Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Misfitted examples

Many of the examples of cultural appropriation in this article fail to meet the requirements given by the very definition of the term. As much as the use of Native American or African artifacts in wrong contexts by modern day population may constitute cultural appropriation, having tattoos or pictures with Celtic, Ancient Egyptian or Oriental symbols definitely doesn't. They simply lack the "weaker party" factor as the Celts, Ancient Egyptians and Asian peoples are not and never really were a subjugated minority within the western society. On the contrary, they are a foundation of today's western society! Therefore it's rather a case of cultural diffusion than cultural appropriation.

The same goes for inspiration with fashion from Eastern Europe and the Near East. Firstly, those regions were not subject to western colonialism in that era. They were mostly at least as prosperous and culturally influential as France or England. No-one with a brain in the right place would say that the Ottoman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were just pushovers to the Western Europe in the early modern period. Their contributions to the collective culture cannot therefore be labelled as cultural appropriation. Same could be argued for India and China. Maybe they were not really independent or "on equal terms" with the western powers as countries, but their populations' level of social and technological advancement was on par with, say England, if not greater. That's why the British aristocracy copied the outfits and many customs of the Hindustani. They did so to legitimise themselves as rulers in the eyes of their new subjects (same did Alexander the Great with Persians, yet nobody deems it cultural appropriation).

Incorrect - Slavonic areas of "Eastern Europe" eg. the present-day Czech Republic, parts of Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, etc. were subject to "western colonialism". Namely German (incl. Habsburg) cultural, political and economic dominance and exploitation. Indeed, as late as the 1940s, the Slavs were earmarked for definite subjugation and extermination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.100.152 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

With this rather long rant I postulate shortening the article by cutting out the nonsense parts (listed as bold below). If I left out any more examples wrong by definition please add them in.

PS: I am aware that examples related to Sinic and Hindu cultures are debatable but since they are it's better to exclude them altogether than present any false information.

" copying iconography from another culture's history such as Polynesian tribal tattoos, Chinese characters, or Celtic art worn without regard to their original cultural significance"

" Historically, some of the most hotly debated cases of cultural appropriation have occurred in places where cultural exchange is the highest, such as along the trade routes in southwestern Asia and southeastern Europe. Some scholars of the Ottoman Empire and ancient Egypt argue that Ottoman and Egyptian architectural traditions have long been falsely claimed and praised as Persian or Arab."

" During the 17th century, the forerunner to the three piece suit was appropriated from the traditional dress of diverse Eastern European and Islamic countries. The Justacorps frock coat was copied from the long zupans worn in Poland and the Ukraine,[47] the necktie or cravat was derived from a scarf worn by Croatian mercenaries fighting for Louis XIII, and the brightly colored silk waistcoats popularised by Charles II of England were inspired by exotic Turkish, Indian and Persian attire acquired by wealthy English travellers."

" By the 19th century the fascination had shifted to Asian culture. English Regency era dandies adapted the Indian churidars into slim fitting pantaloons, and frequently wore turbans within their own houses. Later, Victorian gentlemen wore smoking caps based on the Islamic fez, and fashionable turn of the century ladies wore Orientalist Japanese inspired kimono dresses. During the tiki culture fad of the 1950s, white women frequently donned the qipao to give the impression that they had visited Hong Kong, although the dresses were frequently made by seamstresses in America using rayon rather than genuine silk. At the same time, teenage British Teddy Girls wore Chinese coolie hats due to their exotic connotations."

" Archbishop Justin Welby of the Anglican Church has claimed that the crucifix is "now just a fashion statement and has lost its religious meaning.". Crucifixes have been incorporated into Japanese lolita fashion by non-Christians in a cultural context that is distinct from its original meaning as a Christian religious symbol."

" The leaders of ancient Israel strongly condemned the adoption of Egyptian and Canaanite practises, especially cutting the hair short or shaving the beard. At the same time, the Old Testament distinguishes the religious circumcision of the Hebrews, from cultures such as the Egyptians where the practise had aesthetic or practical purposes."

" During the early 16th century, European men imitated the short regular haircuts and beards on rediscovered Ancient Greek and Roman statues. The curled hair favoured by the Regency era dandy Beau Brummel was also inspired by the classical era."

" During the 17th century, Louis XIV began wearing wigs to conceal his baldness. Like many other French fashions, these were quickly appropriated by baroque era courtiers in England and the rest of Europe to the extent that men often shaved their heads to ensure their wig fitted properly."

" There are also ethnicity-related team names derived from prominent immigrant populations in the area, such as the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, and the Minnesota Vikings."

