Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Claims in lead

Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group being seen as the new face of said cultural practices. As minority cultures are imitated by the dominant culture, observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them.

Is there any evidence for this claim? None of the citations in the following sentence support it, and it seems implausible on its face. For example, is there any indication that a white American donning a Native American headdress would cause an observer to view Native American headdresses as part of white American culture? And, notably, the claim is never fleshed out in the body of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also clearly POV: "...observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them." Who's to say that any association is "false?" That assumes the POV of the "appropriated" culture; not the "appropriating" culture. Clearly a violation of NPOV. Neutrality can be maintained by deleting "falsely." At any rate, the problems noted by Dyrnych remain. —Fluous (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

the neutrality of this page really needs to be reviewed

I've been reviewing this article extensively over the past few days, and I'd really like to start a discussion on the neutrality of this article as a whole. Here are several things I've noticed:

There is a severe lack of authoritative, neutral references.

The term is fairly new, so this isn't surprising. A quick search on google trends shows the rise of this term began in roughly 2010. I propose the addition of a "history of usage" section outlining where the term came from, along with when it was coined, by whom, in reaction to what. If anybody can find the earliest usage, that would be great.

"shows the rise of this term began in roughly 2010." interesting since our article dates from 2005. Carptrash (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of the references are from non-neutral, non-authoritative sources. A quick glance over the titles again as I'm writing this highlights the heated, editorial nature of references 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, 26, 33, and 34. That list is not all-inclusive.

More references are needed from sociological, anthropological, historical, psychological, or otherwise academic sources. Academic journals are great for this. Books are fantastic. Many of the articles from which definitions are lifted make no note of where their definitions are coming from.

Wikipedia is a source used by many people. Without grounding our definitions in authoritative references, we run the risk of citing articles who are citing Wikipedia, and that circular logic is something we need to avoid.

Furthermore, many of the articles cited don't even support the preceding passages. For instance, the use of reference 4 in the opening paragraph of the page.

Other references are dead links, but that's a technical thing.

Using non-biased sources is optimal. If they can't be found, this page has a big problem.

If you're going to use a non-neutral, source, be careful about your wording to ensure that it is not passed off as one. For example, rather than, "Definition [link to blog]," we could use, "[name of blogger, brief overview of blogger's credentials] says that, "definition" [link to blog]."

An example of a well-cited section on this page is examples -> costumes. We need to even out the rest of the page to look like that. - Danieldhales (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Some definitions per RS (Google Books has many other sources):

• Members of one culture (I will call them outsiders) take for ther own, or for their own use, items produced by a member or members of another culture (call them insiders). from Cultural Appropriation and the Arts by James O. Young (link). Specifically referring to art.
• Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation by Bruce H. Ziff, Pratima V. Rao. Uses language of "dominant" and "subordination" groups. Expands definition of "taking" to account for power. link

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the first definition you've listed is more neutral and otherwise far superior to our current definition. Dyrnych (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: multiple editors have disputed the neutrality of our current definition, whether due to its source (which is, I would reiterate, an opinion piece) or to its moralizing tone. I haven't seen a good argument for retaining it. Dyrnych (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We have scholarly sources in the article, but, as noted above, a significant part of the phenomenon, as well as the discussion of said phenomenon, takes place in pop culture. Therefore we have to look at this in the same way we do other articles that are not solely the purview of academia. This article is regularly criticized, vandalized, and called POV by readers who do not like the phenomenon being named and discussed. However, the core concepts are soundly cited, and the more pop culture examples and discussions are both WP:V as well as WP:RS for the specific examples they cite. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The main issue that I have with this is that we're citing activists as authoritative sources for factual claims about the positions for which they advocate. That's a problem, regardless of what we individually believe about the phenomenon. It turns the page into an extension of that advocacy, and that violates WP:NPOV. Dyrnych (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

