Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Issues around Warbonnet photo

The caption on the top photo assumes that the man wearing the war bonnet is not Native American (though these days that only requires 1/16th of ones ancestry). I am perfectly happy allowing the photo to remain. Some will insist that the caption be altered. I am only pointing this out to show how I believe that some people in identity politics have become overly sensitive about minor points. Pete unseth (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the display and the man's appearance it is safe to assume he is not a traditional Native American. The photo was taken at a St. Patrick's Day parade in Ireland. The man appears to be drinking alcohol in the photos in this series, is around others who are drinking alcohol, professes in various photos that he is Irish, and the "warbonnet" is clearly fake. Not all Native cultures have warbonnets, and not all Natives, even when full members of those cultures, have the right to wear them. It's like a military medal - it has to be earned, eagle feather by eagle feather, in a traditional Native community, and they are only worn by certain community leaders. No traditional Native would wear a sacred headdress while around alcohol. Blood Quantum and/or lineal descent rules for enrollment vary among Nations. Your 1/16th comment is arbitrary. Many have 1/4 as the legal limit for citizenship, others go by lineal descent: If your parents and grandparents were part of the in-person, indigenous community, and enrolled themselves. Enrollment criteria are up to the sovereign nations and all have variations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you have said except that anything is " safe to assume." Carptrash (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to the matter of details: I am not at all sure why User:CorbieVreccan wrote that it was "safe to assume" that the person in the photo is not a Native American since the photo was taken "at a St. Patrick's Day Parade in Ireland". I assume this was said as joke since the information on the photo's page clearly identifies it as being at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. What about the African Americans who dress up for Mardi Gras in costumes that are supposedly Native American? All of this makes us wonder about the details of many claims of "cultural appropriation". The Korean woman next to me at lunch today was delighted to be eating Mexican food. Was this cultural appropriation?

Now seriously: I think the article needs to be much clearer that the concept of "cultural appropriation" decried by some in the field of identity politics is a specific narrow concept, not just people "borrowing from others". The current version makes it sound whiny and trivial. Pete unseth (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Zooming in on the photo, I realize I mistook it for a very similar photo taken in Ireland. It is true we know nothing about the ethnicity of the man in the photo. However, and this is the point, we can tell a great deal about him culturally from the display. The right to wear a warbonnet is a cultural thing, and while that right is only given to Natives, the way it has to be earned, and the protocol surrounding it, makes it clear that is not a traditional Native person, and the headdress also looks like a cheap knockoff, probably mass-produced by costume manufacturers in China. If you are still unclear on the protocols, please read the sources rather than asking editors to repeat ourselves here. The sourcing covers it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: You know better than that. Every claim you've just made is your original research. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What I know, based on your inappropriate comment, is that you haven't read the most basic sources on this. You might want to rethink this approach. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing even remotely inappropriate about my comment, and unless you can cite a policy that I'm violating I suggest you retract that. I'd like you to provide any reason at all why "the headdress also looks like a cheap knockoff, probably mass-produced by costume manufacturers in China" and "we can tell a great deal about him culturally from the display" are anything other than examples of a Wikipedia editor using their own analysis to make unsourced claims about a photograph. In other words, unambiguous original research. Dyrnych (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