" Since at least the early 2000s, it has become increasingly popular for people not native to those cultures, to get tattoos of Indian devanagari, Korean letters or Han characters (traditional, simplified or Japanese), often without knowing the actual meaning of the symbols being used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.47.129 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

An interesting historic example of Cultural Appropriation was/is the popularisation of kilts, tartan, bagpipes etc amongst Lowland Scots around 200 years ago. These things were only ever part of the minority celtic Highland culture until they suddenly became hugely fashionable in the anglic Lowlands, mainly thanks to the romantic writings of Sir Walter Scott. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.211.113 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources for criticism of the concept.

I trimmed a lot of the criticism section because it relied too heavily on a single opinion piece in The Daily Beast (and, elsewhere, another by Cathy Young); we can mention those opinions, and I left some in, but building an entire section around them is tricky, especially if we end up placing WP:UNDUE weight on one or two opinion pieces. It would be better to find secondary sources describing opposition to the concept, rather than citing a bunch of op-eds. (Or, worse, just one or two op-eds - if we must cite opinion pieces, it's important to avoid putting too much weight on just one.) It's also important to avoid using them for statements of fact (which is another reason why we'd be better off finding reliable non-opinion secondary sources on criticism, which we can use for statements of fact.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I haven't really edited this article in a while and I missed this particular cull, but what is the rationale behind trimming these opinion sources and retaining the opinion sources we rely heavily on for the concept itself? At least the sources you removed are from reputable publications with clear editorial oversight. Contrast this with, say, "But Why Can't I Wear a Hipster Headdress," or "Don't Mess Up When You Dress Up"; the former is cited six times in the article, the latter cited four times, and both are cited for claims of fact in the lead. The article is full of dubious sources, so it's curious that you seized on the ones you chose. Dyrnych (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"cultural apartheid"

An editor listed "cultural apartheid" as a possible synonym for "cultural appropriation", citing the Urbandictionary website. A quick Web search found a number of citations of "cultural apartheid", but all were the opposite of "cultural appropriation"; they were all about maintaining cultural purism. Urbandictionary is hardly an authoritative source, especially in the face of etymology and usage. So I deleted the reference to "cultural apartheid". If anything, it seems that those who are extremely eager to denounce things as "cultural appropriation" are practioners of "cultural apartheid". That is, opponents of cultural borrowings are the ones practicing cultural apartheid. Pete unseth (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I now see better what the editor who inserted reference to "cultural apartheid" may have been thinking. I think I understand that the idea is that those who condemn "cultural appropriation" are the ones practicing "cultural apartheid", working to prevent mixing of cultures. In that sense, attacking behaviors as "cultural appropriation" is precisely "cultural apartheid".Pete unseth (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Or is it more an expression of cultural apartheid? In terms of etymology the phrase seems to imply an actively enforced policy against the mixing of cultures. If there is a reference that could be cited for this it should be included. I'm sure for instance some dances must have been prohibited at some point based on culture. As an antonym or contradictory concept to cultural appropriation it would be quite and interesting aside to the page anyway IMHO. Llamageddon (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it really a sociological concept?

There was a recent Finnish Suomen Kuvalehti article on the origins of the term [1]. I'm not attempting to add any of this to the article, but I think the current wording of the article requires some back-up.

They asked two professors who failed to answer how the term was born and what scientific background it has. The third, Laura Huttunen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Tampere replied:

The term is not based on science. Cultural appropriation has no basis in the social sciences or science at all. It is an American term, used in describing struggle between cultural groups. It is quite contradictory and in many ways a bad concept. [It implies] that the world would be divided into cultures with clear boundaries with every one of them having own ancient contents. But the world does not work this way, our culture has borrowing, variation and combination. Cultural appropriation has been used to describe different and unsymmetric things, and because of that, it's from a researcher's point of view, a really difficult term - not an analytical tool.

Currently the lead states that "Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology" based on a 2010 book by a philosopher, a 1996 text on aboriginal intellectual property rights which do not mention the term and a 2012 The Guardian column. This is inadequate for the the claim. The article also really needs a chapter on the origin of the term because it seems to be unclear. --Pudeo (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to make clear: what I'm talking about is the distinction with actual academic use vs. the use by social media bloggers like Yassmin Abdel-Magied, the Guardian columnists and MTV News writing about the outfits of celebrities. Too many of the references are about the latter, and some of the scholarly references are from 2007 and do not mention cultural appropriation, just intellectual property rights. --Pudeo (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned this regarding the intro, it goes into far too much detaial and specifics from limited sources that are also contradictory, a lot of it should be moved to the academic study section in my opinion, particularly regarding references to violation of intelectual property rights. That seems to me to only be valid as a subjective world view from the perspective of more economically developed countries, and is a very recent economic concept.