My point exactly. I don't have a problem with quoting activists' blogs, but if we're going to be lifting material from there, their bias needs to be neutralized in the article itself. For instance, if we were only using internet-based activist blogs as sources [we aren't, this is just an example to illustrate what I mean by neutralizing the style], then instead of stating, "Cultural appropriation is X [citation]," it should read more like, "Cultural appropriation is a term used by internet activists to refer to the phenomenon of X." The page's existence is valid, but its presentation is terrible, and if we can't ground it in authoritative sources, then that needs to be reflected. Danieldhales (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Who is it in this article, or in the sourcing of this article, that you are considering (only) "an internet activist"? For instance, academics like Dr. Adrienne Keene are cited. While she started as a blogger when she was a grad student, now she's a Harvard Phd who lectures on the topic to a variety of university audiences. The fact that her blog has evolved into an official website referenced by many who also write about the topic in more mainstream publications (as in, not academic journals) doesn't change her qualifications. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure her credentials are impressive, but the sources cited in the article are explicitly advocacy pieces: they're telling readers to do or refrain from doing things. I don't think you're addressing the actual issues that editors have with the sources and their use; you're just stating that Keene has credentials, which is irrelevant to the fact that the article is decidedly not NPOV. Dyrnych (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Flagging every clause in a sentence for citations is really excessive, especially when such things are sourced at various other points in the article. Much of this new activity seems more like SPA disruption and making the article even more awkward than any effort to build the 'pedia. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way for you to make this claim while also assuming good faith. The page is, as currently constituted, an advocacy piece in which factual claims are sourced to other advocacy pieces. Multiple editors, including myself (and I am very obviously not an SPA) have noted this. That self-evidently violates WP:NPOV. If consensus is to retain the claims in those advocacy pieces, we must attribute the claims. Dyrnych (talk)

On the contrary, examples -> costumes exemplifies a poorly cited section. The section is supposed to be about how costumes are examples of cultural appropriation. You would think the citations would support that proposition. Not so. "The Gloss" link doesn't even mention "cultural appropriation," nevermind say anything about how costumes are cultural appropriation. The abstract for the Mueller article doesn't mention cultural appropriation. The Native American blog posts are blog posts from someone's self-published advocacy blog. There's gotta be a better source than that. And finally, The Bitch magazine citation actually does argue that costumes are an act of appropriation. But overall, there's a severe lack of support for the proposition that examples of ethnic-stereotyping costumes are also examples of "cultural appropriation." —Fluous (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

woah, headed off for a few weeks to take care of finals, catching up now and seeing a few new problems that have been added since i've been gone:

second sentence in the lead: "Generally, an assumption that the culture being borrowed from is also being oppressed by the culture doing the borrowing is prerequisite to the concept."

"generally" is not a source. not even close to a source.

last sentence of lead paragraph: "According to proponents of the concept of cultural appropriation, such cultural borrowings are problematic for a variety of reasons, ranging from group identity, and questions of cultural oppression, to claims of intellectual property rights."

again, no source here.

also, i can't find any scholarly sources from kjerstin johnson, only excerpts from her blog at bitch magazine, which haven't been reviewed or vetted in any way. according to her LinkedIn profile she's an adjunct professor at Portland State, but i can't find anything written by her in jStor. again, if we're citing blogs, they should not be treated as authoritative sources unless they've been vetted by the author's peers in their field. her references in the article we've cited are tumblr, tumblr, an editorial from a news source, blogspot, tumblr, tumblr, a dead link on SociologicalImages, and another editorial. Can we stop pretending this is an authoritative and scholarly source and find a real one? there's got to be one out there.

i haven't changed anything in the article this time around; i just wanted to add to the discussion

please find good sources for your assertions (whoever's making them in whatever direction) instead of just adding some random link so you can include your own POV in the article

just my two cents

Danieldhales (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

in reply to several conversations about about neutrality & statements in the lede

i agree that this article is desperately nnpov; & it's gotten worse since i was last here.

have made some small revisions; mostly in the lead section, some in the (FAR too limited) "cirticism" section, & added a few unannotated references to the bottom.

i dont have the stomach, time, or interest to comb through this article extensively right now, but i support additional changes towards npov.

