![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
GlasHero (
article contribs).
An attempt is being made to delete The Angel of the North from this article on the grounds that it is not "a world known icon". However that is not the criterion for this article, which is not a "List of World Known Icons" but a general introduction to "Cultural icon". There is no doubt that the Angel of the North is a famous cultural icon:
and explicitly writes "Gateshead's famous Angel of the North is now one of 12 official ‘Icons of England’."
The Angel of the North is thus explicitly stated to be a famous cultural icon. It is a striking monument and is now certainly one of the best know icons of the Northeast of England. There is no objection to the addition of some more examples to illustrate the article, but there is no sense in removing correctly-placed and well-sourced material from the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
While reading through this page, I found it to be a little too specific to the UK. Could we add other cultural references to it, especially if it's something non-Western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllemonique ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Again there has been an attempt to turn this article into an unsourced image gallery of original research. I outlined the problems with this previously here. This article is about the concept of cultural icons. It is not the place to create a list of what some editors think are cultural icons, without any references. Particularly when they're factually suspect. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Why only a photo of stuff related US. Wikipedia is active all around the world. I think there should be no photo. If there is no reply here by 1st July, I will strongly consider removing it. WARNER one-- 9999 ( talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of references e.g. "Foudy et al, 2003" that are incomplete and therefore useless to find the source. Btljs ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the article should be quite so hung up on the over-usage of the term. This is an encyclopaedia article ABOUT the subject NOT the term itself. It would be more interesting to find out the processes which lead to iconic status and see whether these have changed. Someone somewhere will always be moaning about use of some word to mean something it didn't when they were younger and the world was golden. It's totally not NPOV to imply that Spongebob Squarepants has any less right to be called iconic than, say Madonna (I had to re-read this as I thought it meant the mother of Christ, who is, after all, an icon). Btljs ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The "Cultural Icon" article on wikipedia seems quite short for an entry rated Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Counting 457 words excluding references, it has significant less content than similarly important entries. Other examples of Mid-importance articles provided by wikipedia include:
The small amount of content in the article overrepresent some examples and fails to explain the importance of cultural icons. In it's brief introduction, the article begins with a definition of cultural icons and explains the term is used in many fields. Some believe the term is heavily overused and misused, which may explain the lack of detail in the article. Beyond the introduction, "Cultural Icon" focuses mainly on types of cultural icons and examples of the various types. Examples from London are overrepresented compared to the other nations and cultures mentioned. Furthermore, many predominant countries and cultures are excluded completely. The final section of the article focuses on the use of cultural icons in popular cultures, where the overuse of the term has lead to its criticism.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The information is not out of date, but the article could use many additions. I took the point about the overuse as a reason by wikipedia editors to leave the article in its short form. However, I conjecture that this point is slightly biased to the use of the term in the media. A more complete version of the article could describe the history of cultural icons, provide a more varied and uniform approach to highlighting examples and explain what led the terms overuse.
GlasHero ( talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC) GlasHero ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
A living human is not an " artefact" - a non-living object or concept creating by humans, not humans, themselves. Being an artefact is precisely what is defined as the characteristic of a cultural icon in the very first sentence of the article. Ultimately, this article is a confused mix of the pop-cultural abuse of the word "icon" and the more anthropological "cultural icon" -- which is why Madonna is somehow presented as being "verified" as an icon. By that token *every* world-wide celebrity is an icon, which ultimately counters the point of the article. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
With Madonna there is several references that came from cultural studies, academic world beyond music sources or "pop culture" references. For example, verify this context and "because she circulates constantly in the cultural practices of everyday life".
So, I don't know what is the problem to be neutral and include a example with a Madonna's photo as a cultural icon because she is. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably, they are more pop icon and music icons (Whitney Houston, Miley Cyrus... etc), and not cultural icons. Madonna has a impact in subcultures and cultures more than any other artist. She trascended the term "pop star" to become in a cultural icon according to the source. She is a multi-textual thing in the cultural studies and a object (literally and metaphorically). An anthropologist explained that cultural icons are examples of things like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Madonna (also), hamburgers, sport shoes are elements of unification and hegemonization of the culture (I will find the link if you wanna).