...You do realize this is the talk page, right? You still don't seem to me to have read the sources in the article(s). Which starts to seem rather like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or similar. I really don't understand you. Seriously. You really can't understand that some of us can look at a cultural object and tell that it's a knockoff? Your really don't understand that there are cultural protocols and the individual in the photo is violating them? I don't expect you to know what all those protocols are, but you really don't understand, or didn't read the sources to know, that protocols exist? And now, on your talk page, you want to strategize some approach to this article without involving the normal editors who watch the talk pages of articles rather than your personal talk page? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming apparent that you're incapable of discussing actual policy without descending into unhinged accusations. I'm not "strategizing" about anything on my talk page, and the insinuation that I am (or that I've done something else wrongful) is absurd. Let me be absolutely clear about the issue with the caption: YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE ETHNICITY OR RACE OF A PERSON IN A PHOTO. NOR ARE YOU A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR WHETHER A WAR BONNET IS FAKE. You can't cite your powers of observation to overcome that, especially when you're purporting to observe something nonobvious and contentious. Your lack of understanding of the core policy against original research strikes me as baffling, given that you're an admin. Dyrnych (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps I can be of some help here. The feathers in the bonnet the individual is wearing are not eagle feathers. They are either bleached turkey or goose feathers. I understand that not everyone is able to differentiate between the two but a quick google search shows the drastic difference between the two. Traditional bonnets do not contain garrishly dyed fluff feathers. The featherwrapping is not done in a traditional manner. If you zoom in on the loom work on the browband of the bonnet the pattern is not original, it is mass-produced loomwork that can be purchased online that is supposed to be in a 'Great Lakes' style. That is how one is able to tell that the bonnet in the pic is not traditional. Regarding the claim by talk, some Nations have a 1/4 blood quantum requirement. Some have no blood quantum requirement. In order to be enrolled in a Nation you must meet their enrollment requirements which they as sovereign Nations have every right to determine. I know of no Nation that turns it's back completely to descendants who can demonstrate their connection to community so long it's not the perpetuation of family myth. If you can't show how you connect how do you actually know?Indigenous girl (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should have realized Moar shouting was called for. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Address the policy and I won't have to shout. Dyrnych (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I am referring to User:Pete unseth in my post where it addresses 'talk'. I need to pay better attention when I preview. My apologies.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych, you quite emphatically stated,"YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE ETHNICITY OR RACE OF A PERSON IN A PHOTO. NOR ARE YOU A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR WHETHER A WAR BONNET IS FAKE.". Let's pretend for a moment that the person depicted is Native American. They are embarassing their family and community by holding a beer while wearing the bonnet. Because they are at Mardi Gras they are not in a cultural setting where they would or should be wearing a bonnet. Perhaps he isn't aware of that. If that is the case then he did not earn the bonnet. Let's pretend for a moment that he is not Native American and is wearing an authentic bonnet. Well then he is subject to arrest, fines and possible incarceration because it would be illegal for him to be in possession of eagle feathers. This is a talk page so I am not going to provide the statutes as there is no need to source material however if your googlefoo is not in good form this evening please ping me and I will source the US Federal statute.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you may be knowledgeable about this, but your knowledge is not a basis for a statement of fact in a Wikipedia article, per WP:OR. We need a reliable source for the proposition that the individual depicted is non-Native and/or that the bonnet is inauthentic. Editor analysis is not a substitute for that. Dyrnych (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dyrnych. I invite you to peruse the referenced links on the article page. Some of them address your concerns. If the picture feels to inflamatory to you I can look for another one tomorrow that is a bit more obviously inappropriate, perhaps where the photographer notes that the individual is not Native American or First Nations. Would that make you feel better?Indigenous girl (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dyrnych, would you be opposed to this photograph https://www.flickr.com/photos/kt_ries/5848405597/in/photolist-wmMfwX-vpj7TC-bPDU1n-bPDTJp-bAKeW1-c7dXYY-912gHy-bAwFYQ-bAPxjJ-bPJcji-bPJc8K-5LDo8T-5LDmGM-bPDU3V-bPDTZ4-bAKfmA-bPDTGP-9UNBeg-bPDTUZ-bAPx73-bPJbZT-bAKf3U-bAKf7W-39xVNG-df5Nit-bAKfcE-bAPwSb-bAPwLY-bPJceT-bAPwX1-bPJbNZ-bPDbWc-bPJcc6-bPJc2n-bAKf6Q-bAPwKu-bAPxnw-bAPxtN-bAPxoY-bPJc6P ? It's Creative Commons and the photographer's quote addresses the issue at hand. Of course if you find this also to be a bit too harsh I could continue to search. I am actually trying to find a suitable photograph to use of Christina Fallon, the daughter of the Governor of Oklahoma since it's been established that she is not Native American or First Nations and that the headdress she likes to don to feel like a proper hipster is fake. At least I would hope it's fake otherwise she would be subject to arrest, fines and possible incarceration and I don't think her mom would appreciate that.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as we have a source that identifies the subject of whichever photo we use as non-Native, I'm perfectly fine with it. Dyrnych (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What a lot of lovely original research we have on that photo. Do you want to take a guess at the subject's age and name as well? You don't know his ethnic background. No offence intended, but this is a basic wikipedia rule. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if we should even be using an image that clearly shows the face of a member of public on this article. I'd suggest nuking that image and finding one that has less issues. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spacecowboy420, this is the talk page yes? I was simply explaining how easy it is to recognize the authenticity of a bonnet since Dyrnych questioned the ability to do so. It's really rather simple. Please note I did not add this information to the article itsself, I do understand wikipedia guidelines :) I don't care to guess his age, I do not possess that gift as I am not a carnie or a member of any other segment of society that claims to have these abilities. I have no problem with substituting a different photo. I provided a link to one.Indigenous girl (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the individual in question appears to be riding Big Al Taplet's bicycle(Big Al Taplet is a fairly well known outsider artist and that is clearly his bicycle) I've attempted to contact Big Al just out of curiosity. I understand this is original research and I will not of course add it to the article.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Indigenous girl. My comments were not based on what you said on the talk page, to be honest, I skipped over a lot of the comments. It was based purely on the caption that was put for the bonnet. I think that considering the amount of discussion about the image, it would be so much easier to find an image with less ambiguous qualities. I suggest an image of a fancy dress war bonnet (or similar costume) without the wearer. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I will undo the last revert on the image caption for the following reasons.

1. We are unaware of the ethnic background of the image subject. Any comment along the lines of "he looks/acts white" is pure OR and just as offensive as people wearing a war bonnet as a costume. If you can find a better imagine with a source stating the ethnic background of the subject, I suggest you use it, or leave race out of the comment. WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES makes it clear that selecting images based on ethnic background is considered to be original research.

