Talk:Indigenous intellectual property: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:21, 24 May 2019

Anthropology Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas B‑class High‑importance

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Work in Progress

This indigenous intellectual property article was identified as needed/absent following discussions at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 8#Traditional_Knowledge_Disclaimer and Wikipedia_talk:General_disclaimer#Traditional_Knowledge.

It remains, at present, a 'work in progress', as I for one hope and intend to include brief review of various declarations, extracts from United Nations Declarations, summary of WIPO and other fact finding reports, identify laws around the world relating to indigenous IP etc (yep, lots of fun, for those who wish to assist expand it!) Bruceanthro (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopi and Apache Versus American Museums

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I have found on an Anthropological journal from the university of Chicago: Current Anthropology: Can Culture Be Copyrighted? a very good example of a dispute for cultural patrimony: It is the Hopi & Apache versus American Museums in 1994. They wanted everything back, including written records. This was allowed under the NAPGRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Do you think it is a good idea to post it up? Xavier Peniche (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be posted in its entirety, but it can probably be cited as a reference. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mess

This article is a total mess. Headings are not to contain links or refs or repeat article title. References are full of all capitals when they should be title case. There are far too many quotes, making it is difficult to read as it is not really formal prose. Editors of this article should become more familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shiftchange, I think you're being a little harsh. I've seen plenty of articles in far worse condition than this one .. and I think the content is pretty informative. I, for one, have had a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as suggested, and see a preference that external links not be used within the body of the text; and preference that quotations should not be italised plus few others .. but didn't find those conventions asking/requiring that article heading not be repeated in headings & overuse of quotes etc?! I will, though, if I get a chance later tonight, try to bring more in line with style convention as suggested/asked! Bruceanthro (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sure the format can be improved. What about the substance? This seems to me unbalanced. Reading the article, you get the impression that there can be no possible objection to the idea, or any practical difficulty in implementing it. It needs balance by inserting some account of objections and difficulties. I'd do this myself, except that I'd have my comments objected to as 'original research'. Anyone have any good references to suitable published articles?Twr57 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

Going along with the "Mess" comments above, this article has huge problems.

Clean up: External links in the body, links in section headers, etc. Original research: This article is ostensibly about intellectual property, yet it talks about and quotes extensively from many declarations that have no real application to the topic. Some government somewhere asserting that cultures should protect culture is NOT the same thing as saying that intellectual property rights were given. The editor who did this made that conclusion, but there is no sources actually supporting that right. Similarly, examples of cultures being offended by use of terms in their culture in advertising or marketing and the company backing down is NOT an admission that the culture had intellectual property rights. POV-pushing: By including all of this material that is not directly related, the article is slanted in a major way toward the view that these groups should or do have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them. There also is basically nothing to demonstrate the actual prevailing legal thought around the world, which is that these groups do not and should not have any special intellectual property rights.

Frankly, in order for this article to be compliant with Wikipedia policies, it would require completely removing the majority of the current content and a total rewrite of the rest. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on Indigenous intellectual property, intellectual property has its own article. You appear to have a particular problem with anything on indigenous or traditional knowledge and IP, see public domain. I will sort out the sourcing and will remove the tag. Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All content in the article appears to be sources. I have removed the neutrality and NPOV tag. Please explain what problems you see with the article in reference to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the lede: "ongoing misappropriation and misuse". Obviously, that's opinion, and is welcome if properly cited as such. Arguments thatthese groups should have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them is fine, but fiction isn't. --Elvey (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing issues & Removing Issues tags

Tags identify article as having multiple issues, including some POV etc.

Working onwards from the first paragraph which described the article as being about a 'term' that is used in national and international forums .. to remove POV and issues .. it seems appropriate to try to limit leading paragraph to simple description of the term and it's use .. and shift referenced opinion, such as the following, to a new section .. perhaps entitled 'debate' or 'competing opinions' about the relative pros and cons of the term and/or way it is being used:

Exerpt from pov:

</ref>^[1]

Professor Michael F. Brown has described the origin, goals, and challenges facing the movement to establish indigenous IP rights in law thusly:

The digital revolution has dramatically increased the ability of in- dividuals and corporations to appropriate and proﬁt from the cul- tural knowledge of indigenous peoples, which is largely unpro- tected by existing intellectual property law. In response, legal scholars, anthropologists, and native activists now propose new legal regimes designed to defend indigenous cultures by radically expanding the notion of copyright. Unfortunately, these propos- als are often informed by romantic assumptions that ignore the broader crisis of intellectual property and the already imperiled status of the public domain.

Would be glad to make a start on some of the debate around the term and it's use etc .. but should also suggest, in relation to comment made back in December that 'indigenous intellectual property' may be a fiction .. that irrespective of whether or not the term/ concept is linked to anything real in the world .. much like much debated terms such as justice etc .. it is, never-the-less, a term/ concept that does exist .. and IS, as a matter of fact, being used by within the World Intellectual Property Organisation and around the world.