Today, the article was changed and is not bad. There is other reliable references that includes in the definition of this term a "persons between things". I don't think that the reference is not bad, because is even from an academic author. Remember, that cultural artefact (that is linked since here) has a error: the definition is not complete but there is used by anthropology, ethnology, and sociology. So, they are not exact sciences, like exact sciences. Not exact sciences always have changes like with this term. So, I think that if you wanna change something properly reference, reach a consensus please. All Wikipedia's articles needs to be neutral and include all point of view, so if they are authors that said that "persons between things" (academics claims) or others that the word "iconic" or "icon" is used many items of popular culture (newspapers claims) is okay, we can include both. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Unusually for a WP page - which tend toward interminable lists - this page suffers from lack of material. I found it misleading that next to a paragraph on religious iconography citing Madonna is a photo of Madonna with no corresponding explanation in the main body. I actually have no problem with Madonna (the performer) being a cultural icon, but she shouldn't be the only one; The article should explain how a person becomes a cultural icon (ie. by consistently, over a reasonable period of time, being identified as such by a significantly large group of people) and then give an example of a political leader or activist, an artist, a business person etc. and state what part of culture they are iconic of (e.g. Gandhi and the lasting impact of peaceful protest). Madonna is iconic of a particular late 20th Century image of female independence and strength and this is entirely valid if balanced by other examples. Btljs ( talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to exclude the image of Madonna from the article. Cunard ( talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the image of Madonna and the legend be retained in the article or removed from it?
Please state your opinions, in the form of Keep (or Yes) or Delete (or No) and a very brief statement as to why in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion (that’s what it’s for). Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural icon. 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) 10:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The redirect
Icon (secular) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17 § Icon (secular) until a consensus is reached.
🌺 Cremastra (
talk)
00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
GlasHero (
article contribs).
An attempt is being made to delete The Angel of the North from this article on the grounds that it is not "a world known icon". However that is not the criterion for this article, which is not a "List of World Known Icons" but a general introduction to "Cultural icon". There is no doubt that the Angel of the North is a famous cultural icon:
and explicitly writes "Gateshead's famous Angel of the North is now one of 12 official ‘Icons of England’."
The Angel of the North is thus explicitly stated to be a famous cultural icon. It is a striking monument and is now certainly one of the best know icons of the Northeast of England. There is no objection to the addition of some more examples to illustrate the article, but there is no sense in removing correctly-placed and well-sourced material from the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
While reading through this page, I found it to be a little too specific to the UK. Could we add other cultural references to it, especially if it's something non-Western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllemonique ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Again there has been an attempt to turn this article into an unsourced image gallery of original research. I outlined the problems with this previously here. This article is about the concept of cultural icons. It is not the place to create a list of what some editors think are cultural icons, without any references. Particularly when they're factually suspect. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Why only a photo of stuff related US. Wikipedia is active all around the world. I think there should be no photo. If there is no reply here by 1st July, I will strongly consider removing it. WARNER one-- 9999 ( talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of references e.g. "Foudy et al, 2003" that are incomplete and therefore useless to find the source. Btljs ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the article should be quite so hung up on the over-usage of the term. This is an encyclopaedia article ABOUT the subject NOT the term itself. It would be more interesting to find out the processes which lead to iconic status and see whether these have changed. Someone somewhere will always be moaning about use of some word to mean something it didn't when they were younger and the world was golden. It's totally not NPOV to imply that Spongebob Squarepants has any less right to be called iconic than, say Madonna (I had to re-read this as I thought it meant the mother of Christ, who is, after all, an icon). Btljs ( talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
The "Cultural Icon" article on wikipedia seems quite short for an entry rated Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Counting 457 words excluding references, it has significant less content than similarly important entries. Other examples of Mid-importance articles provided by wikipedia include:
The small amount of content in the article overrepresent some examples and fails to explain the importance of cultural icons. In it's brief introduction, the article begins with a definition of cultural icons and explains the term is used in many fields. Some believe the term is heavily overused and misused, which may explain the lack of detail in the article. Beyond the introduction, "Cultural Icon" focuses mainly on types of cultural icons and examples of the various types. Examples from London are overrepresented compared to the other nations and cultures mentioned. Furthermore, many predominant countries and cultures are excluded completely. The final section of the article focuses on the use of cultural icons in popular cultures, where the overuse of the term has lead to its criticism.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
The information is not out of date, but the article could use many additions. I took the point about the overuse as a reason by wikipedia editors to leave the article in its short form. However, I conjecture that this point is slightly biased to the use of the term in the media. A more complete version of the article could describe the history of cultural icons, provide a more varied and uniform approach to highlighting examples and explain what led the terms overuse.