2. MOS:CAPTIONS "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." Fifty Six Words is not succinct. Not by any stretch of the imagination could it ever be considered to be succinct. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by having information on a caption that would be better placed in a later section of the article.

3. It's the lead image. As per WP:LEADIMAGE it should be "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" which it most certainly isn't. It's not a professional quality image, the subject and context are ambiguous.

4. As per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Defamation "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category. Defamation is both a legal and moral issue; therefore, Commons does not base decisions on whether the subject is able or likely to sue." making unsubstantiated claims about the subject's ethnic background and making accusations of culture appropriation on an image with a clearly identifiable member of the public is unacceptable and most certainly falls within the category of "unfairly ridicule or demean the subject". Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

[Undent] Spacecowboy420, you wrote, "My comments were not based on what you said on the talk page, to be honest, I skipped over a lot of the comments." If you are not willing to read others' comments on the talk page, you should not be reverting and saying, "see talk page." The caption no longer mentions ethnicity, nor did earlier versions before others added it in. Rather it focuses on cultural protocol. I have no attachment to this particular image, but others added it and hipster headdresses seem to be a prime example. If a better photo with the proper licensing is available, replacing it is fine with me. I'm going to ask again, Have you read the sources? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: You seem to be misunderstanding the issue that other editors have with the photo and caption. This is the argument that you seem to be making: "The article has sources which state that an example of cultural appropriation is a Native American headdress worn by a non-Native or without the proper protocol." Fine, great. I don't think that anyone is disputing that statement. But here's the problem: we don't have a source that identifies this specific photo as an example of cultural appropriation. You can't just state, as you did earlier, that your understanding of cultural protocol is sufficient to declare this photo a violation or that your understanding of headdresses is sufficient to proclaim this a knockoff. As I stated earlier, that is original research. I asked you to explain how it's NOT an example of original research and (as you've often done on this talk page) you declined to respond to the policy in question, preferring to offer the same irrelevant argument restated above. So I ask you to either identify a source that states that the specific image in question is cultural appropriation or concede the argument. Dyrnych (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read the sources you will see that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a knockoff, or whether or not the guy has (or believes he has) some Native blood. The sources explain why what he's doing is wrong. The individual's hipster headdress is an example of appropriation, as stated in the sources. If you feel we need a photo that says, in the licensing info uploaded to WP, "This photo is an example of cultural appropriation", rather than just posting an example of what is said in the sourced content, I think this is asking for more than is needed and at this point you're just being disruptive. Good luck finding something that says that, with proper licensing. Find a better photo if you don't like this one. This photo is there because the licensing is appropriate. I don't care about this particular photo, or even about having one, but others seem to want an illustration. What I do care about is when people post misinformation about Native protocols, and demonstrate clearly they have not read the sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As an attempt to bring peaceful resolution to the discussion of the caption for the man with a warbonnet, could we write a caption that did not specifically identify the man's ethnicity? For example, "An example of behavior that is labeled Cultural Appropriation would be a non-Native American wearing a warbonnet." Would this be an acceptable compromise?Pete unseth (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Saying "non-Native" was actually my initial compromise when others kept inserting "Caucasian":[1] My most recent compromise, that has zero mention of any ethnicity, and that Mr.420 just removed:[2] stresses that this is about cultural protocols, not blood. I'm also fine with other versions we've agreed on that don't mention ethnicity at all. Ironically, we've had versions that said nothing about ethnicity stay stable for weeks while people wanted to shout here about things that weren't even in the caption. *shrugs* - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is misinforming whom? I'm deleting the photo and the caption, since you don't care about it and refuse to address the OR implications of the caption. Also, I am beyond tired of your unfounded, bullshit accusations of inappropriate conduct. Dyrnych (talk)

You don't have consensus to do that. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering the amount of issues regarding that image that have not been addressed, until there is clear consensus regarding the use of that image and the caption, deleting it seems very sensible. I am against anything regarding the race or background of the photo subject. As much as you can't made a comment on what race he "looks like", you can't make any comments on him being non-native, without knowing his background. Making a general statement along the lines of ""An example of behavior that is labeled Cultural Appropriation would be a non-Native American wearing a warbonnet." would be equally wrong, changing the wording would still imply that the subject of the photo, is the subject of the caption.

We could go in the other direction, and have a headdress being worn in a suitable setting, with wording along the lines of "only when worn in a culturally sensitive manner etc etc"

Or we don't even have to base the lead image on anything native american, this article is based on the appropriation of all cultures. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Still needs good definition

This article needs a clearer definition of what is "cultural appropriation". Here are some examples that would be classified as cultural appropriation by some definitions: A Japanese conductor in a tuxedo leading a Japanese orchestra and choir performing Beethoven's 9th symphony. African farmers growing corn/maize. People of non-Italian descent eating pizza. People outside of the USA drinking Coca-Cola or wearing jeans. Europeans performing Hip Hop. Gurkha military bagpipers wearing kilts. People around the world wearing Manchester United jerseys.

