![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
We read:
and then
I hadn't realized that Mickey Mouse was either an object or a person. It's more like a conventionalized graphical image, sometimes rendered in three dimensions. I don't know what "McDonald's" means here -- the places or the burgers? (Surely not the company, which wouldn't be an object or person.) Is "Disney" the company? Can Disney and Mickey Mouse both be cultural icons? (Isn't there at least one category mistake here?)
And what "major influence" has Barbie had on the world?
Or again:
Isn't representation of a certain culture somewhat difficult to square with timeless? I associate McDonald's, Vegas, and Barbie with postwar US: far from timeless. And as for "incomparable", I easily compare McDonald's with KFC, Burger King, and the junk food outlets indigenous to the nation where I live, Vegas with Reno and Macau, Mickey Mouse with Donald Duck and Mickey Rat, New York with Chicago, Coke with Pepsi, Barbie with GI Joe, Levi with Lee, Hollywood with Bollywood, etc etc.
Is this a political cultural iconic status or a political non-cultural iconic status?
Etc etc. To me this looks like the first draft of an essay, no more. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added the following comment: "(Obviously the original author of this article sees the term 'Cultural Icon' as exclusively a product of the USA. The rest of us have neither culture or icons?)". I moved it out of the article, since it belongs on the talk page (if anywhere). Anturiaethwr 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Its title: "cultural icon". We read: Marilyn Monroe - one of the cult icons, who is one of the most recognizable icons of all times. So she's a cultural icon, a cult icon and one of the most recognizable icons of all times, plural.
Strange, I thought that the image of her would or wouldn't be an icon. But let's suppose for now that she, and not her image, is a cult(ural) icon. One of the five, fifty, five hundred most recognizable icons? Among whom? According to what research?
(And that's just one caption. The rest is just as dodgy.)
The first AfD got it right, I think. If I'm wrong, care to prove it? -- Hoary ( talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody who, unlike me, is capable of taking "cultural studies" seriously please look at this article and attempt to get it to make sense?
I'd thought that an icon was a visual representation of something. See Betty Grable: after markup-stripping but with my emphasis: Her iconic bathing suit photo became the number-one pin-up girl of the World War II era. It was later included in Life 100 Photos that Changed the World.
However, this article starts: A cultural icon is an object or person that....
Is it that Grable's photo was iconic but, thanks to its being a mere photo and not her, disqualified from being culturally iconic; while Grable herself remains in the running for being culturally iconic?
But for now, this article claims that a cultural icon is an object or person. It immediately proceeds to give seven examples: three are (dead) people, one is a fictional person, one a game, one a place, one a liquid. Whatever "cultural icon" may mean, the article gives not an iota of evidence for its assertion that these are cultural icons. Their selection, and the removal by User:Icarus of old of James Dean, look pretty arbitrary.
I quote a comment by Pinkville (after some markup-fiddling, and with my emphases): "cultural icons" are not the things/people themselves, but rather the images of them in popular culture. That is, in scholarly terms it isn't Marilyn Monroe herself that is the cultural icon, but the collection of ideas about her: beautiful, sexy, tragic, dumbish but inspired blonde, etc. that together form a persona called "Marilyn Monroe".
So it's not the objects or persons (or fictional persons or games or places or liquids); it's the images or ideas thereof. Well, which -- images or ideas? Or (in set-theoretic terms) the union of the two? I'd hazily thought that images included, or perhaps were even prototypically exemplified by, visual images (in our times, primarily photographs). Perhaps Johnbod thought so too; anyway, he added a see-also for Replicas of Michelangelo's David, whereupon I tentatively added two more, for Guerrillero Heroico and Chandos portrait. But they too have been summarily swept away by Icarus of old, in his single, summaryless .
So are these associations or cognitions or what? Do paintings or photographs qualify? Or the magazine (etc) reproductions of paintings or photos? Or people's memories of (reproductions of) paintings or photos? If any paintings (or photographs) (or their reproductions, or their memories, or the memories of their reproductions) qualify, which would they be? Why Crocker and not Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben, why Presley and not Dean or Bela Lugosi or Pam Grier?
