Talk:Cultural appropriation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW (article contribs).

Red Indian Wearing Cowboy Hat.

Can we change the photo of a white man wearing an Indian war bonnet to that of an Indian wearing a Stetson and Levis? Or an African-American, perhaps Barack Obama, wearing a three-piece suit instead of a leopard skin loincloth?

Meanwhile here's a nice quote from a black man, Tony Sewell CEO of the charity Generating Genius: 'the term cultural appropriation has become increasingly fashionable among professional grievance-mongers and self-appointed social justice warriors eager to find offense'. Source: Daily Mail 22 August 2018. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.164.170 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX and please sign your comments per WP:SIGN. Bus stop (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Both those stereotypically white fashions you listed were appropriated from other cultures. The Stetson is a copy of the traditional Mexican sombrero, and the three piece suit is a mashup of Polish and Islamic costume. Many Indians would have acquired sombrero-like hats in the Old West, and some were employed as cowboys by the white ranchers that occupied their land due to their skill at horsemanship, shooting, and throwing lariats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:846C:5800:ACB9:C23B:7524:F126 (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As of Friday, September 2018, the Wikipedia entry on the Stetson (hat) makes no allegations that the design was copied from "the traditional Mexican sombrero." As for the origin of the three-piece suit, if it is indeed a "mashup" of Polish/European and Islamic "costume" it would not be a traditional garment of Sub-Saharan Africa. Now a question: IF a native-American gives someone who is not native-American a native-American garment such as a "war bonnet," is the non-native-American guilty of "cultural appropriation"if they wear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.249.170 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

^Thank you so much for this response. Vasalmon (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Stetson hat, Levis jeans and three piece suits were not designed to be used by a particular set of people at specific occasions. They were designed to be worn by anyone who could afford to buy them. Get real. Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Collective Intellectual Property Rights

The problem with this statement is that it's a fringe movement. While it's supported by the UN (the UN is known for supporting some REALLY kooky things), it's not supported by law. Leaving this out gives the impression that there is some law against it when, in fact, there is no legal precedent, so legally speaking it isn't a violation of anyone's rights nor do most countries recognize such rights as legally enforceable/binding. Failing to mention that anywhere in the article and with the statement in the lead gives a LARGE amount of WP:UNDUE weight to one opinion on the subject. The only other close instance was the Washington Redskins name/logo trademark retraction which was later thrown out by the courts as an abuse of power by the Trademark/Patent office. Buffs (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No where in the given sources is the term "collective intellectual property rights". Use of such terminology is OR to advance a political agenda. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede is about the intellectual property rights of all the cultures that have expressed concerns that they are being exploited or appropriated/misappropriated from. By trying to change the link to Indigenous intellectual property instead of Intellectual property you are trying to change the focus of the entire article. I've added in two more sources clarifying what the article already makes abundantly clear - Indigenous peoples are only some of the cultures covered here. Citations go after clauses (commas), not just sentences (periods) when needed to stop confusion or disruption. Changing the wikilink or moving the source that specifies multiple cultures to the end of the sentence (where Indigenous cultures are mentioned specifically) is not appropriate in this case. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:CITEPUNCT. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix what I perceive to be a problem. Your response is to push a WP:FRINGE opinion ("collective intellectual property rights") a) without any mention that the idea of "intellectual property" applies to individuals, not entire cultures, b) it carries zero weight in law, such a term isn't used anywhere else in the article, and c) without any source to back up that terminology, much less that "many" people view it as such. Lastly, even if all of the above is addressed, every current citation here pertains to indigenous peoples, ergo, such a claim isn't referenced for other cultures. ***NOTE: As I was typing this, "collective" was removed.*** scratch that, it was re-added without explanation.

Lastly, labeling all edits of mine that you don't like as "edit warring" or calling me an "edit warrior" is considered uncivil (see 1d & 2e). WP:BRD is a valid editing technique as is any other. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources for this, only ONE mentions "collective" IP "rights". In it, the person being interviewed on a HIGHLY partisan website states that she's advocating for this position and, despite decades of lobbying, there is no country that recognizes "collective intellectual property rights" or the "intellectual property rights" of any group. Stating this as a fact is much more than misleading when all you have to back it up is a WP:FRINGE opinion. This needs to be rephrased or removed.