Hope this assists. Bruceanthro (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still horribly biased toward promoting these non-existent "rights" and highly misleading. There is no sane discussion of the topic, only promotion of extreme positions as if they were the only ones out there. Even the name of the article is biased, as the things being discussed do not fall under normal legal definitions of "intellectual property." I have restored the tags, as no improvements happened. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brown, Michael F. (1998). "Can Culture Be Copyrighted?" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 39 (2): 193–222. ISSN 0011-3204.

Updated

Overhauled the article, though it was mostly just formatting problems by the time I came across it. This is well-sourced and documents an issue that can be contentious. But just because someone may not like the concept of intellectual property rights, doesn't mean we don't document the issue on Wikipedia. Do we go to articles on freeing the slaves or African Americans getting the vote and flag it for POV issues and demand there be a "criticism" section? The article documents the issue, and largely relies on quotes from the Indigenous groups themselves. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"criticism" section, or rather, the lack thereof

so, there is NO criticism of this concept?

none at all?

REALLY?'

Lx 121 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has obviously added this section, though it was pretty bad, almost offensive in parts. I distilled what I thought was the essence of it, but I couldn't add any citations.--Gueux de mer (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "offensive" is highly subjective. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and is not censored to protect people's feelings. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613105447/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a highly biased article

Why is there no mention of the fact that no courts or countries recognize these rights. I get that some in these Nations believe/feel that this information is theirs and that harm comes from its use outside of their cultural norms, but that doesn't jive with current laws/treaties which aren't mentioned. Buffs (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hounding Indigenous editors. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have ZERO idea what your race/ethnicity is nor do I particularly care (nor do you even know mine). You don't get to have special privileges on Wikipedia based on that. I'm hounding no one and you don't WP:OWN these articles. I'm here for the exact same reason you are: we're both editing Cultural Appropriation which references this article. Given that I feel it's inadequate, I tried to address it on the talk page BEFORE editing.

But, obviously, I can't do that either. You block attempts to make an article better or incorporating opinions that dissent with your own because it's "edit warring" or "disruptive editing". Any attempt to talk about it is "hounding". It's pretty obvious you aren't interested in collaboration, but maintaining the status quo. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about the ethnicity of individual editors. I'm talking about your following the editors of Indigenous and Indigenous-related articles to the articles they edit to push an anti-Indigenous POV. You've done it on a handful of articles now, and you've shown a clear pattern. You're not stupid, and neither are the other editors who've seen you do this. You've been warned for this already. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a valid concern that this article doesn't mention that there is zero legal precedent for this concept worldwide (but it mentions in the opening sentence that it's a "legal term"). That's a pretty big omission. Just because I disagree with your opinion or NARF (or anyone else's for that matter) doesn't mean I'm pushing an an anti-Indigenous POV. The only thing I'm "pushing" is for WP:NPOV. I've been addressing copyright and trademark issues here on Wikipedia for over a decade. THAT is my interest.

I have every right to be here and edit these pages as much as anyone else. I don't care if you're an admin or not, no one gets to dictate where editors can/can't edit. That you are "warning" me is an attempt to intimidate me. At this point, you aren't addressing issues I brought up. You are EXCLUSIVELY focusing on the editor, not the edits. Stop it. Buffs (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive examples of declarations regarding IIP

@Jack90s15: Please stop edit warring. We do not need to list every declaration about Indigenous intellectual property as not every declaration is notable. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you were removing references and information from the page your edits I saw on Recent changes that's why undid them Jack90s15 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content not on the person removing it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should not list every single example of every claim that any tribe has ever made. Please provide a valid reason for inclusion of each example. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making sure you were not trying to the page was not being Vandalized It came up on the Recent changes I see now you were not trying to do such a thingJack90s15 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have admitted that you were wrong to revert, I am now going to reinstate the change if that's OK. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes since you explained why you were doing itJack90s15 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing and not edit warring. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you are removing sourced content to insert completey unsourced opinion. You are also edit-warring with others. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring nor inserting WP:OR. Please do not make accusations w/o evidence. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted three times to your preferred version and received a final warning. You do not have consensus to remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced opinion. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I only reinstated my edit once after being reverted. The second reinstatement was only after the other user said it was OK. I have not reverted since nor do I intend to until discussion concludes. I had already made my final revert before your first warning and made zero edits to the page whatsoever between your first warning and your "final" warning. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: I am willing to compromise. I'll leave out the criticism section for now since it's unsourced but I still think that we need to reduce the number of declarations. I don't think it's necessary to include all of them because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it adds unnecessary clutter the page. If you disagree, can you explain why? (Same editor from before different IP) 46.140.62.94 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to some of the sections being made more concise. But, dynamic IP editor who is removing warnings from your pages and who fits the same profile as the UTRS troll, I'd rather have someone who hasn't been disruptive do it. Like someone who hasn't been disruptive on these articles. Your edit-warring and attempts to avoid accoutability rule you out. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussions about article content exclusively. If you have an issue with my conduct you can bring it up on my talk page or at ANI. I did not remove the warnings to hide part actions. In fact, I left a note at the top of the page linking to the page history where the notices can be found. What evidence do you have that I am in any way related to the UTRS troll? Why haven't you opened an SPI? 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the warnings to remove any doubt about my intentions. I would ask that you please assume good faith on my part. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