Come on, cultstuds: Come up with just two little coherent, credible, persuasive paragraphs about "cultural icon". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Mandela-Authorised.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This appears in the second paragraph, accompanied by a single citation referring to a single newspaper opinion piece.
Now, I personally agree with the statement that 'cultural icon' is often misused and overused.
However, such a sweeping statement of opinion, especially one which spuriously implies universal consensus (in the same way that the journalist, one Guy Keleny, blithely employs the cliche of the royal 'we', although no other source for the opinion is referenced in his article) looks extremely unbalanced.
I think that phrase needs to be deleted, or at least modified significantly. (I am not sure how, perhaps "...it is now acknowledged by journalist Guy Keleny that..."?) (ha ha)
the chunk of text in question:
-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've again removed the claim, "In the media, there is an increasing trend for any well-known manifestation of popular culture to be described as "iconic", and it is now acknowledged that the word is overused." Such a statement is entirely Original Research -- and the supposed citation is non-existent. Even if there is such an editorial in The Independent, a single opinion from 2007 doesn't qualify the assertion of "increasing trend... now acknowledged." It's fuzzy thinking to make such a statement. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The Original Research statement was reinserted, albeit in an edited form. To be clear that while as individuals, we may believe that "iconic" is overused, that is not the subject of the article-- nor is possible to conclude that there is an "increasing trend" in usage of "iconic." In fact, Ben Schott in a September 2006 piece for The New York Times produced a chart which included usage of "iconic" and "ironic" in the Times showing a marked downward trend from 2000 to 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20060907schott02.pdf
Further, the assertion that "it is now acknowledged" is weasel wording which is a way of covering up for original research by making a generalized claim.
There *are* some more reliable sources to support the opinion (not fact) that "certain members of the media see the term "iconic" as overused":
Broadcaster Tavis Smiley gave his definition of "iconic" in an interview with Phylicia Rashad, as
Some writers now hedge the usage by admitting "iconic is overused, but..."
Finally, sources (appearing chiefly in the UK) which cite the 2009 "Lake Superior State University banished words list" [2] should likely not be used; contrary to the claims made in the UK articles, the list is not compiled from academics but made up of contributions from anyone online: [3] -- HidariMigi ( talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a merge and redirect of Global icon over here, there seems to be a great deal of overlap. Any thoughts? -- CliffC ( talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
There are significant problems with this section in the article.
I propose the following;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Why removed the images?, the people need to know who is an cultural icon per country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.103.179 ( talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The whole paragraph called “Icons and Brands" needs to be deleted. It has just one source which supports the claim that "many people have become weary of brands" but the article then makes no logical connection between this claim and the subject of the article, Cultural Icon. Why is it relevant to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that people have become brand weary? The article does not say. Therefore, that people have become "brand weary" is irrelevant to this article, unless it is going to explain the difference between an icon and a brand. The obvious place to make that distinction would be in a paragraph called, "Icons and Brands", but that particular paragraph doesn't do that. Instead, it gives us an incoherent account of the supposed genesis of cultural icons by making the unsourced claim that they "may" go through, "rumblings, undercurrents", "catharsis, explosion", "mass acceptance, ripple effect" and "glorification, representative value" without bothering to explain what any of those unsourced terms mean or how we would identify that a cultural icon has indeed gone through any of those stages. Next, we get the nonsensical and unsourced claims that "brands are rational" and that they are apparently "driven by features", without, again, bothering to explain either the meaning of or relevance to this article of those claims. Even if true, what is the relevance to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that brands are driven by features? The article doesn’t say. Next we get the wholly wrong claim that a "fashion look" might be an example of a brand, without, again, explaining why "branding" might be relevant to an article on Cultural Icon. Finally, we get the unsourced claim that royal or church garb might be understood as a form of emotional iconography, without, again, any attempt to explain the relevance of this to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon.
