Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Boy scout dance troupes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Indian Wearing Cowboy Hat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThoughtCo

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

Repeated deletion of pic

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

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

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

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

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

Opening sentences in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no consensus to remove "collective".[1] The content is well-sourced. And after a series of edits where you seemed to finally be attempting to edit in a collaborative manner, now you're just removing it again with the inaccurate edit summaries. This could be perceived as a return to the old, tendentious pattern. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundant phrases

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

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

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

"Collective intellectual property rights"

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

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

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

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

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

@Unschool: It seems to me that Indigenous intellectual property would be appropriate too (I've proposed in the past: [5]). Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian Guides - YMCA Boy's and Girl's Group

Should there be a section on this? The Indian Guides were renamed in 2003 due to complaints from a small group of Native Americans. It would meet on a weekly or monthly basis, with fathers and either daughters or sons. There was a boy's branch and a girl's branch.

http://www.vintagekidstuff.com/yguides/yguides.html

https://www.shondaland.com/live/a19381796/guiding-in-the-wrong-direction/

https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2003/09/12/pc-vs-the-indian-princesses-n1090763

The group was renamed due to complaints of cultural appropriation.

Thanks in advance. בס״ד 69.112.128.69 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not an exhaustive list of examples. This article has a few notable ones for encyclopedic reasons. I think we should strive to examine the ones at hand, and put forward those that are well-documented and illustrate the concept best. Your second link is a good reliable source; the third link did not work for me. Elizium23 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. While I think it would be difficult to find many better examples of cultural appropriation in contemporary events, also I do not want to clutter up this page. If you mean that by saying, that this is not an exhaustive list of examples, and taking into account that there are already Native American examples on the page (such as the lead photo), I will hold off on making any additions. For now. Thanks for your astute and prompt reply! 69.112.128.69 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

Reverse appropriation

So, a black woman dying her hair blonde, which I've seen several times, would also be "cultural appropriation"? If you think this is ok and think the reverse is not okay, then you are a hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.138.230 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would be, but we would need a source where someone is complaining about it. Then it could be mentioned in the article. Another possibility that crossed my mind would be people in China, most notably people like Xi Jinping, wearing a collar and tie (compare with what Mao Zedong used to wear). This would count as cultural appropriation of the Western culture. However, I doubt we'd find a source where anyone was complaining about it. 31.52.163.22 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Scottish clothing

"During the Highland Clearances, the British aristocracy appropriated traditional Scottish clothing."

Although the example is generally correct the above sentence is historically somewhat misleading.

The phenomenon had no connection with the Highland Clearances.

The fashion can be precsiely dated to 1822.The city council of Edinburgh invited the romantic fiction writer Walter Scott to stage-manage the 1822 visit of King George IV to Scotland.

To the consternation of many Scottish Lowlanders Walter Scott decided to 'theme' the event and dress everyone up as plaid-clad Highlanders.

This 'Disneyfication' of the gaelic-speaking Highlanders became unexpectedly fashionable and has remained so ever since amongst Scots, both Highlanders and Lowlanders, and the British Royalty (most especially Queen Victoria).

Perhaps the sentence might better read:

"As a consequence of the 1822 'fancy dress' reception for the visit of King George IV to Edinburgh a somewhat-stylised Highland dress became fashionable amongst Scottish Lowlanders and of the British Royal family. Highland 'tartan' iconogrpahy remains a commonly-misplaced staple of Scotland's public image". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.6.47 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Go for it, or maybe just delete the sentence you refer to? 31.52.163.22 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable reference which discusses George IV's visit to Edinburgh and its consequences, then this change can be made. — Bilorv (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

What has this got to do with "cultural appropriation"?

As of the 2010 census, Asian-Americans made up 4.8 percent of the U.S. population.[118] According to a study by the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism in 2016, one out of 20 (which corresponds to 5 percent) speaking roles go to Asian-Americans. However, they are given only one percent of lead roles in film. White actors account for 76.2 percent of lead roles, while representing 72.4 percent of the population according to the last US census.

