![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Claims that whites have stolen from blacks in the realm of music are ignorant. Do we accuse blacks of cultural theft for use of the orchestral and harmonic advances of white europeans or the melodies of mostly white songwriters? Of course not. This is because music goes in the ear, not the eye, and has nothing to do with melanin content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 ( talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"Fraudulent sweat lodge ceremonies performed by non-Natives have led to injuries and some deaths." - may give the false impression that the fraudulent nature of the ceremonies are what led to the injuries and deaths. Kortoso ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed "It is arguable that it is still offensive as consumers are not being educated on the cultural backgrounds of the styles borrowed from other cultures and unless the retailer or designer take the time to provide information regarding the history of the trends used, the items are being worn as a new fashion statement in the public." as it seems very much like original research/an opinion piece. If someone actually has a source for the above, please include it with content stating who has this opinion and why they are relevant, thanks. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This article continues to be poorly sourced and to make poor use of those low-quality sources, often by using multiple low-quality sources making normative claims as sources for claims of fact. See, for example, this sentence: "Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion by those from the dominant culture." For that factual proposition in Wiki-voice, we cite three sources: a tribal activist's prescriptive opinion piece, another prescriptive opinion piece, this time by members of something called the "Autonomous Collective Against Racism", and, finally, a third prescriptive opinion piece (this one of particularly low quality). This is not an isolated case, as a cursory glance through the article reveals.
I propose we eliminate the following sources:
That's certainly not all the sources that could go, but it's a start.
It's not just the sources, though. The bulk of the article is devoted to examples and (often trivial) celebrity controversies. The examples practically swallow the article and desperately need to be pruned. The celebrity controversy section should probably go in its entirety; to the extent the incidents are notable, they can be reflected on the celebrity's page. I'd be interested to see which examples other editors feel are overkill, superfluous, non-notable, or otherwise in need of removal. Dyrnych ( talk) 01:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy and his 420, and Dyrnych, you both have a history of pushing to have this article say "Cultural Appropriation" means "Equal Cultural Exchange", and trying to remove sources and content that say otherwise. You both waited till we finally had a stable, readable version of this and now you're back to trash it again. I haven't found your efforts helpful at all. We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it "cultural appropriation" when they really mean "misappropriation" and we are stuck with taking that into account. Your disagreement with the sources and trying to remove them doesn't mean another editor is biased. The creepy bias here is Dyrnych's targeting of Indigenous content. Look at the removal you did and then reverted to after I replaced the content: [1]. You removed a handful of links to Indigenous articles about Cultural Appropriation. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You are not the arbiter of what sources "really mean." That is an egregious example of WP:OR. Dyrnych ( talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it 'cultural appropriation' when they really mean 'misappropriation' and we are stuck with taking that into account.
This article does not need right-wing cultural revisionism added in. Enough. Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: do you plan on actually discussing the content of my edits? If you don't, I'm just going to assume you have no interested in the "discussion" portion of WP:BRD and reinstate my the majority of my edits. Without some indication of what you find objectionable about them—based on Wikipedia policy—we're left with two editors supporting the changes on the merits, you opposing the changes on whatever mysterious grounds you oppose them, and another editor who swooped in with a bizarre series of insults and an explicit refusal to engage in discussion. Under those circumstances, the edits should be reinstated. I will grant you've expressed specific opposition to removing the external links (although your opposition does not appear to be based on policy and caricatures my edits), so those should be discussed before reinstating, to the extent you're willing to actually discuss them. Note that "stability" is not a justification for reinstating your preferred version when the "instability" involves your actions. Also note that we're far afield from my original request above, which is to identify low-quality sources and clean up the very, very long series of examples. Dyrnych ( talk) 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420 and CorbieVreccan, you both need to back off of the ridiculous accusations. It's absurd to suggest an editor has a conflict of interest due to perceived ethnicity, and editing a page in a way someone doesn't like is not a "personal attack" on anyone. Discuss the edits or take it to some other talk page.