if anyone wants to challenge the validity of any of the statements i've added/revised, i stand ready to do battle with refs... :p

cheers,

Lx 121 (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Dumping in a bunch of unsourced opinion is not the way to make an article NPOV. And what's up with the section of bare urls? I'm removing it. It's in the history if you want to format it properly. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Corbie. These recent edits by Lx 121 are unsourced. Also, the user has written hostile notes, claiming they will "bury" other users for changing that person's edits. Yikes. Corbie, if you want to revert everything back to the August 9th version, I would support that. It is justified under WP:UNSOURCED.Fluous (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether via additional cleanup or revert, go ahead. I probably won't get a chance to go over it today, so if you want to do the deed, go for it. I also think the tag can be removed at this point. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The recent edits to the page are excessive, problematic, and unsourced. They should be reverted or fixed. But that in no way suggests that the article's serious NPOV issues have been resolved, and the tag should remain. Dyrnych (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

i have no objection to keeping the npov tag. references WERE included, UNTIL user:corbievreccan REMOVED THEM. have restored the links. i suggest you read through them, before making opinions on the merit of my additions to the text. :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lx121, if you are adding content, put the cites in as inline cites. Other editors have no obligation to figure out if and how your unsourced additions can be sourced. Dumping in a whole bunch of bare URLs in a new references list is not sufficient, and editors removing them are not "vandals". Diff:[1] Your edits at this point are disruptive. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you created a problem of a list of cites that aren't inline, and then flagged the article as having "no" inline cites. The fact that the template you added exists, and that you know it exists, makes it clear you know this is not the appropriate way to source an article. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

dear corbie;

YOU DO NOT GET TO MAKE-UP RULES about stripping references from an article.

there is NO wikipedia policy to support your actions here; incompleteness of footnotes is NOT a reason to remove material supported by references, & as an admin you should know better. i find it alarming that you do not, & am left wondering if a review of your contribution history & possibly your adminship is called for.

if you happen to know of a tag for "this article is partially footnoted, but requires more work", by all means go ahead & replace the tag i have used; im not aware of any such, which is why i used the tag in question.

if you continue to strip material out of the article & strip references, without a VALID reason, this conversation will be continued elsewhere.

again, with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, do link to the policy or policies I'm violating by removing your unsourced content, scare quotes on things like "rights" and list of bare urls, including blog posts, that may or may not source the content you have added. Unsourced, or improperly sourced, content may be removed by any editor, at any time. This bullying may work on new editors, but not on experienced ones. Cheers. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

WELL, for one thing, the material WAS NOT UNSOURCED, until you REMOVED THE REFERENCES?

& for another, here are the references that you REMOVED, please explain your reasons for removing EACH of them as "unsuitable"?

Unannotated references 1

Lx 121 (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A good number of the sources given are opinion pieces and not reliable sources. Moreover, inline citations are needed. The rest of the article uses them and it's the standard forms (see Help:Overview_of_referencing_styles). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

here, again, are the sources, please indicate which ones you do & do not "like", & explain your reasoning for each?

Unannotated references 2

Lx 121 (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lx 121, creating additional work for other editors isn't appreciated on WP. Dumping bare lists of external links without integrating them into the text as inline citations is sloppy editing. While I haven't completely examined all the links you added, it's relatively clear the majority don't stand up as reliable sources. So, yes, stripping such "references" improves the article. Without impugning your good faith, I would mention I have seen this tactic before. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

btw; this enyclopedia operates on a wiki-process, in a sense we are all "creating work for each other". if the rule was "anything you add MUST be in complete & finished form, with 100% compliance to the standards & stylebook, or it will be removed", this would be a VERY different place, & "it's relatively clear the majority" of articles on here "don't stand up" to that requirement. wikipedia is a perpetual "work-in-progress"; if it ever stops being that, we don't need to be here. :) Lx 121 (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

which "tactic" is that exactly? adding material, adding references to support that material?

i realize that having everything all tidy & inline cited is preferred, HOWEVER that is not a basis from removing either material or supporting references, & there is NO wikipedia policy to support this action.

& here are the references in question; please indicate which ones you do & don't "like", & provide your reasoning?

Unannotated references 3

Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Numbers 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 aren't RS just from looking at the URLs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

REALLY!?

so, http://www.columbiachronicle.com/ & http://www.technicianonline.com/ & http://www.dailybarometer.com/ are NOT legitimate references, iyho?

REALLY!? o__0

& does that mean you accept the validity of the other sources? or do you have more reasons to present, for removing them?