In the Film and television section we have the above statement. It seems this is about a completely different issue. I'll delete it in due course, unless someone can offer an explanation. Thanks. 31.52.163.22 (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"While the leadership of nearly all Native American tribes object to their depictions as sports mascots..."

The given source for this only mentions that there are "Hundreds of tribal nations, national and regional tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, school boards, sports teams, sports and media personalities, and individuals...", I removed it. If someone wants to change the source to back up the claim or the written phrasing, I have no problem with it. Buffs (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the contrary (to exploitation, appropriation) also has a rationale, since many of the Native American representations in contemporary sports were originally either inspired by or approved of by Native Americans at the time they were adopted. It's only in more recent time, revisionists have taken issue with the symbolism - decided that the spirit of the symbol is meant with malicious, derogatory intent, rather than in tribute to the courage and heroism of Native America. The symbols were most probably adopted in admiration, not in exploitation. Thanks for removing it. בס״ד 69.112.128.69 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of valid criticism

CV, your initial objection for reverting a good faith contribution was "Reverted good faith edits by Dormamo (talk): Malformed, removed section headers, inserted spelling errors. Find a better place for it and improve text". I completely concur that it was indeed malformed and obliterated some valid headers, but I also saw no spelling or grammar errors. As requested, I cleaned it up and integrated it into the prose of the existing section. You then removed it again citing "Reverting prior to addition. Source is only a brief summary then audio broadcast entirely in German. This is not a checkable source for English Wikipedia users who do not speak German".

In addition to moving the goalposts (thereby making it impossible to add valid criticism), you're making up reasons for exclusion. Policy clearly allows for non-English sources: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia" . It does not need to be a "checkable source for English Wikipedia users who do not speak German" in order to be included. If you have yet another criticism, let's hear it here and discuss it before you summarily remove valid criticism again. As such, I'm reverting. Buffs (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence Others criticize that protection for a culture would actually result in more attention to the subject. is weasel-worded and needs to be clarified "who criticizes?" (and not just by supplementing with the stuff that follows it.) Elizium23 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That particular claim is supported by three sources. "Others" is merely a continuation of the previous claims and specifying there are additional opinions of criticism. Likewise, it has been in the article for a while and is not actually a locus of dispute. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You can consider it disputed now. In fact there are other instances of similar weasel-wording in the article, which is wholly unsurprising. I will work on tagging them if you do not wish to repair them immediately. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not text in German that can be easily looked at in text. It's an audio file. Who here is fluent in German and has actually listened to the entire audio file and confirmed, with a time stamp and exact quotation, that the source actually says that? Without that, it is neither WP:RS or even WP:V and cannot be used. The summation on the page does not say what it's being used to source. This is placing an undue burden - expecting English speakers to listen to an audio piece in German to confirm a source. This doesn't belong in an en-wiki article. Is the commentor even notable? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside the language issues, I'm not sure that attribution is enough here. Why, exactly, is this one obscure source encyclopedically significant? Does the source actually say that "others" say this, or is it just Patsy l'Amour laLove? (de:Patsy l'Amour laLove? Nope not there either.) The Anne Frank Educational Centre is presumably significant, but for establishing due weight, a discussion held at a notable place isn't even at the same level as an opinion column. Even with the best of intentions, a quote taken from a discussion removes all context, making this potentially cherry-picking. This seems very thin right now. The article's WP:WEASEL problem is not an excuse to add more to the pile. Grayfell (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"This is not text in German that can be easily looked at in text. It's an audio file." Irrelevant. Again, see WP:RSUE. Buffs (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, I have removed the Campus Reform source. Using it for these conclusions appeared to be WP:SYNTH, I dispute that Campus Reform is reliable, and that particular article was derived entirely from a survey by a t-shirt selling website. Just based on this, I think all of these sources will need to be looked at more carefully. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume we're going to apply the same standard to all the other sources in this article? Buffs (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So the health and beauty portion of HuffPo? The Aerogram? ThoughtCo? World4.eu? Unpublished dissertations? Everything from ICT is highly slanted in opinion to the left. Let the same standards apply everywhere. I look forward to your deletions. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As I just said that all of these sources will need to be looked at more carefully. Funny that this is now about being "slanted to the left" but that's a distraction. Adding more bad stuff to a pile of bad sources isn't going to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just looking for balance. If you're taking out only sources critical of the concept, then there's a left leaning tilt to application of policy in this case. Glad to see someone else willing to hop in and do something about the balance in the article.

