Talk:Cultural appropriation

Colonial??

The article says '"misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner' and even links to colonialism. But the to examples given, American Indians and African Americans, are not a classically colonial situations.

Could a better word be chosen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2015

Is there any culture that has not borrowed from others?

I think every single culture on the planet has borrowed items/practices that had been seen as distinctive of the other groups. It is hard to understand why some things are allowed (by certain self-appointed voices) to be borrowed, but others are not. And who is the arbiter? Even now, we find some Native Americans happy with the Washington Redskins, others vehemently object.

What will this do to all the efforts (often in the education sector) to give students opportunities to experience and taste (often literally) what other cultures do? It seems we have two opposing trends: one pushing towards multiculturalism and the contrary force pushing to prevent people doing anything that does not pertain to (what is deemed by some to be) their "own" culture. At the extreme, choirs will have to disband into smaller, ethnically homogeneous ensembles to sing their own authentic music and literature classes will have to do likewise. Pete unseth (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is probably a rhetorical question, but I would guess the cultures and languages of the uncontacted peoples do not feature the phenomenon. Some of these tribes/people are thought to be isolated for centuries or entire millennia, resulting in them not being affected or aware by worldwide changes. For example, the Pintupi of Australia remained largely isolated until the 1960s-1980s, with the last of them leaving the traditional nomadic lifestyle in 1984. Compare this to the rapid cultural and technological changes the rest of the island country has underwent since European colonization started in 1788.

Otherwise I agree with you that this is not a recent phenomenon, not unique to any particular historical period, and not particularly negative either. Cultures do change when they come in contact with other cultures, and people and societies adopt appealing elements and ideas from other cultures.

For some pre-20th century examples that come in mind:

• The Orientalizing period of Ancient Greece. Due to extensive contact with the Near East, Greek culture started adopting elements from the culture, artwork, religion, and mythology of Assyria, Ancient Egypt, and Phoenicia. The most lasting change of this "appropriation" was the creation of the Greek alphabet. It was an adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet for a new language. Writing helped transform Greek culture.
• The Hellenistic period of the ancient world. Spread of Greek culture (sports, theatre, education, art, etc) and language to Northern Africa, Western Asia, and South Asia. Local populations undergo partial Hellenization and the Greeks themselves adopt foreign cultural elements in politics, religion, art, and philosophy. Very much a period of cultural fusion and syncretism. Due to the spread of Hellenistic culture in wide areas from Gaul (in the west) to the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greek Kingdom (in the east), we have the rise of elements like Greco-Buddhist art, the worship of Isis throughout the Greco-Roman world, and new religious cults devoted to deities such as Serapis.
• The adoption of foreign elements in the Culture of ancient Rome. Roman literature was based on Greek literature and adopted many of its forms and genres, such as poetry, comedy, history, and tragedy. Roman art was at first based on Etruscan and Greek models, and later adopted elements from various different cultures. Music was similarly based on Etruscan, Greek, Anatolian, Northern African, and Celtic models. Architecture used foreign models as well, though evolving in innovative forms. Religion changed in order to include the deities and religious ideas of foreign or partially assimilated cultures. The Greco-Roman mysteries were all at first imported religions, not native to Rome or the Italian peninsula. They rose to become major elements of the culture. Dimadick (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues around Warbonnet photo