Also, to the extent that you're conflating me with other editors, CorbieVreccan, that needs to stop immediately. It leads down these strange rabbit holes where it's not clear to whom you're responding or what wild accusations you're leveling at which editor. It's unhelpful and at least as tedious as my habit of broaching the same arguments that you have yet, at any point, to respond to in substance. Dyrnych ( talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In the last week, Osama57 has added about 7,000 words to the article, which look like about twelve purported additional examples of cultural appropriation. While I don't think that any of them are particularly objectionable edits (aside from the Jamiroquois edit, which was misplaced in the sports section and seems non-notable) and I'm not suggesting problematic editing by Osama57, this seems like a good time to reiterate that this article is a magnet for example cruft. The vast majority of the article is dedicated, it appears, to chronicling each and every example of something someone has perceived to be cultural appropriation—importantly, with no clear endgame or limiting principle. While examples are (to some extent) helpful for illustrating the concept, the article is way out of hand. There needs to be a serious conversation about which examples are helpful, trivial, superfluous, or disproportionately represented. Dyrnych ( talk) 00:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Before I edited the page, there was nothing about the origins of cultural appropriation. Europeans have been copying other cultures' clothing and art for over 400 years.
This article seems to likely erroneously imply that none of the appropriations or alleged appropriations might have been invented or developed independently. Indians and Mayans each came up with the concept of zero, Boomerangs#History came from other places, and this gentleman's music sounds like blues yet different enough to be independent. This man File:Kozacka piesn.jpg isn't wearing a mohawk. Were American/Canadian aboriginals the only people to wear feathers on their heads or braid their hair? How about the first to use flatbreads, use simple geometric figures in art, or sing a cappella? 199.119.233.198 ( talk) 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The actions of some very dedicated editors in this article appear to reflect an almost religious determination to prevent it from including a criticism section. However, summarily deleting the comments of other editors is not an appropriate way to counter an argument. Criticizing a subject is not negation in of itself, it actually adds to the legitimacy of an article if reasoned. Assume good faith - criticism is not akin to bigotry. This page is an unfortunate embarrassment to the mission of Wikipedia. 66.30.188.9 ( talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The topic of cultural appropriation is rather controversial. However, I have noticed that the section about critiscism of it is included in the main introduction of the article. In order to reduce the length of the introduction it should be moved to a seperate section.
The introduction of this article is rather long. I suggest that some of its contents be moved into sub-sections of the article.
Also, I have noticed the inclusion of many low-quality, biased sources with clear agendas and socio-political motivations, such as this rather opinionated and clickbait-ey The Gloss article. I do not think that a women's fashion, beauty and make-up site is a reliable source for claims. Should I remove it? -- Rainythunderstorm ( talk) 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural appropriation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this term not presented as the ideologically-based term it is? In my edit recognizing this fact, one of my references was the term "regressive left", whose Wikipedia entry acknowledges the ideological slant inherent in the term. A term that otherwise describes something that occurs in the world, but then appends an ideological slant to it. Like the term "cultural appropriation". Thumbells ( talk) 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Thumbells
First of all Jamiroquai is the band, the guy there is called Jay Kay. Secondly that isn't Cultural Appropiation, putting some feathers in the head? Are you f... kidding me? There are more obvious example of cultural appropriation than that. Wikpedia loves sources, show me one source that cites that photo or that costume as an example of cultural appropriation. That why I think the photo should go. Thank you, -- 190.215.236.146 ( talk) 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I intend to show that omission of a sufficient negative connotation in the opening sentence of the definition becomes a biased representation of this concept, not a neutral one. Widely defining it as literally the adoption or use of *any* element over-simplifies and even possibly misrepresents this concept in a strawman-like fashion.