The paragraph titled "Definition" needs to be completely re-written. It currently makes no attempt to define Cultural Icon or explain what a Cultural Icon actually is, but instead gives some inappropriate (and unsourced) examples; only in the mind of a prepubescent American boy could Bruce Lee possibly be considered a symbol of "philosophical culture and insight of knowledge worldwide" whatever that means. The "definition" then ends with the ridiculous (and need I repeat, unsourced) claim that Salvador Dali himself is a "worldwide icon for the bizarre and eccentric."
I would also like to point out to any author considering working on this article that a Cultural Icon may be viewed differently by other cultures than his own and I provide two examples of this. The photograph accompanying this article has the caption, "A cuckoo clock, symbol of the Black Forest and Germany" and whoever wrote that obviously thinks that is true, but in my country the cuckoo clock is a symbol of Switzerland, and we even refer to them as Swiss Cuckoo Clocks, even though they are not actually made there, but in Austria. The symbol we associate with the Black Forest is a ridiculously over decorated gateau with black cherries, chocolate and fresh cream on it that we call Black Forest Gateau. My other example is the Statue of Liberty. I dare say many Americans think of that as a symbol of their national freedom, or American justice or something, whereas I think of it as a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. These two examples show that whoever intends to convert the current gibberish into a meaningful encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon should consider icons (not brands) as viewed from more than one perspective and should at least mention that they may be understood in different ways by other cultures. Context is also relevant to understanding icons. For example, in one context a quill pen might be a symbol for literature, whilst in another context it might represent a supplanted technology, so exactly what an icon represents may not be uniform across even one culture, never mind the wholly erroneous claim repeatedly made in this article that they might represent one thing worldwide. Both of these points taken together would seem to indicate that the cultural aspect that an icon symbolises is a purely subjective matter and giving examples of them in Wikipedia becomes a POV issue, unless you have sources, a feature noticeably absent from the current iteration of this article.
Cottonshirt
τ
05:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
We read:
and then
I hadn't realized that Mickey Mouse was either an object or a person. It's more like a conventionalized graphical image, sometimes rendered in three dimensions. I don't know what "McDonald's" means here -- the places or the burgers? (Surely not the company, which wouldn't be an object or person.) Is "Disney" the company? Can Disney and Mickey Mouse both be cultural icons? (Isn't there at least one category mistake here?)
And what "major influence" has Barbie had on the world?
Or again:
Isn't representation of a certain culture somewhat difficult to square with timeless? I associate McDonald's, Vegas, and Barbie with postwar US: far from timeless. And as for "incomparable", I easily compare McDonald's with KFC, Burger King, and the junk food outlets indigenous to the nation where I live, Vegas with Reno and Macau, Mickey Mouse with Donald Duck and Mickey Rat, New York with Chicago, Coke with Pepsi, Barbie with GI Joe, Levi with Lee, Hollywood with Bollywood, etc etc.
Is this a political cultural iconic status or a political non-cultural iconic status?
Etc etc. To me this looks like the first draft of an essay, no more. -- Hoary ( talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor added the following comment: "(Obviously the original author of this article sees the term 'Cultural Icon' as exclusively a product of the USA. The rest of us have neither culture or icons?)". I moved it out of the article, since it belongs on the talk page (if anywhere). Anturiaethwr 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Its title: "cultural icon". We read: Marilyn Monroe - one of the cult icons, who is one of the most recognizable icons of all times. So she's a cultural icon, a cult icon and one of the most recognizable icons of all times, plural.
Strange, I thought that the image of her would or wouldn't be an icon. But let's suppose for now that she, and not her image, is a cult(ural) icon. One of the five, fifty, five hundred most recognizable icons? Among whom? According to what research?
(And that's just one caption. The rest is just as dodgy.)
The first AfD got it right, I think. If I'm wrong, care to prove it? -- Hoary ( talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody who, unlike me, is capable of taking "cultural studies" seriously please look at this article and attempt to get it to make sense?