Second, it's hypocritical to demand that I pass all edits through you or have to gain consensus before making changes when you make large scale changes yourself. Likewise, you can't complain that I'm not willing to collaborate when you refuse to discuss and just revert whatever changes I make. You're better than that. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

An organization that works on behalf of Tribes - 'applying existing laws and treaties to guarantee that national and state governments live up to their legal obligations.' is highly partisan? NARF has nothing to do with partisan politics. The Constitution of the United States ensures that Treaty is the law of the land. Ensuring that state and federal government abides by treaty obligations is constitutional. Please stop calling indigenous People fringe. It's highly insulting. I'm sure you can come up with a less insulting term for us.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

NARF basically advocates solely for Indigenous People of North America and, among that (and in the generic sense of society as a whole), generally for liberal causes or in opposition to conservative causes. Likewise, they are indeed partisan and advocating solely for those causes. They have no obligation to present a balanced approach (nor should they). They are attorneys advocating for a client/group. They are pushing for "collective intellectual property rights" and THAT is the fringe opinion, not that Indigenous People are "fringe". Despite their fervent advocacy, there isn't a court in the world that recognizes such IP rights.

I never called "Indigenous People fringe". Intentionally quoting an editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them is considered to be uncivil; please stop. By intentionally misconstruing my words into something I didn't say, you're creating your own reasons to be offended that have nothing to do with what was said/intended. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you have referred to the majority opinion of indigenous Peoples and organizations fringe repeatedly. NARF advocates for Nations on behalf of Treaty obligation which is affirmed by the Constitution of the United States. And yes, there are courts that have recognized intellectual property rights of indigenous Peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked to see polling to support your assertions that what you're advocating is indeed a majority opinion, but you have yet to provide one. Likewise, any organization can advocate a fringe opinion, but just because that that organization claims to advocate for a group doesn't mean all people of that group agree with them; and I'm not claiming they do. My criticism is of the opinion itself being a fringe view. As an example, the opinions of the NAACP, KKK, Greenpeace, Black Panthers, etc do not apply to all persons of the groups of people they claim to represent. Likewise, their other opinions may be completely mainstream or may be 100% fringe. (Since I've been intentionally misquoted about a dozen times, let me be 100% clear, I'm not comparing any organizations here to the NARF. I'm pointing out that the logic she's using is flawed and, if applied to other organizations, doesn't make sense or just plain isn't true...this is commentary on the faulty logic used by IG, not NARF or Indigenous People in general). Buffs (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, we cannot tell if you are simply not reading the sources and edit summaries, or are consciously choosing to misrepresent them. The effect is the same: disruptive and deceptive. Due to these chronic misrepresentations and disruptions on your part, no one is required to keep going in circles with you on talk. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we can change the tone here and end dissent by simply citing laws and court decisions that recognize collective intellectual property rights for groups of indigenous people. There are some in North America, but Australia has a much more vigorous legal framework for this. [1] I still think that many people are excessively and easily offended by some events, but we must agree that there legal recognition for some collective intellectual property has been robustly recognized.Pete unseth (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Corbie, I'm saying that the sources aren't saying what you're claiming. You are consciously choosing to misrepresent them, aren't reading them, or are cherrypicking from highly biased sources to back your advocated & desired societal result. I think Pete's suggestion is a good point that should be better incorporated into the article/lead.

Re:"Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by many, and to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures..." Of the 5 mentioned sources currently numbered 6-10, sources 6 & 7 do not mention collective rights of any kind. Number 8 is an excerpt of Panamanian law that only applies within that country and is unenforceable under international law (which one, I don't know...it's a vague excerpt). #9/10 are an opinion/advocacy pieces even in them, they recognize that "the default rule within the intellectual property system is that anything that is not specifically protected by law—copyright, patent, trademark—is within the public domain...it’s not stealing because that’s old stuff in the public domain." In #10, she's advocating how to change the current legal structure in order to establish legal enforcement to obtain/enforce collective intellectual property rights even though it goes against current law.