I hope we can agree that these are acceptable practices. BUT, how do we distinguish such cases of borrowing from cases where people find it objectionable? Until this can be clarified in a way that is broadly understood, this article will continue to cause some to mock and others to post on this Talk page with contributions that are either too protective against any borrowing, or posts that mock the idea that borrowing can ever be offensive. When is borrowing from another culture seen as honoring it vs. dishonoring it? Pete unseth (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For this article, I guess it becomes appropriation, when someone cries about it in the media. It's mostly some underachieving minor public figure crying for attention, people like Azealia Banks have more publicity attached to their claims of cultural appropriation, than they do to their actual career. But hey, I'm biased - I used to play cowboys and indians as a kid, I guess I have disrespected an entire nation. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.”

The concept of sacred or religious or military/earned objects and tattoos is of significance here in comparison to some examples given. Consent also, is of significance, as in cultures that have been enslaved or less officially financially dominated. To give an example, there are some aspects of vodou that shouldn't be practiced, or can't be, without officiating by a houngan or mambo practitioner, but everyone is free to worship their ancestors in their own homes using established vodou rituals.

To speak frankly for a moment, this talk page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's claims of NPOV, and has diminished my trust in the site's overall ability to engage with maturity on serious topics. Not talking about the top commenter here, but "cowboys and Indians" fan there is right, even if they don't know it - it's not hard to find Native discussions on how damaging those stereotypes are, unless you're just not willing to listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.143.15 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead

The original lead seemed to be very POV, accepting certain minority and politically correct views on the subject. I introduced reliable content to balance the lead, as is required as per NPOV,etc. Cultural appropriation is a controversial opinion, the lead either needs to accept nether opinion and state very fucking clearly that this is a minority opinion, or it needs to give both sides of the story.

Trim or add content to balance the lead, which do people prefer? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't balance the lead at all. You added what is effectively a criticism of the concept before the actual definition of the concept. I agree that the lead needs balance, but that's hardly the way to do it. And edit-warring your content in doesn't do a lot to bolster your cause. Dyrnych (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm edit-warring, so you reverted me. Yeah, right. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

But either way, it's just a re-wording that is required. I'm sure I can fit it into the lead with the definition first. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych is correct here. Criticism of the concept doesn't come before the definition of the concept; that is undue weight for the lead. Your clicking "undo" on multiple editors to repeatedly reinstate your additions is most definitely edit-warring. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the concept already exists in the Overview section: "Proponents view cultural borrowing as inevitable and a contribution to diversity and free expression. This view distinguishes outright cultural theft or exotic stereotyping from more benign borrowing or appreciation. Cultural borrowing and cross-fertilization is seen by proponents as a generally positive thing, and as something which is usually done out of admiration of (and with no intent to harm) the cultures being imitated. The language of "appropriation" is sometimes criticized as misleadingly implying "theft" when applied to culture, which is not generally seen as an exhaustible resource."

This could use expansion and involve further additions to the body of the article, instead of just the lede. Speaking about the concept, has anyone addressed the role of loanwords in transmitting cultural concepts? Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Corbie, when I look at the edit history of this article over the last few months, you seem to have clicked the undo button more than any other editor. If you want to discuss article content here, please do so. If you want to criticize my actions as an editor, then perhaps it would be more productive for you to look at your own edits first. Regarding criticism before the definition, I think I've already covered that point with the post directly above yours. I'm here to talk about the article, and improve it. My feeling is that cultural appropriation while notable enough to deserve an article, represents a minority viewpoint. As such, criticism is quite suitable for the lead, as many readers never make it further than that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with other editors. No way criticism comes before definition. I'm not convinced that the "political correctness" of the term is notable enough to be in the lead, but I'm not against it being in the lead if we can show it's a major notable criticism of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I have used a very large font? I'm sure I can fit it into the lead with the definition first I agreed to that point yesterday, and pointed out where I agreed to that point in my previous post. Showing it is or isn't notable is easy. Either there are reliable sources or there aren't. I've always found notability to be one of the less ambiguous areas on wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you said that. Just agreeing with the comments. Forgive me if I'm not 100% clear ... it's late I should be in bed. I guess the question is more about due weight then. Is political correctness a major component of the concept? Do we give it lots of coverage? Curious what others think about putting it in lead and where if so EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's late for you. I've just got into the office, so I'm grumpy. It's nice to think of the human behind the keyboard, and understand we all have lives that are reflected in our talk page comments. I don't think political correctness is a part of the concept, but I do think that a lot of the criticism of the term cultural appropriation comes from the opinion that it is a politically correct term. I guess, I'm just looking for a way to have the lead explain that this is an opinion that has enough criticism to consider it as a minority view, or at least consider it not to be an overwhelming majority view. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The term "cultural appropriation" has proved slippery enough here; trying to define it with an even more slippery neologism such as "Politically Correct" would bring about less clarity, not more. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a pure guess, I would imagine that there are far, far more sources regarding the term politically Correct and far more accurate descriptions from those sources. If we can have an article on cultural appropriation, I'm pretty sure we can use a far more established term like politically correct. I would never suggest that we define cultural appropriation as a politically correct term, we shouldn't define anything, that's what reliable sources do for us. Besides, there is a huge difference between "cultural appropriation is a politically correct term" and "cultural appropriation is a concept that has been considered to be politically correct by some"

The lead is full of " is seen by some...", " is sometimes termed...", "According to authors in the field...", etc.