Some definitions from Google: Here's the *best definition* I've come across which, and you'll notice in the first sentence the use of words like dominance and exploitation as well as the expected and more benign exchange. "Defined as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, cultural appropriation can be placed into 4 categories: exchange, dominance, exploitation, and transculturation" -Richard Rogers, 2008, Communication Theory [3]
Please consider the following definitions for additional support: Oxford English Dictionary [4]: "The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society." <-- this is a definition we might use or draw from and Oxford Reference [5]: "A term used to describe the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another. It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non‐Western or non‐white forms, and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance. The concept has come into literary and visual art criticism by analogy with the acquisition of artefacts (the Elgin marbles, Benin bronzes, Lakota war shirts, etc.) by Western museums." versus our definition: "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.[1]"
The closest supporting definition I found to the wikipedia version includes the clause "especially without showing you understand *or respect* this culture." [Cambridge Dictionary][]: "the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture"
Commentary: It's essential that an addition is either made to the first sentence so the concept cannot be misrepresented as simply eating Indian food at a restaurant. That is reducto ad absurdum if we're speaking about the colloquial usage of "cultural appropriation" imho. I'd like to make some edits to the definition but wanted to explain myself before doing so and get feedback. The other sentences in the Wiki definition attempt to qualify the first sentence as possibly negative but to not include the negative aspects of the colloquial and academic definitions in the first sentence makes it incomplete and with how relevant Wikipedia is, quite frankly a harmful misrepresentation that strawmans a useful academic term as what some might call through this strawman "regressive left wing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The bizarre implication, in all of the groping for definition, is the underlying notion that something cultural was "taken", without some type of compensation or acknowledgement, as though there is a debt aspect. The entire concept of "owning" something culturally is defective. Is a regional recipe "owned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.242 ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of this article contains two phrases that I don't think make sense:
1. "Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' traditions, food, fashion, symbols, technology, language, and cultural songs without permission".
Whose permission is being spoken of here? Cultures are not individuals who can give or refuse permission, nor do they ever have official representatives who could give or refuse this permission.
2. "According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that the "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture."
Again, cultures can inherently never have official representatives, as unlike states, for example, they do not have fixed memberships or indeed any official body, structure, institution or leadership. The only "representative" a culture could have would be a self-appointed one, and their wishes, expressly stated or otherwise, would hold no more weight in the matter than those of the average person on the street. The Raincloud Kid ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion of blackface in this article. There can be arguments about the harm of cultural appropriation, but its meaning is clear: one person or group adopting part of the culture of a different group. What "culture" is blackface stolen from? Who are these people that would darken their faces as part of their culture, only to have ignorant white people "appropriate" this practice? The answer is nobody. Blackface was a highly offensive practice, but not because it was culturally appropriative, but because it was used to mock Africans and African-Americans. It makes no sense to include it in this article. Un sch ool 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's been about four weeks, and nothing has been added to change my earlier expressed opinion. Blackface, while it is a highly offensive form of racial mockery, is not "cultural appropriation". Not everything bad is cultural appropriation, and blackface is bad in a different way. So I will restore my edit from last month. Un sch ool 02:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
RFC re: article is largely nnpov on what is an ideological matter, & persistent removal &/or truncation of "criticism" section (& now, persistent removal of the rfc by one user) Lx 121 ( talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
--
restored the "disappeared" criticism section; which was already SEVERELY TRUNCATED by "dedicated" editors.
re-added npov tag; this problem was never solved, & the "drift" has gotten worse in the 2 years since i was last 'here'.
this issue is NOT one-sided, no matter how much the advocates of the concept insist on it.
& wikipedia is not a platform for advocating causes or ideologies.
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
template again. Please do not re-add it unless this is set out as a proper RFC, observing in particular
WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and
WP:WRFC. Also, when choosing parameters for the {{
rfc}}
template, make sure that they are valid - if you see "
Unsorted", as shown no less than five times
here - it's a clear indication that an invalid parameter was used. Finally, never add the |rfcid=
parameter yourself - that is a value that must be set by
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs), otherwise the RfC system integrity is compromised. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pete unseth, my apologies if I've misunderstood the concept, but calls for the destruction of an artwork by a white artist of a lynched black teenager because "it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun..." sounds like an accusation/example of cultural misappropriation to me? JezGrove ( talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
since i was last here, the definition of "cultural appropriation" (as given in the article) seems to have been expanded to cover virtually ALL cultural borrowing.
& it has even gained redirects from other terms describing cultural borrowing of various types.
that is not what "cultural appropriation" is; the ideological concept deals specifically with "cultural borrowings from a minority/oppressed culture, by a dominant one".
