticeboard Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record I never posted or encouraged the posting of the news video. I posted quotes from the text version of the article, also available on the CBC website.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions

The editor Cantaloupe2 has reverted additions of content in this article which he/she deems as opinions of an author. Wait a minute, we cite opinions all the time in WP. Go to a movie article, like Star Trek: Into Darkness, and you will see quotes from movie reviewers, stating their opinions about the film.

Here is a sample of some of the opinions quoted in ST:ID article:

"Not all of reviews were positive, however, with The Independent saying that the film would "underwhelm even the Trekkies." American film critic Lou Lumenick of the New York Post gave the movie one and a half stars out of a possible four and said it had a "limp plot" and the "special effects are surprisingly cheesy for a big-budget event movie." A. O. Scott dismissed the film in The New York Times, writing, "It's uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement." Anthony Lane from the The New Yorker stated that "[m]ost of the logic has leached away from this movie, and with it half of the fun.""

Cantaloupe2, following your logic on this page, it would seem that you would want to remove these opinions on movie pages, since they clearly state opinions of authors, not facts. I don't understand how a statement being the opinion of an author makes it not acceptable to appear in this tipping article. Scholars have opinions about tips and tipping. It seems logical to me that we can put scholar's opinions, especially when they are clearly identified as opinion.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Except.. There is a section of MoS specifically tailored for films that doesn't carry over to this article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed law in Ontario

I have added the Canadian news story, covered by the Canadian Press, regarding the proposal of a new law on tipping in Ontario. The law was proposed by a member of the Provincial Parliament, and various news sources have reported on the proposed new law. Yet each time this information is put into the Canada section, it is reverted, most recently on the grounds that describing a proposed new law is like standing on a soapbox to advocate a certain position. I think that Wikipedia allows the coverage of proposed new legislation. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A Member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament, Michael Prue, has introduced a Bill in the Ontario Legislature that, if passed, would prohibit employers such as restaurants or hotels from taking any portion of employee's tips. The Ontario Restaurant, Motel and Hotel Association (ORMHA), a lobby group for this industry, has issued a press release which criticizes this proposed law, stating that "...the industry does not need another regulation."

I see no problem with that, as long as it is stated factually and not with a promotional bias. It's part of the history and progression of tipping and that is what the article is about. 174.118.153.129 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nuroruc

It is just unbelievable how much traffic this page has received.Nuroruc (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is due to the lively debates over content and sourcing!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tipping in Argentina

It is also a common practice to leave a tip for hotel housekeepers at the end of a long stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baires78 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Medina sod

I enjoyed this article and there is a lot of information here. I was wondering if perhaps a graphs or some sort of visual representation like a table would help people better comprehend this subject.Medina sod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Economic critique

There used to be an interesting section with economic opinions on the impact of tipping here. It looks like someone took it on themselves to remove it, which is a shame because the writing seemed neutral and well cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.48.198 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tipping in Thailand

It currently says "In Thailand a small tip is often left in restaurants". This is not true. Normal restaurants that cater to locals do not receive tips. High end restaurants and restaurants that cater to foreigners may receive tips, but it is optional and not something that will upset the servers. I have lived in Thailand for 7 years, so I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrsusMajor67 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move to Gratuity

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Tip (gratuity) → Gratuity – There is no reason to have two synonyms in the title. Since 'Tip' is ambiguous and 'Gratuity' is not, 'Gratuity' should be used. This is a more natural way to disambiguate than the way it is now with the parentheses. See the naming guideline. —Akrabbim^talk 13:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The nominator said it all. As long as the lead mentions both terms, which it surely always will, the proposed title is superior. 168.12.16.14 (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support – For the nominator's reason. --Article editor (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: as above. Use the word that doesn't need disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, excellent proposal. bd2412 T 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree entirely with the proposer. Having tip and gratuity together in the title makes very little sense. We should choose one, or the other. The obvious one to choose is "gratuity", as that is never ambiguous or dialectal. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nuke II

Five years later, the article is again full of original research. Since the warnings have been up for years, I've removed a big chunk of the unverifiable content. If anyone wants to restore some particular fact, it's easily accessible through the article history. —Noisalt (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)