There are so many statements made in general, especially so within the intro section, that are not corroborated in enough sources in my opinion. Again this seems more appropriate for the academic section and here it would give the article more leeway in presenting some differing opinions on the subject. Cultural appropriation is a very recent concept, there is bound to be some unavoidable wordiness if an inclusive perspective is given in this article, it would be good to keep it limited to specific sections to make the page more readable.Llamageddon (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Gender and sexuality" section -- not cultural appropriation example

The section on "gender and sexuality" does not seem to fit in this article. It is only about people in acting roles, which is not the same thing as cultural appropriation. If an actress plays the part of a royal/prostitute/computer genius/accountant/medium -- then nobody complains that she is doing cultural appropriation. People may object to such casting as the section refers to, but they should create another article for that. It could include such things as people playing roles they do not fit ethnically/racially, such as Marlon Brando when he played a Japanese character in The Teahouse of the August Moon or a Mexican in Viva Zapata!; or David Carradine as a Chinese character in the Kung Fu American television program. Acting issues are not really the same as cultural appropriation. This section should be removed and a new article created on casting issues. Hope this is seen as constructive, not an attack. Pete unseth (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I also don't think this is the same issue as cultural appropriation; maybe the section would be more appropriate at Media portrayal of LGBT people. I think your comparison to an actress playing a royal misses the point: trans and gay actors are not well represented on television, and this includes the very roles that one would think them most suited to (trans/gay characters). But our personal opinions are sort of besides the point. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Some more material

OK, I'm going to NOT put this in citation templates, since I would have to do all that by hand--plus I have a day job, and my lifespan is limited. I'll do minimal formatting though it breaks my heart to drop junk here.

• Benjamin Franklin in Jewish Eastern Europe: Cultural Appropriation in the Age of theEnlightenment; Author(s): Nancy Sinkoff; Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 133-152; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3654046.
• Is Buddhism Indispensable in the Cross-Cultural Appropriation of Christianity in Burma?; Author(s): La Seng Dingrin; Source: Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 29 (2009), pp. 3-22; https://www.jstor.org/stable/40864802
• Plutarch on Isis and Osiris: Text, Cult, and Cultural Appropriation; Author(s): Daniel S. Richter; Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014), Vol. 131 (2001),pp. 191-216; https://www.jstor.org/stable/20140969
• Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture; Author(s): Robert Ousterhout; Source: Muqarnas, Vol. 12 (1995), pp. 48-62; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1523223
• Cultural Appropriation and Choral Music: A Conversation That Can Make Both Our Musicand Community Better; Author(s): Ryan Cho; Source: The Choral Journal, Vol. 55, No. 10 (MAY 2015), pp. 59-63; https://www.jstor.org/stable/24336096
• Chapter Title: CULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL APPROPRIATION; Book Title: Players Unleashed!; Book Subtitle: Modding The Sims and the Culture of Gaming; Book Author(s): Tanja Sihvonen; Published by: Amsterdam University Press. (2011); https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46mt37.5
• "Logiques métisses": Cultural Appropriation and Postcolonial Representations; Author(s): Françoise Lionnet; Source: College Literature, Vol. 19/20, No. 3/1, Teaching Postcolonial and CommonwealthLiteratures (Oct., 1992 - Feb., 1993), pp. 100-120; https://www.jstor.org/stable/25111992
• Introduction: Interethnicity: From Cultural Appropriation to Horizontal Comradeship; Author(s): Emily Lutenski; Source: The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 50, No. 1 (SPRING2017), pp. 7-15; https://www.jstor.org/stable/44721856
• Rock Art Aesthetics and Cultural Appropriation; Author(s): Thomas Heyd; Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 37-46; https://www.jstor.org/stable/1559111
• On tobacco industry cultural appropriation; Author(s): Ruth E Malone; Source: Tobacco Control, Vol. 18, No. 6 (December 2009), pp. 425-426; https://www.jstor.org/stable/27798648
• Profound Offense and Cultural Appropriation; Author(s): James O. Young; Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 135-146; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700467
• cultural appropriation; Author(s): Margaret McKenty; Source: Off Our Backs, Vol. 22, No. 10 (november 1992), p. 20; https://www.jstor.org/stable/20834278

Have fun. Hope someone will use this. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is biased towards the presumption that cultural appropriation is a worthwhile concept

Hi all. I was recently reverted for an edit that tried to tone down the extent to which the article promoted the validity of 'cultural appropriation' as a concept to be frowned up. There will always be a preponderance of sources for a modern coinage explaining what is intended by said coinage, but I think the tone of article needs to elevated above either endorsing the theory/construct or decrying it as baloney. I think this will require some changes alike those in my original edit, and I'd like to see what other editors have to say.Zythe (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I have to say that I disagree with your changes, and support the reversions made by Drmies and GB fan.