AND, if this article IS meant to be about all cultural borrowing, then it should be re-titled; & it does not adequately address the concept of minority culture borrowings from majority/dominant cultures, etc.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
this cited source is pretty marginal
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/
they're not "experts" on the subject with regards to academic credibility,
they are certainly not objective,
& they would barely qualify as a "notable" media outlet.
i'm not calling for removal (although i've had much better sources rejected in other discussions, on other articles), but it should not be used to claim academic "credibility" for any matters in the article.
i do not begrudge them their existence; but they are not a scientific journal of sociology, nor are they an objective & reliable news & information resource. they are an "op-ed" website, presenting a particular worldview; & should be treated as such re: wp:sources.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
and am moving it here for discussion because those of us who don't hang out in conservative, right-wing, and libertarian circles would like to see a reference for this.
rather than individually posting what are going to be literally hundreds of links, here are the google-search results (for several obvious keywords-combinations); kindly pick the items you consider best?
cultural appropriation mentions @ fox news:
cultural appropriation @ breitbart:
cultural appropriation @ 'the rebel media' (whom i particularly despise! ^__^ ):
c.a. @ alex jones/infowars:
c.a. & rush limbaugh (including a very good washington post op-ed by volokh, agreeing that the whole thing is ridiculous):
that should be good for several hundred examples, & here, for good measure, is a solidly tory british paper commenting (negatively) on the concept of cultural appropriation:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-left-is-creating-a-new-kind-of-apartheid-wtvjqc676
let me know which particular refs you want to use, or just go ahead & add them, pls? i don't really have a lot of wiki-time just now (& i do not have the power-tools or deep mediawiki knowledge to do article annotations quickly)
best,
Lx 121 ( talk) 18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
comment - it has been a week? if nobody else has anything to say, i will re-add the text & put some selections into the references; if anybody wants to pretty it up into cites &/or make adjustments to the choice of references, feel free. will check back sometime in the new weel to see if anybody's posted. "going, going...? " :p Lx 121 ( talk) 04:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I just sacked this out:
Even the article points out that bolo ties were manufactured to be sold. Who buys them and what they do with them is their business. This is not an example of cultural appropriation. Carptrash ( talk) 22:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
References
"Criticized as tasteless" is a lot different from "cultural appropriation" and I am inclined to cut it out. And other stuff too but I will post here first. Carptrash ( talk) 00:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the justification for keeping the second and third paragraphs in the lead and not merging them into the body of the article? As it stands, the lead is clunky and repetitive; neither paragraph adds anything to broad overview of the topic. Dyrnych ( talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I realize some do not like the look or partial ambiguity of the parenthetics, but in the places were they are used, we need them at this point. Usually because in that instance we have sources that use both "appropriation" and "misappropriation" to describe the same thing. It's formatted that way for a reason. Unless and until more standardization comes to the writing in the field, we will have to be careful and comprehensive with our phrasing. We can't force standardization on the terminology in this article, we can only document that the terminology in the field is not currently standardized. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Since there's pretty clearly no consensus for continuing to use "(mis)appropriation," and the underlying rationale (that the sources use it) is wrong, I'm reinstating the reverted edit. Dyrnych ( talk) 18:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bilorv: - sorry, just invited you to "join the talk page discussion" in my edit summary, having mixed up your name with another eidtor's. Of course you already know this discussion is happening. Popcornduff ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
An IP removed a paragraph about Netta under Art, iconography, and adornment in this edit. I agree with the removal; regardless of whether this is an instance of cultural appropriation, this coverage belongs somewhere like Netta Barzilai or Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No History section? There are various specific examples given, but I'm not seeing the history of the concept of cultural appropriation. -- SEWilco ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