I'd thought that an icon was a visual representation of something. See Betty Grable: after markup-stripping but with my emphasis: Her iconic bathing suit photo became the number-one pin-up girl of the World War II era. It was later included in Life 100 Photos that Changed the World.
However, this article starts: A cultural icon is an object or person that....
Is it that Grable's photo was iconic but, thanks to its being a mere photo and not her, disqualified from being culturally iconic; while Grable herself remains in the running for being culturally iconic?
But for now, this article claims that a cultural icon is an object or person. It immediately proceeds to give seven examples: three are (dead) people, one is a fictional person, one a game, one a place, one a liquid. Whatever "cultural icon" may mean, the article gives not an iota of evidence for its assertion that these are cultural icons. Their selection, and the removal by User:Icarus of old of James Dean, look pretty arbitrary.
I quote a comment by Pinkville (after some markup-fiddling, and with my emphases): "cultural icons" are not the things/people themselves, but rather the images of them in popular culture. That is, in scholarly terms it isn't Marilyn Monroe herself that is the cultural icon, but the collection of ideas about her: beautiful, sexy, tragic, dumbish but inspired blonde, etc. that together form a persona called "Marilyn Monroe".
So it's not the objects or persons (or fictional persons or games or places or liquids); it's the images or ideas thereof. Well, which -- images or ideas? Or (in set-theoretic terms) the union of the two? I'd hazily thought that images included, or perhaps were even prototypically exemplified by, visual images (in our times, primarily photographs). Perhaps Johnbod thought so too; anyway, he added a see-also for Replicas of Michelangelo's David, whereupon I tentatively added two more, for Guerrillero Heroico and Chandos portrait. But they too have been summarily swept away by Icarus of old, in his single, summaryless .
So are these associations or cognitions or what? Do paintings or photographs qualify? Or the magazine (etc) reproductions of paintings or photos? Or people's memories of (reproductions of) paintings or photos? If any paintings (or photographs) (or their reproductions, or their memories, or the memories of their reproductions) qualify, which would they be? Why Crocker and not Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben, why Presley and not Dean or Bela Lugosi or Pam Grier?
Come on, cultstuds: Come up with just two little coherent, credible, persuasive paragraphs about "cultural icon". -- Hoary ( talk) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Mandela-Authorised.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This appears in the second paragraph, accompanied by a single citation referring to a single newspaper opinion piece.
Now, I personally agree with the statement that 'cultural icon' is often misused and overused.
However, such a sweeping statement of opinion, especially one which spuriously implies universal consensus (in the same way that the journalist, one Guy Keleny, blithely employs the cliche of the royal 'we', although no other source for the opinion is referenced in his article) looks extremely unbalanced.
I think that phrase needs to be deleted, or at least modified significantly. (I am not sure how, perhaps "...it is now acknowledged by journalist Guy Keleny that..."?) (ha ha)
the chunk of text in question:
-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've again removed the claim, "In the media, there is an increasing trend for any well-known manifestation of popular culture to be described as "iconic", and it is now acknowledged that the word is overused." Such a statement is entirely Original Research -- and the supposed citation is non-existent. Even if there is such an editorial in The Independent, a single opinion from 2007 doesn't qualify the assertion of "increasing trend... now acknowledged." It's fuzzy thinking to make such a statement. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The Original Research statement was reinserted, albeit in an edited form. To be clear that while as individuals, we may believe that "iconic" is overused, that is not the subject of the article-- nor is possible to conclude that there is an "increasing trend" in usage of "iconic." In fact, Ben Schott in a September 2006 piece for The New York Times produced a chart which included usage of "iconic" and "ironic" in the Times showing a marked downward trend from 2000 to 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/20060907schott02.pdf
Further, the assertion that "it is now acknowledged" is weasel wording which is a way of covering up for original research by making a generalized claim.
There *are* some more reliable sources to support the opinion (not fact) that "certain members of the media see the term "iconic" as overused":
Broadcaster Tavis Smiley gave his definition of "iconic" in an interview with Phylicia Rashad, as
Some writers now hedge the usage by admitting "iconic is overused, but..."