& why do you keep "boxing" the references? do that on your own talk page if you wish, irdc, but i don't see why you need to make a mess on here? the template you are using isn't even well-suited to the purpose.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources with "opinion" or "forum" in the URL indicate that they are opinion pieces. Again, I direct you to WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Barometer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_College_Chicago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technician_(newspaper)

& are you then agreeing that we should strip ALL "op-ed" material from this article?

because, there isn't going to be very much left...

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

& again, are you conceding the legitimacy of the other references, or do you have more objections that you wish to present? Lx 121 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable opinion pieces should not be used. Notable ones needs to have their statements ascribed to the writers. I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to a supposedly experienced user. You're being a timesink. I'm going to bed. I'll let other editors try to explain things to you. Or you take take the initiative an ask on WP:RSN about your sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

& again, you have NOT answered the question.

either you concede the validity of the other sources, OR you need to provide reasons for REMOVING them from the article.

you've identified sources you object to, though you have not really provided adequate or specific objections for most of them & i contest several of them, as stated above.

you have offered NOTHING with regard to the other sources.

you have presented only vague objections, & now you are abandonning a losing discussion as a "time sink", having FAILED to prove your point.

& you have offered NO basis for removing VALID material & supporting material simply because the cite notes are not complete.

as to "notability", i think that, according to wp policy, being PUBLISHED in a major source counts as "adequate" "notability" for use as a reference.

& you STILL haven't explained why you keep "boxing" my references-list with an innapropriate template?

Lx 121 (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

UPON REFLECTION, i would also like to note, in regards to the above user's comments, that we are discussing a concept in sociology, & that the section i was working on was primarily to do with "criticism of" that concept.

in other words, THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT OPINIONS.

this is not a science of specific measures & mathematical formulae, & concrete proofs. observation & discussion IS the process in this field; other than statistical analyses, there is little or no objective measurement. (& statistical analyses of human behaviour are notoriously subject to bias)

Lx 121 (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Now at RSN

Lx 121 has taken a long list of sources to RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

AS suggested by User:EvergreenFir, in the above section. making this whole conversation amusingly redundant. this is intended just as an observation. Lx 121 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sports section

In the midst of the neutrality discussion, I just wanted to clean up the section linked to related articles by adding some content and removing what was there before: an opinion piece from The Lowell, a high school newspaper; and something about the Irish that I moved since any connection to sports is speculative. FriendlyFred (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation Additional notes

In African context specifically in Education circles, Persons of African descent will most likely drop their English of first name when becoming a doctor as a sign of rebellion and to prove that the African descent are intelligent enough to have doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.11.118 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That claim doesn't seem to relate to this article and in any event would require a source. Dyrnych (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Student Evaluation: More In-Depth Examples

After reading and rereading this for an assignment, I can understand why it is necessary to have a neutral voice on a controversial topic such as this (especially after seeing those comments too). But to be clear on the subject, it would have been more effective if the page would have used more in-depth examples such as visuals or descriptions, when talking about the Halloween costumes it could have been an opportunity to show what that looked like.A rich description was missed with the example of George Lipsitz's concept of "strategic anti-essentialism". Overall, it would be considered a well written summary on the definition of cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:80C8:EEF0:7C38:2AEB:E712:9102 (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What?