What history, the whole concept is ludicrous. Firstly culture like knowledge is shareable. Secondly cultures constantly evolve, change and borrow from each other. This happens with language, cuisine, fashion, music and dance etc. So please share the love, share the culture, one race the human race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.240.41 ( talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Claims that whites have stolen from blacks in the realm of music are ignorant. Do we accuse blacks of cultural theft for use of the orchestral and harmonic advances of white europeans or the melodies of mostly white songwriters? Of course not. This is because music goes in the ear, not the eye, and has nothing to do with melanin content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 ( talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"Fraudulent sweat lodge ceremonies performed by non-Natives have led to injuries and some deaths." - may give the false impression that the fraudulent nature of the ceremonies are what led to the injuries and deaths. Kortoso ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed "It is arguable that it is still offensive as consumers are not being educated on the cultural backgrounds of the styles borrowed from other cultures and unless the retailer or designer take the time to provide information regarding the history of the trends used, the items are being worn as a new fashion statement in the public." as it seems very much like original research/an opinion piece. If someone actually has a source for the above, please include it with content stating who has this opinion and why they are relevant, thanks. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 07:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
This article continues to be poorly sourced and to make poor use of those low-quality sources, often by using multiple low-quality sources making normative claims as sources for claims of fact. See, for example, this sentence: "Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion by those from the dominant culture." For that factual proposition in Wiki-voice, we cite three sources: a tribal activist's prescriptive opinion piece, another prescriptive opinion piece, this time by members of something called the "Autonomous Collective Against Racism", and, finally, a third prescriptive opinion piece (this one of particularly low quality). This is not an isolated case, as a cursory glance through the article reveals.
I propose we eliminate the following sources:
That's certainly not all the sources that could go, but it's a start.
It's not just the sources, though. The bulk of the article is devoted to examples and (often trivial) celebrity controversies. The examples practically swallow the article and desperately need to be pruned. The celebrity controversy section should probably go in its entirety; to the extent the incidents are notable, they can be reflected on the celebrity's page. I'd be interested to see which examples other editors feel are overkill, superfluous, non-notable, or otherwise in need of removal. Dyrnych ( talk) 01:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy and his 420, and Dyrnych, you both have a history of pushing to have this article say "Cultural Appropriation" means "Equal Cultural Exchange", and trying to remove sources and content that say otherwise. You both waited till we finally had a stable, readable version of this and now you're back to trash it again. I haven't found your efforts helpful at all. We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it "cultural appropriation" when they really mean "misappropriation" and we are stuck with taking that into account. Your disagreement with the sources and trying to remove them doesn't mean another editor is biased. The creepy bias here is Dyrnych's targeting of Indigenous content. Look at the removal you did and then reverted to after I replaced the content: [1]. You removed a handful of links to Indigenous articles about Cultural Appropriation. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You are not the arbiter of what sources "really mean." That is an egregious example of WP:OR. Dyrnych ( talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it 'cultural appropriation' when they really mean 'misappropriation' and we are stuck with taking that into account.
This article does not need right-wing cultural revisionism added in. Enough. Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: do you plan on actually discussing the content of my edits? If you don't, I'm just going to assume you have no interested in the "discussion" portion of WP:BRD and reinstate my the majority of my edits. Without some indication of what you find objectionable about them—based on Wikipedia policy—we're left with two editors supporting the changes on the merits, you opposing the changes on whatever mysterious grounds you oppose them, and another editor who swooped in with a bizarre series of insults and an explicit refusal to engage in discussion. Under those circumstances, the edits should be reinstated. I will grant you've expressed specific opposition to removing the external links (although your opposition does not appear to be based on policy and caricatures my edits), so those should be discussed before reinstating, to the extent you're willing to actually discuss them. Note that "stability" is not a justification for reinstating your preferred version when the "instability" involves your actions. Also note that we're far afield from my original request above, which is to identify low-quality sources and clean up the very, very long series of examples. Dyrnych ( talk) 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420 and CorbieVreccan, you both need to back off of the ridiculous accusations. It's absurd to suggest an editor has a conflict of interest due to perceived ethnicity, and editing a page in a way someone doesn't like is not a "personal attack" on anyone. Discuss the edits or take it to some other talk page.