As for the campusreform article, it's commentary on a survey. While CampusReform is decidedly right, the survey definitely leaned left. And, yes, it came from a T-Shirt company, but the general results were still worth talking about and other sources did too. CampusReform's opinion is just as valid as ICT or a HuffPo guest when discussing the existence of objections. Buffs (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that Campus Reform's commentary on a t-shirt company's corporate blog post survey is encyclopedically significant. Is anyone here defending this source on its own merits? The Huffington Post thing should also be removed. It's clear there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Looking over some of this redundancy, I think it's likely that people saw or read something and decided to tack it on wherever it could fit, without regard to due weight or whether the perspective was already present.

In addition to being a topical issue, this unbalancing is a relatively common side-effect of articles being assigned as class projects. I think it's still worth it to have this attention, of course. Articles in this situation tend to be expanded, but editing is as much about knowing what to leave out, and how to summarize. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Trimming C-section

A new section based on previous comments, since this is a new issue. Regarding this edit, I have attempted to trim and consolidate overly detailed and repetitive perspectives, and to balance for due weight. Jordan Peterson, in particular, is extremely prolific, so using a lecture video to imply this perspective is significant is WP:OR. Any quotes from him, or anyone else, really, should be weighed carefully, ideally by sources with some indication of editorial oversight or similar. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed several additional source from the article. The first was a bit of HuffingtonPost clickbait that added little. The second was this:

• Sundaresh, Jaya (May 10, 2013) "Beyond Bindis: Why Cultural Appropriation Matters Archived May 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine" for The Aerogram.

This appears to be an opinion by a student who is not obviously a recognized topic expert. I do not know if The Aerogram is reliable, but in context this seemed too light-weight to be so heavily used in the article.

My take on the deeper problem is this: Wikipedia articles should be mainly summarizing WP:SECONDARY sources. Any attempt to summarize multiple opinion articles, even if these opinions are notable enough to include with attribution, is a form of WP:OR. We are trusting that editors will find the important examples and explain them in a neutral way without properly indicating where they are coming from. That's not good. It is not enough that we have examples. Conclusions need to be drawn from reliable, WP:INDY sources.

Yes, of course this is a problem at other articles, but it's a problem at this one, so this talk page is the place to discuss how to fix it here. More is almost certainly needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

what about food?

one thing i can think of is the israeli appropriation of hummus and falafel (which many israelis regard as "national" dishes). plenty of sources have claimed that this is a form of cultural appropriation of palestinian cuisine. any other examples?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There must be some distinction between cultural (mis)appropriation and cultural exchange. Food is the prime example of the latter, followed by everyday, non-ceremonial clothing. Should Italians stop eating pasta because the Chinese invented the noodle? Also, hummus and falafel are not anyone's national dishes, since they likely had their origins in the Levant before Islam and any modern nation-state. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

what?? who said that italians should stop eating pasta?--Exjerusalemite (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion is WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:N (among others). I see nothing to indicate such a claim passes any of these criteria. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

of course the whole concept is controversial, this article doesn't and cannot assert that something is cultural appropriation without breaking npov. this article is not about labeling. what this article does is reporting the controversy, and there is plenty of sources that argue for and against the application of this concept to hummus and falafel and their status in israel.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read NPOV. I don't think you understand it. Buffs (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Italians and pasta was a rhetorical/ironic question to indicate that a widely eaten food cannot be either appropriated or claimed.