@Dyrnych: Really?[2] What we have now is awkwardly-worded. Those who think "appropriation" means the same thing as "equal exchange" will always have issues with an accurate description of this issue. I pared down the redundant verbiage, left in the qualifiers and the mention that it's a controversial concept (to some). I spent significant time improving this and you just revert wholesale to one of the awkward versions that's been here since the weird, wholesale dumps of unsourced essay sections into this? I don't get it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trying to suggest that editors who want the article to reflect a neutral presentation of the concept are describing it inaccurately solely because they're not using terms of advocacy. As I recall, you refused to discuss the issue of the article's neutrality the last time it came up, instead dodging the issue by insisting that people were trying to suppress the concept itself. I agree that the article is awkward, but I'd rather have an awkward and neutral Wikipedia article than a stylistically brilliant advocacy piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't dodged this issue. I just get sick of having the same discussion over and over. - CorbieV^☊☼ 00:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're tired of discussing the article's neutrality over and over, you should consider the case that the article is not neutral. Dyrnych (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, I don't mean this personally as I don't know you, but... my experience on this article is that the content is generally objected to by those who simply don't think the concept should exist. Or that if it exists it shouldn't be discussed. Appropriation/misappropriation is different from equal exchange, due to the power issues. That's the essence of the concept. But most who claim the article isn't neutral edit it to try and make the terms synonymous. The concepts can be discussed without watering it down. - CorbieV^☊☼ 00:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have a problem with defining the term in reference to oppression (when that concept is used as an undefined term of art). I also have a problem with using dubious opinion sources for claims of fact. I've stated those objections above and been met with the same sort of "most people" critique that you're now asserting and which does nothing to either acknowledge my (different) concerns or ameliorate them. Dyrnych (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan:@Dyrnych: the problem is that "cultural appropriation" has many different conceptualizations. Corbie's point-of-view seems to come more from the advocacy side (tumblr, SRS, advocacy blogs, etc). Which is fine. It's just that academics talk about cultural appropriation with much less agreement about how it works. For example, Corbie's insistence on a division between "equal exchange" and "cultural appropriation" is not necessarily supported in the literature. In fact, academics believe that "equal exchange" is a myth. It's generally assumed to be a nonexistent ideal. Yet it's very much dogma to advocates. How do we represent these viewpoints in the article? This is a difficult, complex article to write. —Fluous (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking a lot about the terminology problems here. The phrase "Cultural appropriation", as it is being used more and more frequently in popular culture, and in this article, is actually a misnomer. The correct term for appropriation of an oppressed culture's intellectual property by the dominant culture should be "cultural misappropriation". BUT, we have sources full of this misuse.
So of course many academics, and others who define the component words more strictly, will define the phrase as meaning equal exchange. And simultaneously, cultural misappropriation is being described in popular culture by this redefined phrase ("cultural appropriation"). This shift in meaning in some quarters but not others is resulting in conflicting statements in sources; it is the same type of frustrating and confusing language drift that has resulted in "literally" now being used by many people to mean, "metaphorically."
Those who are only going by dicdefs of these words will always balk at the definition that sees the oppressive dynamic as inherent in the meaning, while those familiar with the current use of the phrase as a neologism always assume the oppressive dynamic is inherent. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but I'm looking for any usable sources that we could use to clarify this. Here's a bit from the Guardian that makes the distinction, "Native Americans know that cultural misappropriation is a land of darkness". But we need to find a way to fix this without just making it more confusing to people. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Appropriation

Overall, this was a good article that was short and sweet and to the point! I would definitely add some more examples of cultural appropriation in mainstream culture and who it is affecting. I would also reference things like Katy Perry's new music video and how she culturally appropriates to an extreme. These things are relevant and need to be heard of. You should take a look at the Wikipedia Article relating to just racism. This is because cultural appropriation is a form of racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:150A:C08A:6CEC:72A7:9854:71BC (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

culture appropriation critic

I think this is a very good article in terms of a very thorough definition and explanation to what cultural appropriation is. I also think that the amount of examples provided allows for great evidence and a way of understanding what it looks like in the physical world. if I had one critique I would it was a bit complicated at first in terms of a lot of ideas and statements being thrown at you with no small back story or explanation to what it is. I also would say that maybe providing another similar example like cultural appropriation that but is not such as simple positive cultural exchange will allow for individuals to differentiate the two. maybe this article for U.S news can help, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/07/08/china-and-the-us-benefit-from-cultural-exchanges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.158.186 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

White people who think they're native american

So what exactly is the term for this? There HAS to be one, and an article for it. --24.21.105.29 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mistaken?" Carptrash (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am native American. I was born here. What's the big deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocats (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How witty. So what do you call the original inhabitants of the Americas? Indians? Logos spermatikos (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Original" in what sense? That they immigrated here before someone else?

No humans evolved in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk • contribs)

Controversial in the lead

Starting discussion for adding "controversial" to lead sentence. This seems UNDUE to me and POV editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kitplane01:... come discuss this. The Post Everything section on WaPo is more a blog iirc categorized as "opinion" and not RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I added links to the New York Times and Washington Post. How much more mainstream should I be?