So, like I said, the fact that we've omitted that current international law and at least most national/local laws do not recognize collective intellectual property rights is a shortcoming of this article and should be addressed. Buffs (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pete, I don't agree that "we must agree that there legal recognition for some collective intellectual property has been robustly recognized." I'm not seeing evidence to back such an assertion. For example, the link you provided is an advocacy paper, not actual law. There's ZERO doubt in my mind that some people feel it should have such legal protections and I'm not denying that. Do you have something else? Buffs (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Another reference for international law which would supercede local or even national laws: Berne_Convention#The_minimum_standards_of_protection_relate_to_the_works_and_rights_to_be_protected.

All I'm looking for is balance here. WP shouldn't state something as fact when it's only an advocated, partisan opinion/legal desire. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I find myself torn between two opinions. I think that a number of complaints and allegations of cultural appropriation are trivial. But in my desire for facts (an old but still useful concept!), I want to make sure that we can see that there are laws in come places that vigoroursly recognize and protect intellectual property of indigenous populations. Australia has some rigorous laws: https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/indigenous. Canada, also, has such laws: https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/laws/indigenous Pete unseth (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

So, what I'm seeing is that the purposes of these acts "are the preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition." Such objects and areas SHOULD be protected as much as is physically/economically possible. However, that's a FAR cry from what we're talking about here. Intellectual Property is an idea such as a patent or copyright that carries the weight of protection of law and/or international treaty. These laws protect aboriginal lands and objects with the full weight of the Australian Federal laws, but it doesn't protect general ideas/culture with the same laws (nor the same level of severity).

As for the Canadian law, you cited WIPO. That's a UN group that is advocating for such changes in law. The primary related matter they've passed is no more than a Resolution, which carries no weight in law. In that pamphlet, the only portion citing Canada is an Indigenous People who filed and got a trademark to identify and protect against counterfeits of the goods they produce. While I think that's worth noting, that's no different than any other group obtaining a trademark (it's standard legal procedure) and isn't of any special importance other than to show how/that it can be done. Buffs (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Boy scout dance troupes

The source we have for specifically named Boy Scout dance troupes allegedly engaging in cultural appropriation is incredibly weak. It is a [2011 blog post] that states: "SCOUTER.com, the self-proclaimed largest Scouting web portal in the world, listed the following 'American Indian Dance Teams.' Presumably they all consist of non-Indians appropriating Indian dances and dressing up like Indians while doing nothing to help actual Indians . . . We've already seen how the Tribe of Mic-O-Say presents a mishmash of Native stereotypes unrelated to any particular culture. I fear these other dance troupes are just as bad." A blogger's assumption/fear seems woefully insufficient to support this list, especially given that it implicates living people. I'm removing it. Dyrnych (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll compile more links to support the BSA dance troops. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it imperative that we list specific troupes when we discuss the phenomenon as a general matter, particularly when the majority don't seem to be notable for Wikipurposes? Dyrnych (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to include the worst offenders, not in list form but integrated into the article. The Koshare are the absolute worst but there are other dance troupes that have been addressed by the Native community. Indigenous girl (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Then please re-add them within the confines of WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:RGW. Buffs (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to add any more specific troupes. I simply thought that it would be more fair than having all of the focus on the Koshare troupe. Thanks for your advice as to how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia Buffs. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased to attempt to balance the phrasing, include all such dance teams, the objections, and the results. It does little good to simply point out that people were offended without showing the resulting actions taken. These objections and emotional responses are quite real on both sides of the equation. I kept the vast majority of the phrasing, but added a little more for context and redid the order to be more chronological/logical rather than hopping around in time. Buffs (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of pic

Please stop removing the pic of the man in the appropriated bonnet. If there is a copyright issue this is not the place for it. You need to dispute it over on Commons. This should help https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy#Copyright_violation Indigenous girl (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this image really meet our criteria? Buffs (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing that disqualifies as the pic stands now. If it is a copyvio then it should absolutely be deleted at Commons. It is ultimately up to the folks there to decide though. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a copyvio issue. It's an ethical/moral one: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues. Does use of this image "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject"? Was this photo taken in such a manner that it "unreasonably intruded into the subject's private life"? There are plenty of other options we could use that are clearly photos in public (whereas this one appears to be in private). Buffs (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is a private photo. No one has offered any evidence of this. IIRC, the removals were by disruptive SPAs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentences in the lead

"Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by many, and to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures,[sources] notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule.[sources]"

I'm not seeing anything in the given material to back up this statement. No one states anything that backs up that it's "considered harmful by many". The only given source that is close states "it is most harmful when...", but says nothing about how many people consider it to be harmful.