RE: NPOV and RS - If there are reliable sources on many sides of a controversy, then the article as a whole maintains neutrality by presenting a balance between points of view in published sources; unless one side represents an academic consensus that would make equal coverage of opposing views false balance. If a topic were indeed so muddled as to make NPOV impossible, then perhaps there should be no article. A case might be made that cultural appropriation is muddled but I think it needs to be more narrowly defined, as I say above, to exclude cultural exchange. There is a difference between wearing an authentic sombrero and wearing a Halloween costume that evokes insulting stereotypes toward Mexicans. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only does the Hummus article actually mention (ever so briefly) claims of cultural appropriation, the article itself is a stellar example of it -- the "Regional preparations" section devotes the largest part to Israel, falsely claiming without citing any reference that it was part of Mizrahi Jewish culinary heritage and mentions how it is regarded as Israel's "national dish" without telling us how this came to be, as if it is a natural continuation of an older Israeli tradition while it was in fact a fairly recent development that followed a marketing campaign. If this is not cultural appropriation, I don't know what is. You may as well delete this entire article.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article is largely Ameri- and Euro-centric in perspective and negative in tone

I find the article more or less exclusively focuses on the subject of cultural appropriation; as it relates to and from the perspective of the US, Canada and Western Europe, which generally views the subject of cultural appropriation negatively. However, and especially because "cultural appreciation" gets redirected to this article, I think it might be worthwhile elaborating on the positive (or at least neutral) impacts and perspectives on cultural appropriation (this is more anecdotal than anything, but from my experience, this line of thinking seems more common in East Asian countries; with people tending to have a more positive reaction when they see their cultural elements being featured and/or adopted into another's). This is probably most evident in music and cuisine (e.g. fusion cuisine, home cooking, Indian curry being more or less the national dish of England). It may also be worth talking about instances where a culture actively encourages the spread of its cultural elements for consumption, and subsequent appropriation, by another culture (typically abroad) (e.g. the Hallyu Wave, anime's influence on Western animation, etc) +/- referencing political diplomacy. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:E8DC:C630:71C5:9B1E (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Western concept"

The dicdef used to source that this is a "Western" concept in the lede does not source that addition so I have removed it. The source actually says, "[Cultural appropriation] is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non‐Western or non‐white forms".[6] The scholarly sources cited later in the dicdef are already in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Definition

As cultural appropriation is now defined in this Wikipedia page, it gives the impression that in some cases it has no negative connotations. I therefore suggest to change the definition to:

Cultural Appropriation: when members, corporations, institutions or organizations of a dominant culture cherry-pick certain widely recognizable and appreciated unique elements of a culture which such dominant culture has subjected, to be used as a means of differentiation, often at the international level.

Tavernsenses (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the concept of cultural appropriation can never be done in good faith. There are plenty of examples where there is no harm done, like a homage. Or western people placing buddha statues in their homes. --MooNFisH (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur that people use various cultural references all the time and it isn't always "cultural appropriation" just because someone accuses someone of it. But this is not the phrasing we should use. Buffs (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports this definition? Dyrnych (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Gay & Lesbian actors and Straight actors

The article mentions GLBT activists complain that straight actors have played gay & lesbian roles. It does not mention that there has not been a comparable protest when gay and lesbian actors have played straight roles. How should this side be reflected in the article? Pete unseth (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles typically do not dwell on what has not happened. If there is some sort of a protest or something then, with a good source, it can go in. Carptrash (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

In raising the question of GLBT actors plying straight characters, I was merely pointing out that the complaint about straight actors playing GLBT roles is one sided. If the point is valid in one direction, it should be equally valid in the other direction. Maybe this paragraph in the article should be deleted. Pete unseth (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We're not here to debate whether the complaint is one-sided or not. If the sources support one but not the other, that's what Wikipedia should reflect. Do you have a source that supports (1) the complaints you think are legitimate or (2) that there's a debate over the validity of the paragraph we have in the article? Dyrnych (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

White privilege

It seems that the White man wearing a war bonnet is a hot topic. I say it's WP:OR to label it white privilege. It's a photo. Describe what the photo depicts without analyzing it. Unless you have a secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian opinion piece as a citation?

Come on. The Metcalfe, Jessica, "Native Americans know that cultural misappropriation is a land of darkness citation is absurd. This author only has one article written, so clearly it's a fake personality created because no one would like that under their name. News outlets are okay as a source when it comes to describing actual events, but opinion pieces should never be allowed as citations. And "The Guardian" is biased at best.