There are duplications between the Declarations and Claims of Violations sections. Even if there isn't a ton of duplicated content, it points to the fact that editors have skipped sections to start new ones, and this needs to be restructured to flow better. Still looking this over to see if I have a clear idea on how to best do this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we need an overview section with the most important rulings, that comes before the chronological stuff. I think UNDRIP needs to be prioritized. I'm going to do a bit of a shift with this, I think.... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I mostly just restructured it. Most of the tedious, unreadability was poor formatting. The main issues are now up top, and the historical resolutions are now compressed in a history section. We can continue to discuss POV and sourcing, but the tagging was largely driveby, with no concrete suggestions forthcoming. Feel free to suggest productive changes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

Hello, User:Jwoodward48wiki. I erase some of the items from because I think that there is too much examples and thought maybe we should remove a few if that is OK. 152.165.67.17 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are your specific reasons for the specific examples you removed? Why do you think they do not add to the article? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And use your real account or IP to engage here. Hiding your identity vie Tor proxies is an abuse of editing privileges. The IP above has been blocked. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, User:CorbieVreccan. I removed these examples because Wikipedia is not and should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't matter to me which examples stay and which go but the onus is on you to achieve consensus for the inclusion for contested information not the other way around. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't have consensus for these removals. I compressed this a great deal, and this number of examples have been stable for years, with you being the only person (under multiple names and numbers) who has objected. They provide a timeline and examples of legislation. Why do you want to remove these specific ones? There is no set number, so why these? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific reason for those examples in particular but we need to see the forest for the trees. Listing too many examples can distract the reader from the main point of the article. I think that a few examples, somewhere in the single digits would suffice. At the very least, I think that a conversation needs to be had about reducing the number. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an indiscriminate collection. It is very specific and pertinent to the topic. I do not believe the number needs to be reduced. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't seem to be much of an article. It is merely a list of claims of "wrongs" by some Indigenous Peoples and the text of their claims (not a summary). A summary of the claims should be sufficient. It also fails to point out that few courts have ever ruled in favor of IIP. I concur with the IP on this one. Regardless of how offended you are, the idea that you can claim a dance move or clothing is protected by copyright controlled by a culture is not backed by any legal precedent. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also has too many quotes and I've tagged it as such for cleanup. 11 of 15 subsections have quotes longer than their prose. Surely we can summarize them rather than use excessive quoting. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our role to declare what is and isn't legal. We're just documenting. Neither you nor Storm/shifting IP has stated which precedents aren't relevant, or why. It's not that long of an article, and TL;DR isn't really a convincing rationale. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "declaring" anything legal here. These aren't "precedents". They are just "declarations" or statements by highly partisan and WP:FRINGE groups who seek to change existing laws/legal structures to give Indigenous Peoples rights as a collective over IP retroactively; rights that NO ONE else enjoys. Of these listed, NONE carry weight in legal matters. Of the few worldwide which carry ANY legal weight, none are recognized beyond the borders of their country. I don't concur with the IP's methods (which, by Corbie's description are sockpuppetry), but he also has a point. Buffs (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, you do not have consensus to remove the quotes from UNDRIP and NARF. Just because you and the shifting IP/two different named accounts user don't like them. Discuss it here. Those are two of the most important things in the article, that's why they're up top, and that's why I've reverted you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only just realized the extent to which this had been gutted. Look, if you don't like the article, go work on something else. What you did here is gut content for no good reason. TL;DR is no reason. When articles get too long, we split things off, we don't just delete them 'cause some people don't like it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Brown1998-1] Brown, Michael F. (1998). "Can Culture Be Copyrighted?" (PDF). Current Anthropology. 39 (2): 193–222. ISSN 0011-3204.

[1]

Revision as of 01:02, 24 May 2019 edit CorbieVreccan (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 28,682 edits →‎Content removal: This is about improvements to article. If you want to discuss the other user, go to one of their many pages. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:21, 24 May 2019 edit undo CorbieVreccan (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 28,682 edits →‎Content removal: Reverting further. Next edit →
Line 203:		Line 203:

	Buffs, you do not have consensus to remove the quotes from UNDRIP and NARF. Just because you and the shifting IP/two different named accounts user don't like them. Discuss it here. Those are two of the most important things in the article, that's why they're up top, and that's why I've reverted you. - [[User:CorbieVreccan\|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan\|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER\|☼]] 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)		Buffs, you do not have consensus to remove the quotes from UNDRIP and NARF. Just because you and the shifting IP/two different named accounts user don't like them. Discuss it here. Those are two of the most important things in the article, that's why they're up top, and that's why I've reverted you. - [[User:CorbieVreccan\|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan\|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER\|☼]] 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

			I only just realized the extent to which this had been gutted. Look, if you don't like the article, go work on something else. What you did here is gut content for no good reason. TL;DR is no reason. When articles get too long, we split things off, we don't just delete them 'cause some people don't like it. - [[User:CorbieVreccan\|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan\|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER\|☼]] 01:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)