Please take a look at WP:ALLEGED—it's not appropriate to write about the topic using phrases like "has been seen as", "is often cited as" and "some writers claim". This undermines the topic and gives strong implications that the proponents of these ideas are wrong. For instance, I could rewrite the opening to Earth as this:

Earth is claimed to be the third planet from the Sun by scientists, and can be viewed as the only astronomical object known to harbor life. It is often cited that the Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago. Some writers claim that Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space [...]

The text's literal interpretation is factually correct, but the tone clearly screams out "all of this information is a lie!" Now indeed, the very concept of planets and basic astronomy is controversial, and lots of people doubt the information above (see Modern flat Earth societies and Young Earth creationism), but the appropriate thing to do is to report the facts as they are, and then talk about the people who disagree, which is what the Criticism of the concept section in this article is for. Given that the academic criticism of the theory of cultural appropriation is very limited—the current criticism section features views from one academic, a controversial speech and a non-expert, it's just not due weight to begin the lead with a tone that is scathingly doubtful. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv says it well--thank you. And I noted elsewhere that obviously controversial terms like "political correctness" don't get that denigrating qualifier in the lead. Just because a concept is relatively newly named doesn't mean it's therefore controversial, anachronistic, inappropriate, or otherwise to be disparaged from the get-go. A quick glance over the article tells me that it's pretty comprehensive and well-balanced, though it could do with less newspaper stuff and more citations from journals and books. We should cite Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation by Bruce Ziff and Pratima V. Rao, and Cultural Appropriation and the Arts by James O. Young, to name just two I found through JSTOR. Note also that JSTOR is full of hits, and OMG there's so much good stuff there, and none of it puts it in square quotes--and it covers an astonishing range of historical eras and subject matter. I'm going to drop what I found in a separate section below (if only some geek could get my RefTools to work)--we have some editors that know how to put this stuff to good use. I urge participants in this discussion to look at that list; the term may be new, but scholars have determined that the concept itself is not, and is not particularly Western. On Wikipedia we focus too much on the recent controversies and the stuff that pops up in our various feeds. This is an encyclopedia: we should read the journal articles, and they support a clean lead without manufactured controversy. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I know how referencing works and how WP:RS work, but there's definitely an issue of us not using curatorial judgment when we consider the fact that any newly coined concept will have tonnes of JSTOR articles by PhDs who like and approve of the concept or who enthusiastically link it to antecedent concepts. Wikipedia will then take these articles to refer to the thing as though it were as real as grass or snow or the Earth's orbit around the sun. I'm not saying the lead has to be completely unequivocal about the existence of the concept (I did not see my edit as disparaging, but I can see now that this topic is very sensitive for some), but I just think it should be more geared towards situating it in its proper context as a concept or construct, rather than in its current presentation as some kind of material social harm that's been newly discovered. This can be done with neutral phrasing (perhaps more neutral than mine) which differing opinions about the concepts as academic or cultural theorist or journalistic opinions, rather than assuming that all these people (even on "the same side") are of one mind and akin to scientists describing a natural phenomenon.Zythe (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with the current lead paragraph: the structure is "here's how the concept is defined; here is what some people think". It follows attribution of POV in the sentence "Particularly in the 21st century, cultural appropriation is often considered offensive..." I don't understand what you mean by "as though it were as real as grass or snow or the Earth's orbit around the sun"—obviously it's not a concrete noun phrase, but it's no more or less real than any abstract concept, such as wealth, media bias and virtue signalling, and all of those articles use a similar style of describing what they are, and then what modern opinion on them is.

If you think there's substantial criticism of the perspective that cultural appropriation is offensive, then first it needs to go in the body of the article, and then the lead should be updated to match. I don't understand why we would discount opinions in reliable sources that were written because the authors "like[d] and approve[d] of" the concept, nor how a source linking contemporary terminology to past concepts invalidates that source. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Whitecasting" -- this section now disproportionate compared to the article "Whitewashing in film"

The edits on August 1 have enlarged some topics under Whitewashing in some films even larger than the article Whitewashing in film. This part of the Cultural appropriation is now disproportinately large. Let's at least stop adding more example. What about removing any? Pete unseth (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Part of "Whitewashing" in these cases is also cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKGWIKI (talk • contribs)

I think that for articles like these, it's important to avoid a situation where it turns into a dumping ground for any source that uses the term. If we're going to have examples, they should ideally be sourced to high-quality sources that use them as examples (ie. sources that treat them as iconic reference-points for discussing the topic), rather than just random things that people have called cultural appropriation at one point or another. Throwing in every single example bloats the article, and just having whatever ones editors think are cool can easily lead to tone / balance issues. Currently I'd agree that the examples section is probably too long and isn't useful to typical readers (too many things are just randomly thrown in without a clear structure.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox news and Bill O'Reilly

I removed a statement from the article about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly and their views on Cultural appropriation

Fox News and host Bill O’Reilly have argued that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness.