What next? Wanna cite Alex Jones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.124.14 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and have removed unreliable sources from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored the Noah Smith blog post. I think there's very little (if anything) that's controversial about his framing of how his side sees the issue. And that's all it is: framing one side of a range of opinions, of which his is one. Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What makes Smith an expert in the field? Why is this a good self-published source? — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He's not being cited for academic expertise in the field. He's being cited for what seems to be a fairly benign statement about opinions regarding cultural appropriation. I agree that self-published sources are not the most ideal, but this doesn't seem to fall within the spirit or the letter of the policy. And given the number of low-quality opinion sources in this piece cited for facts, I'm not sure why this is a problem. Dyrnych (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, notwithstanding my comment above, there's nothing wrong with opinion pieces in the abstract (as the IP user is arguing). Nor is The Guardian an unreliable source overall, regardless of the IP user's vague accusation of bias. Dyrnych (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A number of the citations in this piece are opinion pieces, from various points of view. If we remove the opinion pieces by, say, Native Americans discussing the topic, we would also have to remove the opinions of right-wing commentators who dismiss their concerns. Additionally, a simple WP or google search shows the IP user's assertion that Jessica Metcalfe is a "fake personality" to be false. And The Guardian is used as a source all over WP. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, very few (if any) people have suggested removing Native American sources simply because they're Native American sources—or even minimizing the range of Native American views on the issue. What people have consistently pointed out is that there are numerous, low-quality, often explicitly didactic opinion pieces providing the undergirding for what we're considering cultural appropriation to be. Admittedly it's not as bad as it once was, but the problem persists. Also, who are the "right-wing commentators who dismiss [Native American] concerns" at issue here? I don't see any such sources in the articles. Dyrnych (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I missed that a bunch of dubious right-wing sources seem to have been added to the lede. Sorry about that, and I've stricken my argument to the contrary. It's been a bit since I've checked in on this article, but I should have looked beforehand. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Re-arranging sections is making it hard to tell what's been added and removed

I just reverted this edit, but I'm not sure I needed to. It initially looked to me like the Australian section had been blanked, but now I'm seeing it (or most of it) was moved. Can we have more eyes on this to parse out what all was altered? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I moved things around because I find the article to be pretty confusing with overlapping examples from different times and places. I was trying to help. 189.217.86.184 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Photos/pictures

Forgive me if I misunderstand the concept, but many of these photos/pictures do not seem to have originally been intended to be examples of cultural appropriation, and I don't specifically see citations that say this is what these photos represent, other than in the case of the Cossack photo. Isn't this in a way a form of original research? It would make sense if these pictures themselves were discussed by reliable sources as examples of cultural appropriation, but that does not seem to be the case. It seems more like individual editors have decided that these pictures are representative of cultural appropriation, and that would seem to be original research to me. For instance, it would clearly be original research for an editor to write, without a citation, "Monet's painting 'La Japonaise' is an example of cultural appropriation, as the model wearing the Kimono, Monet's wife, is European". But doesn't placing it on the page do exactly that? Shouldn't the determination of what constitutes cultural appropriation be decided by reliable sources, and not editor judgement? NonReproBlue (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