I see no difference in including the reference to it being considered as a politically correct term, apart from having some personal reason for making the article biased towards a cause that they may have some real life connection to. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

RS and unattributed opinions

Dyrnych's edit today ([3]) made me realize we are sourcing a bunch of opinion pieces and treating them as RS. Opinion pieces need to attribute the opinion to the author, right? WaPo's PostEverything and the Boston Globe pieces are categorized by the website as opinion pieces. The McWhorter piece is arguably an opinion piece as well. Any suggestions on how to address this? I imagine there are other places that need this corrected too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are RS for their opinions, and I think it's enough that the opinion pieces be treated as opinion ("proponents claim," etc.) rather than that each opinion be attributed to a particular author. I agree that the article is riddled with opinion presented as fact and many such claims (maybe even claims I've added) could use some acknowledgement that they're opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'm okay with "proponent/opponents claim" as an overarching attribution to various opinions. So long as we keep it clear which parts are opinion and which are not. I know this topic is largely discussed in what used to be called the Blogosphere and is largely opinions (even if from prominent figures). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I just moved this

from the "Academic study" section.

According to this view, acts of resistance to a dominant society, when undertaken by persons belonging to subordinate groups (i.e. when members of a marginalized community mimic and alter aspects of a dominant culture to assert their agency and resistance), are excepted from the usual understanding of cultural appropriation, because the power dynamic is reversed. A historical example is the emergence of Mods in the UK, in the late 1950s and early 1960s; largely working class youth imitated and exaggerated the highly tailored clothing styles, past and present, of the upper middle class and re-purposed iconic British symbols like the Union Jack and the Royal Air Force's rondel. In such cases, the borrowing and re-contextualization of cultural elements can also be termed as "cultural appropriation", however this usage is usually not intended to suggest any negative connotations.

To me this goes far beyond "citation needed" in an article such as this one. Whoever posted this section or who ever wants it in the article needs to provided a reference. Carptrash (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Blackface an example of cultural appropriation?

Okay, I get that it is a racist caricature, I understand that it is meant to mimic black people, however none of that seems to indicate cultural appropriation by the article's own definition. What exactly is the aspect of black culture being used in that case? It is their facial features, not their culture.

If blackface performances were associated with taking certain symbols of great importance to African Americans out of context, then by all means leave it in, and say that explicitly in the article. As the article stands, it does not describe the cultural appropriation involved with donning blackface. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly seems a bit odd to me too, but the sources provided in that part refer to it as cultural appropriation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackface is not automatically a racist caricature. American minstrel shows had blackface caricatures in them, but it's a mistake to think that blackface can only ever be intended to be a caricature. At it's core, blackface is just dressing up. Dressing up can be done for many reasons, that are not automatically racist. Aapjes (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [-Cultural appropriation]

Currently reads as: Cultural appropriation is adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture without invitation or permission of use.

However, the source does not state 'without invitation or permission of use' Also, it is impossible for one to seek permission from a culture as there is no authority upon which to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The source states specifically that outsiders to a culture take cultural property for their own use. p.9: "Since outsiders do not have access to the experience of insiders... outsiders are bound to misrepresent the culture of insiders. ... Since artists could misrepresent the culture of others in a harmful or offensive manner, subject appropriation could also be morally objectionable. ...outsiders represent a subject matter that is intended by insiders to be secret. Imagine, for example, that outsiders represent a religious ceremony which insiders wish to remain unknown to anyone but insiders. An outsider, in creating and making public such a representation, may have acquired knowledge of the ceremony deceptively or have vioalted an obligation of confidence. This might seem to be a case in which outsiders have wrongfully appropriated, or stolen, a subject matter that belongs to insiders." To state that there are no cultural authorities discussing this indicates to me that you have not read this article and the sources cited herein. Please read the article and the sources before proceeding. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not denying this however, it does not state anything along the lines of without 'permission' or 'invitation'. Also, this narrow example of religious rights and ceremonies hardly stands as the overall premise and should not be emphasized in comparison to the whole of the message. Perhaps this deserves its own subsection? (please forgive any errors, I am relatively new to editing/engaging w/ Wiki community) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryanbrown (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Value judgments have no place in the definition, even if you're presenting the range of value judgments. Note that your basis for the language that you're adding is that later in the source—well after it defines the term—it incorporates a discussion of value judgments. Note also that the ellipses in your transcription omit language that makes it clear that it's not defining the term in those passages; it's discussing the implications of and controversies associated with a particular type of cultural appropriation (and, even more narrowly in some cases, with particular instances of that particular type of cultural appropriation). That's unsuitable material for the opening sentence of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Boy Scouts and Cultural appropriation.