Also, to the extent that you're conflating me with other editors, CorbieVreccan, that needs to stop immediately. It leads down these strange rabbit holes where it's not clear to whom you're responding or what wild accusations you're leveling at which editor. It's unhelpful and at least as tedious as my habit of broaching the same arguments that you have yet, at any point, to respond to in substance. Dyrnych ( talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In the last week, Osama57 has added about 7,000 words to the article, which look like about twelve purported additional examples of cultural appropriation. While I don't think that any of them are particularly objectionable edits (aside from the Jamiroquois edit, which was misplaced in the sports section and seems non-notable) and I'm not suggesting problematic editing by Osama57, this seems like a good time to reiterate that this article is a magnet for example cruft. The vast majority of the article is dedicated, it appears, to chronicling each and every example of something someone has perceived to be cultural appropriation—importantly, with no clear endgame or limiting principle. While examples are (to some extent) helpful for illustrating the concept, the article is way out of hand. There needs to be a serious conversation about which examples are helpful, trivial, superfluous, or disproportionately represented. Dyrnych ( talk) 00:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Before I edited the page, there was nothing about the origins of cultural appropriation. Europeans have been copying other cultures' clothing and art for over 400 years.
This article seems to likely erroneously imply that none of the appropriations or alleged appropriations might have been invented or developed independently. Indians and Mayans each came up with the concept of zero, Boomerangs#History came from other places, and this gentleman's music sounds like blues yet different enough to be independent. This man File:Kozacka piesn.jpg isn't wearing a mohawk. Were American/Canadian aboriginals the only people to wear feathers on their heads or braid their hair? How about the first to use flatbreads, use simple geometric figures in art, or sing a cappella? 199.119.233.198 ( talk) 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The actions of some very dedicated editors in this article appear to reflect an almost religious determination to prevent it from including a criticism section. However, summarily deleting the comments of other editors is not an appropriate way to counter an argument. Criticizing a subject is not negation in of itself, it actually adds to the legitimacy of an article if reasoned. Assume good faith - criticism is not akin to bigotry. This page is an unfortunate embarrassment to the mission of Wikipedia. 66.30.188.9 ( talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The topic of cultural appropriation is rather controversial. However, I have noticed that the section about critiscism of it is included in the main introduction of the article. In order to reduce the length of the introduction it should be moved to a seperate section.
The introduction of this article is rather long. I suggest that some of its contents be moved into sub-sections of the article.
Also, I have noticed the inclusion of many low-quality, biased sources with clear agendas and socio-political motivations, such as this rather opinionated and clickbait-ey The Gloss article. I do not think that a women's fashion, beauty and make-up site is a reliable source for claims. Should I remove it? -- Rainythunderstorm ( talk) 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural appropriation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this term not presented as the ideologically-based term it is? In my edit recognizing this fact, one of my references was the term "regressive left", whose Wikipedia entry acknowledges the ideological slant inherent in the term. A term that otherwise describes something that occurs in the world, but then appends an ideological slant to it. Like the term "cultural appropriation". Thumbells ( talk) 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Thumbells
First of all Jamiroquai is the band, the guy there is called Jay Kay. Secondly that isn't Cultural Appropiation, putting some feathers in the head? Are you f... kidding me? There are more obvious example of cultural appropriation than that. Wikpedia loves sources, show me one source that cites that photo or that costume as an example of cultural appropriation. That why I think the photo should go. Thank you, -- 190.215.236.146 ( talk) 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I intend to show that omission of a sufficient negative connotation in the opening sentence of the definition becomes a biased representation of this concept, not a neutral one. Widely defining it as literally the adoption or use of *any* element over-simplifies and even possibly misrepresents this concept in a strawman-like fashion.