Likewise, there is no such thing as "collective intellectual property rights" of a culture. This is a desire by some groups to have legal recourse, but it is not codified in any law or treaty.

This whole section should be rephrased as it is misleading. Buffs (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for this for over a month now. Given that there is no objection, I'm going to make the necessary changes. Buffs (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased it to more accurately reflect that this is a advocated desire, not a legal reality. Some of the language used is from the section of the article where that position is mentioned/advocated. If you disagree, let's discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Did a line edit for readability, compressing the wordy clause and moving it to the end of the sentence. The phrase concerning collective intellectual property is in a sourced clause, it does not need scare quotes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by some,[sources] most notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule,[sources] and those who advocate for the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures.[sources]"

Overall, I'm fine with general the route this is taking (compromise), but the phrasing is still clunky. By the given sources, it is considered harmful by people outside the culture and the noted legal advocates. Your phrasing here implies that they are the ones who think it to be harmful, not that they are the ones being harmed. I also think you're combining two separate subjects into a single sentence. The statement of harm and who it harms stands on its own. Likewise, those seeking legal redress stands alone as well. (they weren't scare quotes; I was attempting to quote the given sources)

I've expanded the phrasing in both instances and moved them to the most logical places. Flow-wise, combining these into a single sentence makes little sense. Instead, we now have: definition, it's harmful, here are some examples, actions being taken to stop it, and criticism. Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Completely cutting all mention of collective intellectual property is not a compromise edit. I'm going to further refine the paragraph for flow. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I have also swapped paras two and three, as I think putting the clarifications on colonialism leads in better that way. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't cut CIP. I moved it (as I stated...please look at the ENTIRE edit, not just the first paragraph you see). You went so far as to undo everything I did and reverted it to your preferred version with a misleading description and in a manner that avoided any alerts. Accusing me of things I didn't do is unnecessary. Why do you insist on doing that? Buffs (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

[ec]The issue right now is the choice of words. Unfortunately, that means going into depth as to what the sources say.

"Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by those who see this power imbalance as key to the definition,[sources] notably people from indigenous cultures, [and others + sources]..."

The given sources don't back this phrasing. You can't say that all people from indigenous cultures see CA as harmful or that they see power balance as key. No given source states that. Some people view it that way. Others don't. The way this is phrased does not meet our criteria. You've taken what was originally stated and morphed it into a blanket statement that isn't backed up with WP:RS.

I don't care at all about paragraph order; I like what you've done there. If you want to move them or feel they would be better shuffled, fine by me. Buffs (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find it, buried like that. Looking again, I can see the brief mention buried at the end of the next-to-last para in that edit. I don't think it's an improvement. The current version flows better. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop describing my actions as "burying". These are standard editing techniques and re-ordering (no different than what you did in re-ordering paragraphs...or are you "burying" things in later paragraphs too?). These baseless accusations are continuing hostility that isn't needed. Please stop! Buffs (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You are reading hostility where there is none. The lede has a thicket of sources, replete with embedded quotes. It's tough to wade through many of these diffs, to make sure the sourcing hasn't been damaged, and you ignored the Indigenous intellectual property sources in earlier edits, claiming they weren't there (the edit a couple weeks ago). Maybe you really didn't see them then, due to how dense the text is. But when I pointed them out to you, you responded with hostility. I don't know, but I am making a choice to AGF here. Maybe you could try it for a change. I appreciate that you're trying to clarify the text with your last couple of edits, but some of the clauses you have added are way too wordy, especially for the lede, and are going off on tangents. I'm continuing to compress things like, "Activists who advocate," and other unneeded qualifiers, and focusing on why people advocate, rather than inserting opinion or synthesis about whether there are "many" or "some". I think focusing on the issues rather than numbers, or the given importance an individual editor wants to assign to the issues, is a better way forward. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Stop describing my edits in any manner, then. The issue is that you've (again) introduced WP:SYN via the phrase "by those who focus on this colonial element". Neither of the cited sources even mention colonialism. I think what we're both trying to effectively say is that "Those who endorse the view that CA is bad feel a certain way. Here's who they are and why" with a WP:NPOV, WP:RS to back it up, and avoiding WP:SYN. You cannot claim that an entire ethnic group views things in a certain way (for anything); they don't. I think the phrasing is simply eluding us.