 The earlier citation for the Zuni councilman's comment did not got to source.  The origin of the comment is found in  Behind the Zuni Masks written by Val Gendron published in 1958.  The comment was directed at the Koshare Boy Scout group performing their representations of the Shalako and Koyemsi only.  The original version of the wiki entry, created a false sense of condemnation for the group's entire effort.  The same source goes on to attribute a quote by the same Zuni councilman that condones, encourages and actually offers assistance with their continued dancing (pg 204 of the 1962 edition of the book).The second paragraph that was added, deals with role that Boy Scouts have played in preserving the Tlingit culture in Haines Alaska and is viewable on the Sheldon Museum and Cultural centers web page. Will attempt to correct the odd malware directed reference.  Durinsson (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)http://www.sheldonmuseum.org/Daniel_Henry/dh_chilkoot_beachhead_and_notes_DRAFT_12_2013.pdf

WP:NOTFORUM

Just leaving this ^^^ here. And this: WP:TALK. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not noteworthy, also very opinion based, request for removal

I Think this whole article is part solemnly on opinions and has no noteworthy news value, it only covers some social media discussions. I request for it to be removed. CoatThese (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The concept of cultural appropriation exists and has been the subject of robust debate in the United States and elsewhere. It is a notable topic for an article. There are definitely dubious sources in this article, but there are also some very high-quality sources. As to "it only covers some social media discussions," I don't even know how to respond to this in light of the actual content of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Dyrnych, cultural appropriation is an important topic of discussion.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ollyoxenfree, do you have any supporting evidence as to why or how "cultural appropriation" is important? Opinion offers virtually no value to the importance of an article. Sawta (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering how often it gets in the news alone (google it), and the fact that there is plenty of sociological research (see the references of this article), that's more than enough to justify its noteworthiness.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The article contains biases leaning toward native american and african american culture when in fact every single culture is appropriated at one time or another and there should be recognition for that. Jennaheer (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Should "Appropriation of one's culture" be deleted?

An editor inserted data on a case where people wearing clothes of their own heritage were attacked for wearing these clothes because others might misunderstand. Another editor reverted it, saying it was "undue weight".

I am not sure why this is undue weight. There is more space devoted to a number of individual cases claimed to be inappropriate appropriation. Personally, I feel that this case shows how the concept of cultural appropriation is being applied and misapplied more widely than is appropriate. Pete unseth (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "undue weight" applied to the inclusion of the incident so much as it applied to the fact that the editor created a heading-level entry for an anecdote. I agree that it could conceivably be placed elsewhere in the article, but also that it does not deserve its own heading. Dyrnych (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych - yeah it was the header and the size of the coverage that made me reference UNDUE. But also WP:NOTNEWS is an issue here. If this were covered by a national outlet, I'd be more inclined to include it. But as it, I'm more inclined to say exclude it entirely. Squeezing in a sentence on it somewhere would be okay-ish to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This shows the bias of this article in that the article does not accurately state that cultural appropriation is the mistreatment of another culture and not your own. As in other areas of the article other viewpoints are not as represented and do not hold true value.Jennaheer (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Colonial??

The article says '"misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner' and even links to colonialism. But the to examples given, American Indians and African Americans, are not a classically colonial situations.

Could a better word be chosen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2015

I think the term Colonial is used as in Post-Colonial theories, refering to new ways of post-colonialism performed by central countries, as USA and Europe. In that case, the word is well used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.241.99.180 (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So, only white people can "culturally appropriate"?

I'd like to see one of the SJWs with their white guilt to explain why this isn't cultural appropriation: http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/72335/marlon_wayans_72335.jpg

If you could point out which culture is being appropriated from and the significance of the items being appropraited it would help to form an explaination. Is everything in the picture supposed to be the intellectual pproperty of one ethnicity or culture?Indigenous girl (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to engage with this topic, given that it doesn't seem to be geared towards improving the article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Find something reliable, with a source stating that it is cultural appropriation, and it would be suitable for the article. Doesn't matter about the background of the person, it just needs a reliable source. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with the OP. The majority of so-called African-American culture is misappropriated, from dreadlocks originating in the "brown" Mediterranean Caucasian cultures, from Gaulia to Greece, to Phoenecian (Greek) Libya to Egyptian wigs to Parthia (Persia, Iran) & Indo-Arya (Iran & Indian sub-continent), from dreadlocks to clothing to language & slang from West Indians (Indian imports to the Caribbean) to so-called "soul food", which is absolutely poor English food from England & Acadian Creole. W124l29 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing personal opinions about African-American culture. Dyrnych (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussion of objective facts.W124l29 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat, this is a forum for discussion of objective facts. Because you disagree with what I typed does not make it an opinion. Ignorance or denial of objective fact is something else entirely, and this article does not focus on any specific biological race or ethnicity but rather cultural appropriation & misappropriation. If it did, then I would question its validity in being on Wikipedia as much as I already do question its objectivity & objective of those who created it. We must be careful when adding sociology-specific articles to Wikipedia, being as that sociology is not a science and is entirely subject to the bias & opinionated whims of those who write articles within it. There is no peer review, and so it should not be treated as if there were. I quote WP:NOTFORUM: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles."; WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOVW124l29 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:YouShouldn'tBeTryingToDiscussAnArticleOnSociologyIfYouDon'tThinkIt'sScience, and WP:YouShouldn'tBeEditingWikipediaIfYouThinkItOnlyCoversObjectiveTruthAndIfYouThinkOnlyScienceCountsAsObjectiveTruth. -