Neither of the sources support the statements. The first source while published on Fox News website is an article written by Jane Ridley of the New York Post. In the article she does not argue that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness. She reports that a mother worries about the possibility that Halloween costumes are politically incorrect because of cultural appropriation. The second source is a Facebook post by Bill O'OReilly promoting an episode of No Spin News. He isn't arguing anything just promoting the show. we would need to watch the show to see what his views actually were. ~ GB fan 10:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's be more clear about this. I would say. instead, that 'Being against cultural-appropriation is an example of Political Correctness'. Because it obviously is. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:3550:3E5F:2E26:7981 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

The Article is Self-Contradictory.

The Article is about "Cutural Appropriation," but it actually describes "Cultural MISappropriation." See the Metcalfe reference. Metcalfe is clear that the two are distinct, and that it's MISappropriation that is inappropriate (the bulk of this article), while Appropriation is not an issue.

Even if Metcalfe's thesis is rejected, the McDonald reference and Cambridge Dictionary do not require the appropriation to be by a member of a dominant culture from an oppressed or minority culture. This is born out in the Avril Lavigne example, where she is accused of appropriating from the Japanese culture. The American and Japanese cultures are peers, with neither dominant over the other.

Examples and references contradict with the majority of the article. I do not want to edit the entire article to change "appropriation" to "misappropriation" without other input. 2Sal (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussion (here) has been had on the "appropriation" vs "misappropriation" topic; the main point raised against using "misappropriation" is that it's not commonly used by reliable sources. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This issue goes beyond the previous discussion. At least two authoritative, neutral sources (Cambridge and Oxford), give no relevancy to the hierarchy of the cultures. The entire introductory section focuses almost exclusively on the origins to, and relationships with, oppression, domination, colonialism, violations, etc. According to Oxford, that is a general (i.e. not exclusive) application of "cultural appropriation." The introductory section also refers to "cultural exchange" as being completely different, but is actually (again, based on the dictionary definitions) just an "acceptable" type of Cultural Appropriation - which is self-contradictory in the article. Perhaps if the article is re-written to explain the phrase in a neutral context (clearer that Cultural Appropriation is not necessarily a negative) it could be internally consistent with the references and examples. Basically "Cultural Misappropriation" and "cultural exchange" being subsets of Cultural Appropriation. 2Sal (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Listing the McDonald reference, since User:Tornado_chaser has repeatedly removed it from the article. It is useful because it defines Cultural Appropriation in common usage and as it is applied at a prominent university (in their context - a negative "thing," but not requiring a dominant or oppressed culture).

Campus reform is a partisan website that has been known to publish unverified material, I don't think it is a reliable source in this context. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

CampusReform is partisan, but it cited a joint email from the Gonzaga University Vice President for Student Development and the Gonzaga Student Body President as giving the definition of Cultural Appropriation - and included a snapshot of the email. So it's not CampusReform's definition, it's the definition as used by a respected university in addressing Cultural Appropriation around the campus during the Halloween season. How can that not be an acceptable reference for Wikipedia?2Sal (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and the RS sourcing has not changed sufficiently to overturn the previous consensus. You may find this odd coming from me because...

While I agree with the premise: The best term for this phenomena is Cultural Misappropriation - due to the key element being the imbalance of power - unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of WP:RS and WP:V sources are still choosing to use the term, Cultural Appropriation. No matter how inapt it is. Would I personally prefer to have this article moved to "Cultural Misappropriation", and to do a rewrite to term it that way? Yes. Would that be in compliance with Wikipedia policy? No. Because this is not about our personal opinions or preferences. As Wikipedians we do not advocate for our preferred terms; we document what the RS sources say.