Some definitions from Google: Here's the *best definition* I've come across which, and you'll notice in the first sentence the use of words like dominance and exploitation as well as the expected and more benign exchange. "Defined as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, cultural appropriation can be placed into 4 categories: exchange, dominance, exploitation, and transculturation" -Richard Rogers, 2008, Communication Theory [3]
Please consider the following definitions for additional support: Oxford English Dictionary [4]: "The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society." <-- this is a definition we might use or draw from and Oxford Reference [5]: "A term used to describe the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another. It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non‐Western or non‐white forms, and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance. The concept has come into literary and visual art criticism by analogy with the acquisition of artefacts (the Elgin marbles, Benin bronzes, Lakota war shirts, etc.) by Western museums." versus our definition: "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.[1]"
The closest supporting definition I found to the wikipedia version includes the clause "especially without showing you understand *or respect* this culture." [Cambridge Dictionary][]: "the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture"
Commentary: It's essential that an addition is either made to the first sentence so the concept cannot be misrepresented as simply eating Indian food at a restaurant. That is reducto ad absurdum if we're speaking about the colloquial usage of "cultural appropriation" imho. I'd like to make some edits to the definition but wanted to explain myself before doing so and get feedback. The other sentences in the Wiki definition attempt to qualify the first sentence as possibly negative but to not include the negative aspects of the colloquial and academic definitions in the first sentence makes it incomplete and with how relevant Wikipedia is, quite frankly a harmful misrepresentation that strawmans a useful academic term as what some might call through this strawman "regressive left wing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The bizarre implication, in all of the groping for definition, is the underlying notion that something cultural was "taken", without some type of compensation or acknowledgement, as though there is a debt aspect. The entire concept of "owning" something culturally is defective. Is a regional recipe "owned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.242 ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph of this article contains two phrases that I don't think make sense:
1. "Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' traditions, food, fashion, symbols, technology, language, and cultural songs without permission".
Whose permission is being spoken of here? Cultures are not individuals who can give or refuse permission, nor do they ever have official representatives who could give or refuse this permission.
2. "According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that the "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture."
Again, cultures can inherently never have official representatives, as unlike states, for example, they do not have fixed memberships or indeed any official body, structure, institution or leadership. The only "representative" a culture could have would be a self-appointed one, and their wishes, expressly stated or otherwise, would hold no more weight in the matter than those of the average person on the street. The Raincloud Kid ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion of blackface in this article. There can be arguments about the harm of cultural appropriation, but its meaning is clear: one person or group adopting part of the culture of a different group. What "culture" is blackface stolen from? Who are these people that would darken their faces as part of their culture, only to have ignorant white people "appropriate" this practice? The answer is nobody. Blackface was a highly offensive practice, but not because it was culturally appropriative, but because it was used to mock Africans and African-Americans. It makes no sense to include it in this article. Un sch ool 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's been about four weeks, and nothing has been added to change my earlier expressed opinion. Blackface, while it is a highly offensive form of racial mockery, is not "cultural appropriation". Not everything bad is cultural appropriation, and blackface is bad in a different way. So I will restore my edit from last month. Un sch ool 02:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
RFC re: article is largely nnpov on what is an ideological matter, & persistent removal &/or truncation of "criticism" section (& now, persistent removal of the rfc by one user) Lx 121 ( talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
--
restored the "disappeared" criticism section; which was already SEVERELY TRUNCATED by "dedicated" editors.
re-added npov tag; this problem was never solved, & the "drift" has gotten worse in the 2 years since i was last 'here'.
this issue is NOT one-sided, no matter how much the advocates of the concept insist on it.
& wikipedia is not a platform for advocating causes or ideologies.
Lx 121 ( talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
template again. Please do not re-add it unless this is set out as a proper RFC, observing in particular
WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and
WP:WRFC. Also, when choosing parameters for the {{
rfc}}
template, make sure that they are valid - if you see "
Unsorted", as shown no less than five times
here - it's a clear indication that an invalid parameter was used. Finally, never add the |rfcid=
parameter yourself - that is a value that must be set by
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs), otherwise the RfC system integrity is compromised. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Pete unseth, my apologies if I've misunderstood the concept, but calls for the destruction of an artwork by a white artist of a lynched black teenager because "it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun..." sounds like an accusation/example of cultural misappropriation to me? JezGrove ( talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
since i was last here, the definition of "cultural appropriation" (as given in the article) seems to have been expanded to cover virtually ALL cultural borrowing.
& it has even gained redirects from other terms describing cultural borrowing of various types.
that is not what "cultural appropriation" is; the ideological concept deals specifically with "cultural borrowings from a minority/oppressed culture, by a dominant one".