Ignoring sources for a moment, let's look at the actual phrasing:

"Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by people of various groups, including indigenous activists involved in cultural preservation and those who have lived or are living under colonial rule."

"indigenous activists involved in cultural preservation" is a duplication of the last part of the list; it encompasses those advocating for the creation of collective intellectual property rights.

This phrasing doesn't include numbers, includes specific advocacy groups, and doesn't limit it to just those groups (nor does it make it seem like 100% of them agree). We could even use "most notably" or "notably" instead of "including". Buffs (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, the most long-running, stable version was "Cultural appropriation is often considered harmful," notably/such as/for example by... If it wasn't "often", we wouldn't have an article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're going to stay away from quantitative descriptors such as "many, "some", "often", so let's just agree not to use them. You've apparently decided to just ignore my suggestion (you made no comments at all about it) and say, "let's go back to the stable version". I think this sums up the argument against that: "Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version..." Buffs (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I will also note that the "stable" version of the page has been "stable" not because of consensus but because edits have routinely been reverted by some editors to preserve "stability." Dyrnych (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove "collective".[2] The content is well-sourced. And after a series of edits where you seemed to finally be attempting to edit in a collaborative manner, now you're just removing it again with the inaccurate edit summaries. This could be perceived as a return to the old, tendentious pattern. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add the unsourced and redundant phrase "including indigenous activists involved in cultural preservation" either. Given that this encompasses "those who advocate for the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures", it seems it was your idea to consolidate. You want to duplicate information? You need to explain. If you are not duplicating information, you need to explain + provide sources.

Lastly, again, "collective intellectual property rights" don't exist. They are a desire of a small minority and do not align with what the world views as "intellectual property". Failing to acknowledge this is the root of most of the problems here. Buffs (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We are doing this based on sources, not anyone's individual opinion on whether they think certain cultures should or should not have specific rights. Indigenous cultural preservation, and intellectual property rights, are not identical or redundant. Minority views are covered on WP. Violations of the rights of "minority" populations is a central theme of this entire article. Trying to remove that from the article is kind of odd. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No, "Violations of the rights of 'minority' populations" is not the "theme" of this article. It's defining what "cultural appropriation" is and providing examples + views on the subject. No matter how much you and others want it, these are not recognized "rights" by any legal entity. And as much as you want it to be and as offended as you and others are, culture is NOT a recognized right or something that can be defined as "intellectual property". That people want this opinion to be law (and enforceable as such) IS notable and should be discussed/mentioned, but not in the context that it is (somehow) an undeniable fact or something that actually exists. I am not basing this on whether they should or should not have such rights. I'm saying they don't have them and they don't currently exist. That isn't opinion. It's a fact. It's a fact supported by 100% of the sources you've added for "collective intellectual property rights" or "collective".

As for this article/paragraph, you've added an unnecessary citation for a single word that is not in dispute: "collective". If you feel it's necessary, move it to the end of the phrase/clause per WP:MOSCITE or remove it as redundant. I think the 3 existing sources indeed cover the subject and the legal desires of those mentioned groups.