This behavior is very hostile and should not be tolerated here. (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sociology is not a science, and I do not appreciate your misuse of "WP:" to create some sort of condescending attempt at hashtagging a response. Wikipedia only covers objective facts. That someone might disagree with a concept, where discussion of a concept is just that, there should be verifiable balance to that conversation. This article has "problematic" bias, per WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOV. Again, We must be careful when adding sociology-specific articles to Wikipedia, being as that sociology is not a science and is entirely subject to the bias & opinionated whims of those who write articles within it. There is no peer review, and so it should not be treated as if there were. I quote WP:NOTFORUM: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles." My statements pertain especially to the wording of said articles, where they are given Wikipedia's authoritative voice as if they are indeed objective facts of truth versus subjectively formed. W124l29 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sociology is a STEM discipline as recognized by the NSF. That it's not peer-reviewed is blatantly false (go browse List of sociology journals). Your personal opinions on the discipline have no bearing on how wikipedia treats Sociological academic research. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what Evergreen said. Sociology is a social science and an academic discipline which means that it (unofficial tally) and others in that group receive move peer evaluation than anything else on the planet. Carptrash (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sociology is not based upon peer-reviewed empirical data in contemporary form, for decades now, and is not objective in analysis. Do you deny this? This is not my personal opinion. Shall we make motion to only allow journal-published claims sourced within these articles? W124l29 (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For emphasis, most of the references for Cultural appropriation are from the news media, and not peer-reviewed journals as you User:EvergreenFir Carptrash suggested. Again, this is not my personal opinion. Shall we make motion to only allow journal-published claims sourced within these articles? I'm entirely sincere. W124l29 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As a Sociology student, I agree with the person above. It's a shame the main sources for this articule are press notes from not academic media. I'm not saying that all knowledge should come from academia, rather that every good definition should come from peer-reviewed, well-based works, and those come mainly from universities and research-cores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.241.99.180 (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I just cut this out

and moved it here for discussion, before either returning it or tossing it out. I suggest
Toss it out because it just, to me, reads like commercial for some not yet notable fellow.

"===Designers doing Cultural Appropriation the right way===

Cultural misinterpretation by society has been going around the past twenty years and a great example of a fashion designer doing cultural appropriation in the right way is the Brazilian designer Oskar Metsavath. He is a, physician, artist, entrepreneur, filmmaker and the founder of the creative brand Osklen founded in 1990. He is the pioneer for being environmentalist and leader of the sustainability movement and for carrying the concept “New Luxury” in the industry). He has been the founder for several non-profit organizations and the number one promoter of environmentally friendly fabrics in Brazil such as the e-fabric and the use of raw materials in his design such as fish skin like salmon and pirarucu . Nevertheless, he has won several recognitions in Brazil such as the Goodwill Ambassador in 2012, E-award and has become the member of the Greenpeace board.

One of the aspects in his career that made him stand out was, when this Brazilian designer was influenced by Brazilian and Peruvian tribes specifically the Ashaninka community that lived in the rainforest. He used traditional materials and fabrics as inspiration for his spring 2016 collection. He used tattoos and the typical colors from this tribe as an influential and crucial piece in his collection, he took a story and told it in the most accurate way. Nowadays mot fashion designers don't reattribute back to the cultures and from people they get their inspirations from.

Because he was so grateful and honored to use this iconic elements of the traditions he payed them back with the funds he made from the sustainable collection. The tribe was able to build a school and had other amazing resources thanks to the help of the designer. According to the Huffington post article in 2015 he stated that the only way to make cool sustainable fashion was “whenever we match ethics with aesthetics, it’s very probable that the piece created becomes an object of desire”.
Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

academic study section

the "academic study" section places wp:undue emhasis in that it cites only one person's work, & only one side of the debate. Lx 121 (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

...& not even an especially wp:notable one. George Lipsitz; his bio doesn't have much to say; & the claim that he is a "leading scholar" probably qualifies as both PR & "weasel wording". Lx 121 (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs a serious review. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

vs. Cultural Diffusion

Right now there seems to be a very strong element of confusion in this article, namely how it relates to cultural diffusion. Diffusion is extremely common and in fact generally the rule rather than the exception throughout history. A section comparing the two concepts—reliably sourced, of course—is necessary when handling this concept. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I also think it would be interesting to talk about cultural diffusion and how it's different from cultural appropriation. It's for sure a difficult topic to touch on since there is a fine line between the two. However, having understanding of the differences between both terms would be helpful for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist204student (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Declaring solidarity with a group by wearing their clothing

The article as written is overwhelmingly negative about "cultural appropriation". But there are certainly times when people do/wear something that is not normally from their culture to show solidarity with another group. For example, the article on Palestinian keffiyeh reports of people in Europe and the USA wearing keffiyehs to show solidarity with Palestinians. I presume some hardliners about cultural appreciation will object to this, but others will see it as a positive gesture. Casper ten Boom, a Gentile in Holland during WWII, tried to wear a yellow star to identify with Jews and frustrate the Nazis. There are likely other examples and contexts where people have done what is here pejoratively called "cultural appropriation", but done it for positive reasons. How does the theory of cultural appropriation handle such cases?