Therefore, I am citing WP policy and removing the flag. We can continue to discuss this here on the talk page if you like. But there is simply no good reason to have the article flagged. The flagging shows a lack of familiarity with the available RS sourcing, as well as a lack of familiarity with this article and the history of the work that has gone into it. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Work out the problems in the lede or one of us is going to wholesale revert/cleanup. We had a stable lede for quite awhile. Please fix it so we don't have to. We decided to go with the understanding that the sources were using "Cultural Appropriation" to basically mean "misappropriation", even if they weren't phrasing it that way; the colonial element was/is assumed, unless they state otherwise. Really, if you read the sources it's always clear from context. @2Sal:, I sympathize with what you're trying to do here, but I don't think the way you're going about it is helping. Please read what we're saying here and work in collaboration with other editors and what we have to deal with re - these issues with the phrasings in the sourcing. Trying to turn this article into something about equal cultural exchange, or trying to rewrite it as Cultural Misappropriation and drawing a hard distinction with Appropriation as equal exchange is not going to work here, due to how the sources use the two interchangeably. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I'm reverting to the stable version. We have several sources cited in the lede that use "misappropriation" or "(mis)appropriation" in their titles or body text. We had the article this way for a while in the past. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious you are the POV-pusher around here. There is very little support for the idea that "cultural appropriation", by a definition, has to include any heirarchical relationship between cultures. The cites footnoted seem to be weak, unavailable, or biased, or are not directly on point. You may claim that there are some Reliable Sources, but there are probably thousands more references that don't include even a suggestion of a heirarchical relationhship. So, the biases are being baked into this article by selectively choosing the biased cites. Obviously, the goal of some people seems to turn this into (or, more accurately, keep this in) a Politically Correct treatise. I can very well understand why some people feel the need to add the heirarchical relationship nonsense to this term. "Culture", of course, is not merely art. "Culture" is science and engineering and technology as well. Suppose, just hypothetically, someone would declare that (for example) blacks and hispanics shouldn't be allowed to use any science or technology developed by whites, or Asians. And that whites or Asians wouldn't be able to use any technology developed by blacks and hispanics. (Would anybody notice?) Okay, when you're done laughing (or crying?) at the implications of such a rule, admit that the insertion of the "cultural heirarchy" language tries to patch the implications of this possibility up. I just did a Google search for '"Cultural Appropriation" "heirarchical"', and I got (only!) 241 results. I did the search for "cultural appropriation" alone and got 3,700,000. Give it up! Stop trying to push Political Correctness onto the world. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:3550:3E5F:2E26:7981 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be easily self-evident why the Google search "evidence" is of no use, but I feel it's worth pointing out that (a) Google biases results based on previous search history; and (b) that's not a control variable as "cultural appropriation" is a superset of "cultural appropriation heirarchical"; and (c) most importantly, you spelled "hierarchical" wrong. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, no it isn't "self-evident" why Google search evidence is "of no use". If you think that's the case, flesh out your argument and post it here. No doubt you don't want it used. Other people will be free to reject your objection. Further, you haven't established whether Google's search results are sufficiently "biased" by previous search history to make it not useful. You are obviously free to do the search on your account, or a newly-minted account, and in a different order, and see what the results are. You don't dispute my results, and you don't say what relationship between these two values would be necessary (or sufficient) to make a valid point. I concede the spelling error, but the issue is still relevant. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4C22:B862:F93D:8BB4 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I just did a Google Trends search for the history of the usage of this term on the web. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22cultural%20appropriation%22 Set the timeline to 2004-. The usage of the term was essentially zero until 2013. This concocted idea is of interest to very few of the people not in America (4% of the World's population), and of that, probably only 1% of the extreme leftists. So, this is a POV-pushing concept, turned into a POV-pushing article, kept PC-pure by POV-pushing editors. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4C22:B862:F93D:8BB4 (talk)