Lastly, why do you insist on starting a new, outdented block for every new portion of this conversation? Buffs (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You directly disputed "collective", claiming it was "unsourced".[3],[4]. Now you claim it's not in dispute. But you only stopped edit-warring when the cites were moved from the end of the sentences to right after the exact words. Even then you added scare quotes:[5] Part of your WP:TENDentious editing pattern is to remove cites then remove content, so, no, I think history has shown leaving the citation right there, at least for now, is probably the better approach. Maybe you should consider dropping the stick. Also, the fact that some of the people who oppose appropriation are people who argue in favor of collective intellectual property rights has nothing to do with any legal rulings around said rights, pro or con. The mention is only there to illustrate what people consider misappropriation harmful. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I did no such thing. The way it was phrased before stated that some found it harmful and it was also a violation of CIPR. Let me be very clear about this: CIPR does not exist. These are rights that some people want to enact, but they don't currently exist! Now it accurately states that it is considered hamrful by some and, among those, are those advocating for CIPR. THAT is an accurate statement. When you added an unsourced claim, it seems to me they are the same groups and the most sensible thing to do would be to take the most broad view, the latter. If you don't like that, view, fine by me. Source it and keep it.

Lastly, STOP ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I DIDN'T DO/SAY! YES! I'M SHOUTING! This is absurd that I should be accused of all manner of malfeasance where none exists, especially by an admin. This is, by definition, incivility. Stop it!!! Buffs (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm NOT editing tendentiously. I'm not removing sources. I'm not gaslighting. Yours appears to be "no...I don't like how you do things, so it's going to stay the way it is because that's 'stable'". WP:STABLE explicitly calls out this sort of rationale as inappropriate.

I asked for your input for months and you gave none. It wasn't until I enacted a change that you jumped in to say anything. WP:TEND? You be the judge. I've asked for WP:BRD. Your response is largely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Redundant phrases

"Indigenous people working for cultural preservation" and "those who advocate for the collective intellectual property rights" is redundant and should be condensed. It's like saying "Lots of things are 4: the square root of 16, 2+2, 2 squared, and a myriad of others; 4 is extensive". Buffs (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Different sources. Native American cultural preservation workers are cited in some of the sources (spiritual leaders, tribal cultural preservation officers), and legal documents in studies commissioned by Australian Parliament in others. Totally separate framings by very different organizations and people. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Different sources ≠ not the same thing. Both are advocating protection of what they claim to be their intellectual property. You want both? Explain how they are different. The sources don't show this. Both directly reference a desire for legal protection for what they claim to be their intellectual property. Buffs (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

ThoughtCo

My apologies for removing this reference - I had "ThoughtCo" conflated with "Thought Catalog". ThoughtCo has "No consensus" at WP:RSP and is colored yellow - use with caution. Thought Catalog is a whole other can of worms, and is unrelated to ThoughtCo, which in this situation, seems quite perfectly usable as a source. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Collective intellectual property rights"

With respect to User:CorbieVreccan, WP:WTAF is not the only relevant guideline here, and even if it were, it is not a rule to be applied without exception. I say this as someone who has probably created less than five red links since I began editing in 2005, and in this case, I did so advisedly. Anyway, I wish now to refer to WP:RED, which acknowledges that there are times when creating a red link is actually desirable.

It is useful while editing articles to add a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow. The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start. . . . In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject . . . Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.

I added this red link because of an editing dispute happening here. I was not a party to it, I merely witnessed it going on. One editor made the claim that there is no such thing as "collective intellectual property rights", and upon that claim rested a great deal to their dispute. I did a bit of research, and found that the term does exist, but that its use is controversial. It is itself a hot topic, and is key to understanding the topic of this and other articles. It is exactly the sort of thing for which we should create red links, because it reminds us that there is an article needed to address something within this article.

I have neither the competence nor the time to create such an article. But this red link (one of the "good" ones referred to in WP:RED) will hopefully spur someone else to do so. So, again, with respect, I intend to put it back in place. Unschool 03:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Keep it with my blessing. My objection is not to the term’s existence, but that it is treated like it is something that has weight, but doesn’t. For example, saying CA is an example of a violation of CIPR” is not an accurate statement. “Person XYZ claims...” is an accurate statement. Like I said, the red link has my blessing and support. Buffs (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Unschool: It seems to me that Indigenous intellectual property would be appropriate too (I've proposed in the past: [6]). Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Film section

Yeah, so the entire film section is solely about whitewashing and the lack of Asian representation in Hollywood. What does this have to do with cultural appropriation? 2600:8800:5A80:1394:A8CA:5A65:C124:FBA5 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)