AND, if this article IS meant to be about all cultural borrowing, then it should be re-titled; & it does not adequately address the concept of minority culture borrowings from majority/dominant cultures, etc.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
this cited source is pretty marginal
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/
they're not "experts" on the subject with regards to academic credibility,
they are certainly not objective,
& they would barely qualify as a "notable" media outlet.
i'm not calling for removal (although i've had much better sources rejected in other discussions, on other articles), but it should not be used to claim academic "credibility" for any matters in the article.
i do not begrudge them their existence; but they are not a scientific journal of sociology, nor are they an objective & reliable news & information resource. they are an "op-ed" website, presenting a particular worldview; & should be treated as such re: wp:sources.
Lx 121 ( talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
and am moving it here for discussion because those of us who don't hang out in conservative, right-wing, and libertarian circles would like to see a reference for this.
rather than individually posting what are going to be literally hundreds of links, here are the google-search results (for several obvious keywords-combinations); kindly pick the items you consider best?
cultural appropriation mentions @ fox news:
cultural appropriation @ breitbart:
cultural appropriation @ 'the rebel media' (whom i particularly despise! ^__^ ):
c.a. @ alex jones/infowars:
c.a. & rush limbaugh (including a very good washington post op-ed by volokh, agreeing that the whole thing is ridiculous):
that should be good for several hundred examples, & here, for good measure, is a solidly tory british paper commenting (negatively) on the concept of cultural appropriation:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-left-is-creating-a-new-kind-of-apartheid-wtvjqc676
let me know which particular refs you want to use, or just go ahead & add them, pls? i don't really have a lot of wiki-time just now (& i do not have the power-tools or deep mediawiki knowledge to do article annotations quickly)
best,
Lx 121 ( talk) 18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
comment - it has been a week? if nobody else has anything to say, i will re-add the text & put some selections into the references; if anybody wants to pretty it up into cites &/or make adjustments to the choice of references, feel free. will check back sometime in the new weel to see if anybody's posted. "going, going...? " :p Lx 121 ( talk) 04:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I just sacked this out:
Even the article points out that bolo ties were manufactured to be sold. Who buys them and what they do with them is their business. This is not an example of cultural appropriation. Carptrash ( talk) 22:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
References
"Criticized as tasteless" is a lot different from "cultural appropriation" and I am inclined to cut it out. And other stuff too but I will post here first. Carptrash ( talk) 00:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
What is the justification for keeping the second and third paragraphs in the lead and not merging them into the body of the article? As it stands, the lead is clunky and repetitive; neither paragraph adds anything to broad overview of the topic. Dyrnych ( talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I realize some do not like the look or partial ambiguity of the parenthetics, but in the places were they are used, we need them at this point. Usually because in that instance we have sources that use both "appropriation" and "misappropriation" to describe the same thing. It's formatted that way for a reason. Unless and until more standardization comes to the writing in the field, we will have to be careful and comprehensive with our phrasing. We can't force standardization on the terminology in this article, we can only document that the terminology in the field is not currently standardized. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Since there's pretty clearly no consensus for continuing to use "(mis)appropriation," and the underlying rationale (that the sources use it) is wrong, I'm reinstating the reverted edit. Dyrnych ( talk) 18:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Bilorv: - sorry, just invited you to "join the talk page discussion" in my edit summary, having mixed up your name with another eidtor's. Of course you already know this discussion is happening. Popcornduff ( talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
An IP removed a paragraph about Netta under Art, iconography, and adornment in this edit. I agree with the removal; regardless of whether this is an instance of cultural appropriation, this coverage belongs somewhere like Netta Barzilai or Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No History section? There are various specific examples given, but I'm not seeing the history of the concept of cultural appropriation. -- SEWilco ( talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
What history, the whole concept is ludicrous. Firstly culture like knowledge is shareable. Secondly cultures constantly evolve, change and borrow from each other. This happens with language, cuisine, fashion, music and dance etc. So please share the love, share the culture, one race the human race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.240.41 ( talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)