GlasHero ( talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC) GlasHero ( talk) 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
A living human is not an " artefact" - a non-living object or concept creating by humans, not humans, themselves. Being an artefact is precisely what is defined as the characteristic of a cultural icon in the very first sentence of the article. Ultimately, this article is a confused mix of the pop-cultural abuse of the word "icon" and the more anthropological "cultural icon" -- which is why Madonna is somehow presented as being "verified" as an icon. By that token *every* world-wide celebrity is an icon, which ultimately counters the point of the article. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
With Madonna there is several references that came from cultural studies, academic world beyond music sources or "pop culture" references. For example, verify this context and "because she circulates constantly in the cultural practices of everyday life".
So, I don't know what is the problem to be neutral and include a example with a Madonna's photo as a cultural icon because she is. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably, they are more pop icon and music icons (Whitney Houston, Miley Cyrus... etc), and not cultural icons. Madonna has a impact in subcultures and cultures more than any other artist. She trascended the term "pop star" to become in a cultural icon according to the source. She is a multi-textual thing in the cultural studies and a object (literally and metaphorically). An anthropologist explained that cultural icons are examples of things like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Madonna (also), hamburgers, sport shoes are elements of unification and hegemonization of the culture (I will find the link if you wanna).
Today, the article was changed and is not bad. There is other reliable references that includes in the definition of this term a "persons between things". I don't think that the reference is not bad, because is even from an academic author. Remember, that cultural artefact (that is linked since here) has a error: the definition is not complete but there is used by anthropology, ethnology, and sociology. So, they are not exact sciences, like exact sciences. Not exact sciences always have changes like with this term. So, I think that if you wanna change something properly reference, reach a consensus please. All Wikipedia's articles needs to be neutral and include all point of view, so if they are authors that said that "persons between things" (academics claims) or others that the word "iconic" or "icon" is used many items of popular culture (newspapers claims) is okay, we can include both. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Unusually for a WP page - which tend toward interminable lists - this page suffers from lack of material. I found it misleading that next to a paragraph on religious iconography citing Madonna is a photo of Madonna with no corresponding explanation in the main body. I actually have no problem with Madonna (the performer) being a cultural icon, but she shouldn't be the only one; The article should explain how a person becomes a cultural icon (ie. by consistently, over a reasonable period of time, being identified as such by a significantly large group of people) and then give an example of a political leader or activist, an artist, a business person etc. and state what part of culture they are iconic of (e.g. Gandhi and the lasting impact of peaceful protest). Madonna is iconic of a particular late 20th Century image of female independence and strength and this is entirely valid if balanced by other examples. Btljs ( talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is to exclude the image of Madonna from the article. Cunard ( talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Should the image of Madonna and the legend be retained in the article or removed from it?
Please state your opinions, in the form of Keep (or Yes) or Delete (or No) and a very brief statement as to why in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion (that’s what it’s for). Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural icon. 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) 10:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The redirect
Icon (secular) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17 § Icon (secular) until a consensus is reached.
🌺 Cremastra (
talk)
00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)