Just so I'm clear on Wikipedia rules, if something has been stable for some indeterminate length of time, then that's the standard? (snark off) Here's one of my points: Metcalfe (and some of the others) is hardly an RS, since she's written an opinion about appropriation vs misappropriation and clearly has her personal bias about it. However RS's that are NOT biased, and for most people are THE authority on the definitions of words and phrases are dictionaries. Both Cambridge and Oxford are universally respected and neither have skin in the game - their sole priority is accuracy and they are 100% neutral about the term. Neither say that Cultural Appropriation can only occur by a dominant culture over a subservient one. That's a fact. So unless an authoritative, neutral RS states that appropriation can only occur in a hierarchal relationship, where a member from the dominant culture "takes," then that condition should not appear in Wikipedia as the definition.2Sal (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It is utterly biased and even nutty to add the "heirarchical relationship" condition. I'd never even heard that limitation before. It's flaming Political Correctness gone wild, which I admit is a bit redundant to say. Does any RS actually include this as a condition? Throw it out now. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:3550:3E5F:2E26:7981 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, dictionaries are not great sources, since they don't provide much context. Academic papers (especially by people who are experts on the topic) are high-quality sources, and it's silly to suggest that any academic who writes on a subject is biased about it. If her definition is as controversial as you say, it would have been difficult for a peer-reviewed paper to get through saying otherwise; and it should be easy to find other papers or things of similar weight and depth disputing that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"dictionaries not great sources" Effectively, you are manufacturing a strawman. You are trying to discourage the use of dictionaries completely, because you know you can't find a dictionary that contains the biases you wish to include in this article. "Academic papers" can be INHERENTLY biased, merely by the choice of the subjects they choose to cover. Further, you make a foolish assertion about "difficult for a peer-reviewed paper to get through...". Have you heard of statistics that 90%+ of college personnel are leftist? (I'm not referring to STEM professors, of course.) If anything, "peer review" in such circumstances may involve even-more-radical people acting to ensure that the paper is RADICAL ENOUGH, since that is clearly the bias which is desired in such circles. What you, and the other people who want to maintain this article in a biased fashion are doing, is to ignore the complete lack of evidence that "cultural appropriation" is a 'thing', and worthy of an article on WP. I can already see numerous references on the Talk page that this article is way too "America-centric", and thus biased. _I_ am the one promoting the use of Google searches, Google Trends searches, to actually determine how this article can be justified. And this article also ignores the fact (which I just noticed) that the large majority of references to "cultural appropriation" are AGAINST the idea that this is a 'thing'. Any article which purports to cover this concept in an unbiased fashion should reflect that point of view, which appears to be that of the large majority. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4C22:B862:F93D:8BB4 (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Intro/Summary Definiton

The second statement of the article claims "It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power". In both of the references cited I can only find one mention of colonizing and one of colnialism. I can find no reference that would support such a narrow definition. I think this needs to be rephrased at the least. I'm not sure "...colonial element 'or' imbalance of power." would really cut it. If we are claiming a colonial element is intrisical to all examples of cultural appropriation we should definitely have a more difinitive reference. Llamageddon (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, someone edited it back. I still strongly disagree that such a narrow definition, from one source, should be cemented at the start of this article. Especially considering the omission of a colonial element in most definitions.

After the last reversion I can appreciate that a concensus has been made. However trhe previous edit to the page was to delete the word "some" as there was only one source. In this case there is still only one of the two references referring to or using synonyms of colonialism. Could we get another source that specifically touches on colonialism to add more weight to this statement? I am not claiming it is incorrect, I just like things nicely cited.

I'm also not sure that the bit about it being "the violation of the collective Intellectual property rights" should really be in this section. It is quite a bold statement considering intelectual property rights are a relatively recent concept, and have only recently had any force of law in parts of the world. Also, it is an economic/capitalist concept. Considering that it seems to me that it is another reason it would be more apprpriate in another section. Llamageddon (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "collective Intellectual property rights" is a complete invention, a phony concoction that probably no court in the entire world respects. It's a fraud, invented by people who are resentful that some peoples are productive and successful, and other peoples are useless and failures. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Specious assertion that there are defendable, collective property rights to elements of a culture.