I agree that the sections I offered were best characterized by 'opinion', but that's my point. It is a common opinion that cultural appropriation is not a problem, and that opinion is expressed in many ways including mainstream media. The article cannot ignore this opinion and claim to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is more about the sociological concept. Within sociology, it's not very controversial. Within mainstream media, there's been some discussion of it but even there it's not really that controversial... at least no more than other sociological theories about power disparity. The opinions are notable and agree with including them in the criticisms section, but I don't think there's enough to warrant "controversial" within the lead sentence, especially since the controversy is outside sociology and by non-experts. If reliable sources (which is the other issue with the sources) were to call it controversial within sociology, I'd be all for it. The Bell Curve is controversial for example. But this is not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Per EvergreenFir, it's undue weight to put "controversial" in the lede. We already have a "criticisms" section. Kitplane01, how is it that you've been editing here for so long but don't know that a blog by a non-notable person, as you tried to use to source your additions, and edit-warred to keep adding, is not WP:RS? As EvergreenFir already said, the concept of (mis)appropriation is not controversial in academia. The pop culture article you tried to use had the word "controversy" in it (yay google.), but it was about celebrities getting dramatastic reactions ("causing controvery", "did a controversial thing") to their displays of misappropriation for self-promotion (Non-Native celebrities offending people by wearing fake war bonnets in promo shoots and such). That is a totally different usage of "controversial" and does not support your additions. [Clarifying: The celebrity's behaviour is described as controversial, not the concept.] Of the other sources you offered, one appears to be in the criticism section already, which makes me think you didn't read the full article before wanting to change the lede. The others are opinion pieces that again discuss "controversies" in pop culture. The fact that at least one of these appears to be by a member of the dominant culture saying they don't care and they think people should "appropriate away" kind of proves the point about the power imbalance issue. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also adding here for the record, since KitPlane01 removed the notices from their talk page:[3] that per WP:AN3R: Kitplane01: "Please don't touch the disputed material again unless consensus has been found."[4] And, "User:Kitplane01 may be blocked the next time they edit the material in dispute unless they have first obtained consensus on the talk page."[5] - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Misappropriation

While I agree it would be best to have more sources for this phrasing if we're going to go with the version of the lede we had here[6] for a while before Dyrnych's recent changes,[7] I still think "misappropriation" is a very important addition here. I reiterate: I think if the overwhelming majority of sources had used proper English, it would have been called "misappropriation" all along. When you read the actual content they are calling "appropriation", misappropriation is what is being discussed. And yes, I know we can't work from that basis without proper sourcing. I do know that. I also know that many who would have written "misappropriation" have tended to instead go with the more common phrasing simply because it's become the common vernacular, like the misuse of "literally". I still think this version is better:[8] - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A major problem I have with the previous lead is that in treating "cultural appropriation" as synonymous with "cultural misappropriation," the article begs the question and confuses readers. There are conflicting arguments as to whether cultural appropriation is wrongful in various contexts, and it is inappropriate for the article to implicitly support one argument over the other. I understand your point and I certainly think that we should take into account the author's perspective when deciding whether the author 'really' meant "cultural misappropriation" when they said "cultural appropriation." But when you consider that making the terms synonymous implies that people on the other side of a given controversy are defending "misappropriation" (i.e., wrongful conduct), I hope you can see how your framing is problematic from an NPOV perspective. Dyrnych (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

non western cultural appropriation

This article seems to focus on the western opinions of western actions. Would it be appropriate to include a section on non-western cultural appropriation? (I'm thinking examples from Jpop and Kpop) or are they not really relevant (and hard to cite) because most western media just complains they are just racist, with mentioning appropriation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

It's important that this article have a neutral point of view. This article reads as if everyone believed that cultural appropriation is a problem, when many people don't believe that. This talk page is not intended to be a debate on that issue, but the article itself should reflect this difference in beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2015

Seconded. I'm pretty sure there are arguments that "cultural appropriateion is a problem" can itself be a problem. If those views exist, they need to be reflected here. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The very term "cultural appropriation" is pejorative. The word "appropriation" itself implies that something has been taken without its owner's permission. The only possible way this article can approach a neutral tone is to carefully explain who is using the term and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk • contribs)