Wikipedia has recently become known as a hostile environment. Let's edit and discuss in friendly ways that nurture discussion, even with people with whom we may disagree, even strongly disagree. Pete unseth (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a section in the article, now named "Designers doing Cultural Appropriation the right way". Seems like we should consider whether this is a case of POV. This editor assumes both that other forms of CA listed above are wrong, and that the way listed in this section is "the right way". Seems to be a POV violation to me. What do others say? Pete unseth (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to differentiate between cultural appropriation and when an article of clothing, like the keffiyeh, is worn to show solidarity with a group of individuals. There are differences in wearing something solely as a fashion statement without crediting or even belittling the group it is taken from, or actually crediting the group and supporting them while wearing it. Again, like the case is for people who wear the keffiyah to show their support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist204student (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has recently become known as a hostile environment." This is an understatement. We have users quitting after the latest edit wars and/or rejection of their work, and others getting banned over well-meaning edits. Then we wonder why we do not attract more editors.

Anyway, back to the topic. To reflect the adoption of elements from other cultures for reasons of solidarity, we need reliable sources covering the topic and connecting it to cultural appropriation. Anecdotal evidence are often interesting, but their significance and interpretation is not up to editors to decide.

And I am not even certain that the infamous yellow badge (Jews' star) counts as an element of Jewish culture. It was a practice of Medieval Islamic and Christian states to force their Jewish population to wear badges and distinctive clothing which set them apart from the rest of the population. It made Jews stand out at all times, prevented them from blending in or hiding, served as their badge of shame, and defined them as the Other. And the motive was rather clear. To quote the Canon of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215): "it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress."

So the Jews looked like everyone else and someone had to stop them from having sexual relationships with Christians. Heaven forbid that people should be free to choose their sexual partners. The Jews did not choose to be singled out for punishment, nor was their culture expressed by a symbol chosen by their enemies.

This is not the equivalent of displaying religious symbols without understanding their significance. I doubt anyone considers the yellow badge to be sacred. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Perception

I'm going to change "Cultural appropriation is seen as controversial, even harmful..." to "Cultural appropriation may be perceived as controversial, even harmful..." Certainly, no source can speak for a universal perception in all contexts. In modern Japan men wear western-style suits and ties, but I don't know that anyone much cares. Further, the perception in even some of the more iconic cases is not universal. Many native Americans support the use of Native American symbols and names. Of course, a balanced article would discuss in detail neutral perceptions of, and support for, cultural appropriation. John2510 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Celtic indigeneity

It is of the opinion of many scholars and Gaels themselves that Celtic people are indigenous, having experienced centuries of colonization (see Conquest of Ireland, Acts of Proscription, Irish Land War and Highland Clearances for details, not to mention the British response to the Great Hunger/Highland Potato Famine). This and this are reliable sources that discusses the issue. As a result, I've removed the references to Celtic people being non-indigenous in the article. Thanks! Alázhlis (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well... They might be indigenous (although that's controversial), but they are not indigenous to Boston or Indiana (or Minnesota for the Vikings). The paragraph should be rephrased, but since that was the point being made, the history of Ireland doesn't seem particularly relevant, and appears to be original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I will note that it's still unsourced. My sources (which directly discuss Celtic indigeneity) would seem to contradict any claim of original research. I merely offered the rest for reference. Alázhlis (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase it to be more neutral, let me know if you think that will work. Sourced or not, Celtic indigeneity is not a simple issue, but that's not important to the paragraph. I don't see where those sources discuss U.S. teams or mascots, or much about cultural appropriate as this article defines it, which would makes this OR or WP:SYNTH, but again, the paragraph was about something else. Some team names are based on large or historically prominent populations which are not indigenous to the team's region. That's all. I don't think that particular point, at least, is controversial, but I could be wrong. It seems like a point that might be worth mentioning, but to what extent this qualifies as cultural appropriation depends on sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that describing them as immigrants seems appropriate here, but I would like to see more sources as to the exact source of those names. Please note also that all of the Goidelic languages are widely recognized as endangered--see here, here, and elsewhere, although Irish is not described as such on Wikipedia. Alázhlis (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I stand corrected. Strangely, neither is Scottish Gaelic, although Category:Scottish Gaelic language is under Category:Endangered Celtic languages. The source used for categorization is down (for me at least), otherwise I would fix this.

I'm still reluctant to use the term endangered language in this context, however, as it's implying that being endangered is connected to appropriation. That's interesting, but it should be explained with sources, rather than simply implied. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)