This is not a forum. Go review WP:5P. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the legal arena, IP rights amount to a legal right to exclude others from using a concept or invention. Intellectual Property rights are not collective: It is utterly specious to claim that the people of one culture cannot adopt elements from another culture. This practice has been going on for as long as history itself, and probably far longer than that. It is certainly not true that such "rights" can only be defended by one culture, but not by another culture, simply based on an invented concept that one culture is somehow subservient to another. You'd be laughed out of court to even make this argument. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC) See WP:OR and WP:TALK. You deleted sources such as the United Nations position on the rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Sorry, the UN is more relevant here than your personal opinion. The talk page is not for general discussion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Could it be that there are 100, or even 1000 sources available that tell a different story than the biased United Nations? There is a reason biased sources are cited here: They push the PC idea that "cultural appropriation" is bad. It is irrelevant that you consider this a "quality" source: "Cultural appropriation" is actually a WP:Fringe idea that a few biased people are enthusiastically promoting. As stated there: "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." There has been no evidence presented that "cultural appropriation" is any more than a wacky fringe concept that gets very little attention even today, and far less as little as 5 years ago. (Do a Google Trends search for "cultural appropriation" and see that it nearly didn't register until 2013. The burden of establishing that it is a significantly popular concept is on the people pushing that idea. I just did a Google search for "cultural appropriation", 3.86 million results. Did one for ' "cultural appropriation" "heirarchy" ' and the result is 71,900. ("cultural" alone is 1.46 billion results; "appropriation" alone is 48 million.) Keep in mind that very few of those 71,900 would actually defend your position: The way my search is set up, any site with both the term "cultural appropriation" and "heirarchy" would show. It wouldn't have to be relevant to the issue involved. This article contains bias, heaped onto bias. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC) The UN is not a fringe source. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC) What you just said is completely irrelevant. The UN is representatives of governments, not people, and a large fraction of those governments are tyrannical and/or oppressive of their peoples. (In the UN, each government gets one representative and vote, no matter how large or small the population of the country is.) The UN is a BIASED source, because the large majority of nations are backwards and resent the success of industrialized nations. The issue is what is the relative size of the number of people who see "cultural appropriation" as a "thing", and those who don't. Due to the existence of Google Search, it is always possible to search for and select even the fringiest of fringe ideas. If you only select a very few rare and biased sources to make up the article, as is done here, you make it appear that it is more significant than it really is. That's an obvious violation of the WP:Fringe concept. How many sources does the main article have that criticize, or even better, laugh disgustedly at the entire concept called "cultural appropriation"? Here's a thought: If peoples had some sort of "right" to exclude others from using "their" collective cultural "intellectual property", there would be some courts, somewhere, that purport to take such cases and defend cultures' rights. Do any such courts exist? Not to my knowledge, they don't! Give it up, PC nuts! Neither you, nor any other people, have some sort of collective "right" to your singing, dancing, hairstyles, clothing, art, or any other barely-important characteristics. And worse, "culture" as expressed by the "cultural appropriation" crowd almost never seems to include science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM): The actually USEFUL parts of culture. By far, looked at this way, the greatest 'theft' of technology culture is from the Industrialized nations, then used by what is mercifully called "Developing Nations". Do you think that these backwards nations actually developed any significant proportion of the technology they regularly use? 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC) This article tells us why the entire concept of "cultural appropriation" is insane. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/21/to-the-new-culture-cops-everything-is-appropriation/?utm_term=.79b5379ba9a3 It concludes with: "So don’t let anyone tell you that there is art, literature or clothing that does not belong to you because of your racial, ethnic or religious identity. In other words: Appropriate away." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it useful to have a constantly growing list of complaints?

Is it useful for editors continually add new cases, complaining that they are additional examples of cultural appropriation? Inevitably there will be a new example at least once a month. The article should define cultrual appropriation and give some examples, but this is turning into a list of celebrity complaints. That is not what I think this article should be. What do otheres think? Pete unseth (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, as I have for years. Dyrnych (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I feel that excessive lists aren't very useful (and you run into problems with what's included and why - if the inclusion criteria aren't clear, including just some things can be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH.) I would limit inclusion purely to examples that have substantial sourcing indicating that they're important to understanding the concept itself - ie. they prompted significant discussion, contributed to the concept's prominence in popular culture, changed the way it was seen, etc. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Cultural Exchange vs Cultural Appropriation statement in into.

I have removed the statement "Because of the presence of power imbalances that are a byproduct of colonialism and oppression, cultural appropriation is distinct from equal cultural exchange" as none of the cited sources support this statement. Two of the sources do not mention cultural exchange, two do not mention colonialism, and none of them mention both colonialism and cultural exchange, so it would require WP:SYNTH to phrase the statement in the way it is. Furthermore, the sources, even if we were to allow SYNTH, still do not support the statement. One of the sources simply describes Cultural Appropriation as "the loose idea of borrowing, sharing and being inspired by other cultures. Cultural appropriation in this sense is an awesome thing." The only source directly comparing cultural appropriation to cultural exchange does not frame the difference as being colonialism (which it does not mention) and actually says "cultural exchange suggests you give something in return for having taken something. If it’s culture that’s taken, then presumably what’s given back is the art. In which case the difference between appropriation and exchange, to be (maybe absurdly) logical about it, would have to lie with an assessment of the value of the art itself." The closest it comes to saying that the difference stems from a power imbalance is "So I find it less likely that a person can make art borrowing from a culture less empowered than his own. But again, that’s just the cold eye of the bookie. It doesn’t seem impossible for someone in the more powerful position to be able to have some insight in the other direction; it just seems difficult, and unlikely." This is hardly the same thing as what it is being used as a citation for, and is stated in a much less concrete way. Also, it is a bit of an issue that the sources, aside from not saying what it is claimed they say, are blogs and book reviews, and statements from them should therefore be attributed to the authors and not used for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this is already covered in the lead two paragraphs below in a way that correctly attributes the viewpoint rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Collective Intellectual Property Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we can change the tone here and end dissent by simply citing laws and court decisions that recognize collective intellectual property rights for groups of indigenous people. There are some in North America, but Australia has a much more vigorous legal framework for this. [2] I still think that many people are excessively and easily offended by some events, but we must agree that there legal recognition for some collective intellectual property has been robustly recognized.Pete unseth (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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