Finally, sources (appearing chiefly in the UK) which cite the 2009 "Lake Superior State University banished words list" [2] should likely not be used; contrary to the claims made in the UK articles, the list is not compiled from academics but made up of contributions from anyone online: [3] -- HidariMigi ( talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a merge and redirect of Global icon over here, there seems to be a great deal of overlap. Any thoughts? -- CliffC ( talk) 18:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869 - cropped and tidied.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC) |
There are significant problems with this section in the article.
I propose the following;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Why removed the images?, the people need to know who is an cultural icon per country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.138.103.179 ( talk) 19:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The whole paragraph called “Icons and Brands" needs to be deleted. It has just one source which supports the claim that "many people have become weary of brands" but the article then makes no logical connection between this claim and the subject of the article, Cultural Icon. Why is it relevant to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that people have become brand weary? The article does not say. Therefore, that people have become "brand weary" is irrelevant to this article, unless it is going to explain the difference between an icon and a brand. The obvious place to make that distinction would be in a paragraph called, "Icons and Brands", but that particular paragraph doesn't do that. Instead, it gives us an incoherent account of the supposed genesis of cultural icons by making the unsourced claim that they "may" go through, "rumblings, undercurrents", "catharsis, explosion", "mass acceptance, ripple effect" and "glorification, representative value" without bothering to explain what any of those unsourced terms mean or how we would identify that a cultural icon has indeed gone through any of those stages. Next, we get the nonsensical and unsourced claims that "brands are rational" and that they are apparently "driven by features", without, again, bothering to explain either the meaning of or relevance to this article of those claims. Even if true, what is the relevance to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon that brands are driven by features? The article doesn’t say. Next we get the wholly wrong claim that a "fashion look" might be an example of a brand, without, again, explaining why "branding" might be relevant to an article on Cultural Icon. Finally, we get the unsourced claim that royal or church garb might be understood as a form of emotional iconography, without, again, any attempt to explain the relevance of this to an encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon.
The paragraph titled "Definition" needs to be completely re-written. It currently makes no attempt to define Cultural Icon or explain what a Cultural Icon actually is, but instead gives some inappropriate (and unsourced) examples; only in the mind of a prepubescent American boy could Bruce Lee possibly be considered a symbol of "philosophical culture and insight of knowledge worldwide" whatever that means. The "definition" then ends with the ridiculous (and need I repeat, unsourced) claim that Salvador Dali himself is a "worldwide icon for the bizarre and eccentric."
I would also like to point out to any author considering working on this article that a Cultural Icon may be viewed differently by other cultures than his own and I provide two examples of this. The photograph accompanying this article has the caption, "A cuckoo clock, symbol of the Black Forest and Germany" and whoever wrote that obviously thinks that is true, but in my country the cuckoo clock is a symbol of Switzerland, and we even refer to them as Swiss Cuckoo Clocks, even though they are not actually made there, but in Austria. The symbol we associate with the Black Forest is a ridiculously over decorated gateau with black cherries, chocolate and fresh cream on it that we call Black Forest Gateau. My other example is the Statue of Liberty. I dare say many Americans think of that as a symbol of their national freedom, or American justice or something, whereas I think of it as a symbol of the friendship between France and the United States. These two examples show that whoever intends to convert the current gibberish into a meaningful encyclopaedia article on Cultural Icon should consider icons (not brands) as viewed from more than one perspective and should at least mention that they may be understood in different ways by other cultures. Context is also relevant to understanding icons. For example, in one context a quill pen might be a symbol for literature, whilst in another context it might represent a supplanted technology, so exactly what an icon represents may not be uniform across even one culture, never mind the wholly erroneous claim repeatedly made in this article that they might represent one thing worldwide. Both of these points taken together would seem to indicate that the cultural aspect that an icon symbolises is a purely subjective matter and giving examples of them in Wikipedia becomes a POV issue, unless you have sources, a feature noticeably absent from the current iteration of this article.
Cottonshirt
τ
05:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)