NonReproBlue, I agree; it's all very questionable. Currently we have @TrueParf: trying to force in a photo, apparently of himself, and misrepresenting the other photo as "copywrited" (sic) when it is Creative Commons licensed already. I see no need to keep any image that is not supported by WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I see problems with both photos (although I was referring to all the photos that are unsourced, particularly the ones depicting art or historical photos out of context). Aside from being unsourced, both photos would appear to me to violate the image policy that states "Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light", and I would argue that while not being false (Well, the one that is clearly photoshopped probably qualifies for false), using a picture of someone as an example of cultural appropriation is certainly presenting them in a disparaging light. If the photoshopped photo is indeed a photo of the editor who added it then perhaps that is not such a concern, but if it is not a photo of them, as they have said, then it certainly applies. Additionally I see in the policy that "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such." and this definitely applies to the second photo which is clearly photoshopped. Also, although nitpicky, I think that it is a little bit presumptive to describe people in photographs as "White" or "Non-Native" simply because of the way they look, without reliable sources backing up that assumption. Many people do not look like the stereotypical images people have in their heads of what people "should" look like within a given ethnicity. It is not our place, and seems highly inappropriate, to make assumptions about people's ethnicity. There are photos (unsure of licensing rights) that do illustrate cultural appropriation with regards to native headdresses or war bonnets, and are discussed in reliable sources, such as the very prominent examples of Karli Kloss and Pharrell Williams receiving public backlash after wearing headdresses or war bonnets, and a picture of either of them would seem to be a better example(although even that may still violate the prohibition against presenting a living person in a disparaging light, but I'm not sure because it was extensively covered in reliable sources.) Personally I think it would be better to have fewer images than images that potentially violate several policies. I would support the removal of all pictures that are not supported by reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TrueParf here. I added that other photo for the same reason the person above is talking about. There is no reliable source to prove whether that person is Native-American or not. The image I included was an image of a known voice-actor, Joshua Tomar. He is of purely Jewish/Hebrew descent and the photo of him in the Native American war bonnet is much more reliable as it represents that same point as the other image but it is more accurate in the assumption that he is not Native-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueParf (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

But it's not a photo of him in a war bonnet. It is a picture of him with a war bonnet photoshopped on top of it. Especially since the photo is not of the editor themselves, the photo is absolutely unacceptable, as it violates the policy on photo manipulation and the policy against presenting living people in a false or disparaging light. The article details how non-natives wearing such headdresses can be considered offensive, so editing a photo of a living person to make it seem as though they were wearing one would absolutely be painting them in a false and disparaging light. It would be akin to editing a photo of someone to illustrate blackface. There are plenty of actual examples in the real world, find one that is discussed in reliable sources. Not everything needs a photo, there is nothing particularly complex about any of these examples that would make it confusing to people if there weren't a photo, and thus the photos add very little in terms of encyclopedic value, even aside from the issues of original research. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The photo that is there today with the war bonnet is not photoshopped. Having said that, I think it would be great to have a photo at the top of the page. 189.217.86.184 (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The photo that is there today is not the one that I was referring to as photoshopped. It was the one added in this edit. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Arrangement of the Article Makes Placement Confusing

I recently added a section into the article discussing the appropriation of the Hindu religious festival of Holi. However, as users have brought up before, the arrangement of this article is quite confusing. There are many categories under which the paragraph I have inserted could fall. I currently have the addition to the article under the "Modern Era" section of the article since I provided two examples of appropriation in the modern era. However, I would appreciate someone weigh in on where else the paragraph could fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abooknook (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If the paragraph is to appear at all it needs to be written in a neutral way and cite reliable sources. Sources like the Salt of the Earth are not acceptable sources for statements in Wikipedia's voice. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I have made the proper adjustments to the paragraph. I have removed the biased language and only used content that is credible. Would you still suggest I leave the paragraph underneath "Modern Era"? Abooknook (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is not neutral and represents only the American cancel culture view on the concept

The concept and activism around it were widely criticized even in the American press, and all that you put into that article is a tiny paragraph at the end of the article, which is no one reads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.98.213.72 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Sources such as Spiked are not reliable, while, well, The Guardian is not American(!). By "end of the article" do you mean "in the lead, and the fifth out of about 70 paragraphs"? Very strange comment... — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean this tiny section in comparison with the huge article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#Criticism_of_the_concept. Ok, let it be US plus UK press or whatever, does it really matter? Those were just examples of criticism found in three minutes google search. I have no idea what is Wikipedia considers as a "reliable source", that's why I stay out of editing the article. I find your comment no less strange. I see the huge article with tons of examples of cultural appropriation, and only a tiny section dedicated specifically to the criticism of the concept in general. The word "paragraph" probably wasn't right, English is not my native language.

'Appropriation' as a misused word?

To appropriate something is to take it and give it back later, where as in this article it's clearly the experience and misrepresentation of another culture by an outsider to that culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.69.119 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about the definition of appropriate, as none of the definitions, as far as I know, include giving anything back later. Regardless, the definition that is pertinent to this article is "to take or make use of without authority or right" NonReproBlue (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)