Celebrity controversies

The celebrity section is a poorly-written, biased mess. Does the paragraph about April Lavigne, in particular, really meet Wikipedia standards? It includes such gems as "The song is a bizarre hybrid of pop and dubstep, with no musical reference to Japanese culture. Just the use of 'Hello Kitty' sparks Kawaii appropriation." Evidently whoever wrote that felt the need to delve into music criticism in addition to lecturing on the horrors of appropriation. A bizarre hybrid? And then there is this: "The song and music video violates Japanese culture..." Nah, that's not unvarnished opinionizing masquerading as objective fact. Not at all. But the best part is this: "A lot of the feedback Lavigne recieved[sic] on Twitter were[sic] favourable, and those who blamed her for racism are non-Japanese. Its[sic] just that society from Japan did not take it seriously." Leaving aside from the obvious spelling and grammar issues, I'm glad I was told, in a way wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia, how it was received in Japan.72.49.235.222 (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. I haven't had time to work on it, but it definitely needs a massive rewrite. Dyrnych (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any culture that has not borrowed from others?

I think every single culture on the planet has borrowed items/practices that had been seen as distinctive of the other groups. It is hard to understand why some things are allowed (by certain self-appointed voices) to be borrowed, but others are not. And who is the arbiter? Even now, we find some Native Americans happy with the Washington Redskins, others vehemently object.

What will this do to all the efforts (often in the education sector) to give students opportunities to experience and taste (often literally) what other cultures do? It seems we have two opposing trends: one pushing towards multiculturalism and the contrary force pushing to prevent people doing anything that does not pertain to (what is deemed by some to be) their "own" culture. At the extreme, choirs will have to disband into smaller, ethnically homogeneous ensembles to sing their own authentic music and literature classes will have to do likewise. Pete unseth (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is probably a rhetorical question, but I would guess the cultures and languages of the uncontacted peoples do not feature the phenomenon. Some of these tribes/people are thought to be isolated for centuries or entire millennia, resulting in them not being affected or aware by worldwide changes. For example, the Pintupi of Australia remained largely isolated until the 1960s-1980s, with the last of them leaving the traditional nomadic lifestyle in 1984. Compare this to the rapid cultural and technological changes the rest of the island country has underwent since European colonization started in 1788.

Otherwise I agree with you that this is not a recent phenomenon, not unique to any particular historical period, and not particularly negative either. Cultures do change when they come in contact with other cultures, and people and societies adopt appealing elements and ideas from other cultures.

For some pre-20th century examples that come in mind:

• The Orientalizing period of Ancient Greece. Due to extensive contact with the Near East, Greek culture started adopting elements from the culture, artwork, religion, and mythology of Assyria, Ancient Egypt, and Phoenicia. The most lasting change of this "appropriation" was the creation of the Greek alphabet. It was an adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet for a new language. Writing helped transform Greek culture.
• The Hellenistic period of the ancient world. Spread of Greek culture (sports, theatre, education, art, etc) and language to Northern Africa, Western Asia, and South Asia. Local populations undergo partial Hellenization and the Greeks themselves adopt foreign cultural elements in politics, religion, art, and philosophy. Very much a period of cultural fusion and syncretism. Due to the spread of Hellenistic culture in wide areas from Gaul (in the west) to the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greek Kingdom (in the east), we have the rise of elements like Greco-Buddhist art, the worship of Isis throughout the Greco-Roman world, and new religious cults devoted to deities such as Serapis.
• The adoption of foreign elements in the Culture of ancient Rome. Roman literature was based on Greek literature and adopted many of its forms and genres, such as poetry, comedy, history, and tragedy. Roman art was at first based on Etruscan and Greek models, and later adopted elements from various different cultures. Music was similarly based on Etruscan, Greek, Anatolian, Northern African, and Celtic models. Architecture used foreign models as well, though evolving in innovative forms. Religion changed in order to include the deities and religious ideas of foreign or partially assimilated cultures. The Greco-Roman mysteries were all at first imported religions, not native to Rome or the Italian peninsula. They rose to become major elements of the culture. Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cultural appropriation. 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/20141019234344/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement

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} 13:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)