The caption on the top photo assumes that the man wearing the war bonnet is not Native American (though these days that only requires 1/16th of ones ancestry). I am perfectly happy allowing the photo to remain. Some will insist that the caption be altered. I am only pointing this out to show how I believe that some people in identity politics have become overly sensitive about minor points. Pete unseth (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the display and the man's appearance it is safe to assume he is not a traditional Native American. The photo was taken at a St. Patrick's Day parade in Ireland. The man appears to be drinking alcohol in the photos in this series, is around others who are drinking alcohol, professes in various photos that he is Irish, and the "warbonnet" is clearly fake. Not all Native cultures have warbonnets, and not all Natives, even when full members of those cultures, have the right to wear them. It's like a military medal - it has to be earned, eagle feather by eagle feather, in a traditional Native community, and they are only worn by certain community leaders. No traditional Native would wear a sacred headdress while around alcohol. Blood Quantum and/or lineal descent rules for enrollment vary among Nations. Your 1/16th comment is arbitrary. Many have 1/4 as the legal limit for citizenship, others go by lineal descent: If your parents and grandparents were part of the in-person, indigenous community, and enrolled themselves. Enrollment criteria are up to the sovereign nations and all have variations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you have said except that anything is " safe to assume." Carptrash (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to the matter of details: I am not at all sure why User:CorbieVreccan wrote that it was "safe to assume" that the person in the photo is not a Native American since the photo was taken "at a St. Patrick's Day Parade in Ireland". I assume this was said as joke since the information on the photo's page clearly identifies it as being at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. What about the African Americans who dress up for Mardi Gras in costumes that are supposedly Native American? All of this makes us wonder about the details of many claims of "cultural appropriation". The Korean woman next to me at lunch today was delighted to be eating Mexican food. Was this cultural appropriation?

Now seriously: I think the article needs to be much clearer that the concept of "cultural appropriation" decried by some in the field of identity politics is a specific narrow concept, not just people "borrowing from others". The current version makes it sound whiny and trivial. Pete unseth (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Zooming in on the photo, I realize I mistook it for a very similar photo taken in Ireland. It is true we know nothing about the ethnicity of the man in the photo. However, and this is the point, we can tell a great deal about him culturally from the display. The right to wear a warbonnet is a cultural thing, and while that right is only given to Natives, the way it has to be earned, and the protocol surrounding it, makes it clear that is not a traditional Native person, and the headdress also looks like a cheap knockoff, probably mass-produced by costume manufacturers in China. If you are still unclear on the protocols, please read the sources rather than asking editors to repeat ourselves here. The sourcing covers it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: You know better than that. Every claim you've just made is your original research. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What I know, based on your inappropriate comment, is that you haven't read the most basic sources on this. You might want to rethink this approach. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing even remotely inappropriate about my comment, and unless you can cite a policy that I'm violating I suggest you retract that. I'd like you to provide any reason at all why "the headdress also looks like a cheap knockoff, probably mass-produced by costume manufacturers in China" and "we can tell a great deal about him culturally from the display" are anything other than examples of a Wikipedia editor using their own analysis to make unsourced claims about a photograph. In other words, unambiguous original research. Dyrnych (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

...You do realize this is the talk page, right? You still don't seem to me to have read the sources in the article(s). Which starts to seem rather like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or similar. I really don't understand you. Seriously. You really can't understand that some of us can look at a cultural object and tell that it's a knockoff? Your really don't understand that there are cultural protocols and the individual in the photo is violating them? I don't expect you to know what all those protocols are, but you really don't understand, or didn't read the sources to know, that protocols exist? And now, on your talk page, you want to strategize some approach to this article without involving the normal editors who watch the talk pages of articles rather than your personal talk page? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming apparent that you're incapable of discussing actual policy without descending into unhinged accusations. I'm not "strategizing" about anything on my talk page, and the insinuation that I am (or that I've done something else wrongful) is absurd. Let me be absolutely clear about the issue with the caption: YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE ETHNICITY OR RACE OF A PERSON IN A PHOTO. NOR ARE YOU A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR WHETHER A WAR BONNET IS FAKE. You can't cite your powers of observation to overcome that, especially when you're purporting to observe something nonobvious and contentious. Your lack of understanding of the core policy against original research strikes me as baffling, given that you're an admin. Dyrnych (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps I can be of some help here. The feathers in the bonnet the individual is wearing are not eagle feathers. They are either bleached turkey or goose feathers. I understand that not everyone is able to differentiate between the two but a quick google search shows the drastic difference between the two. Traditional bonnets do not contain garrishly dyed fluff feathers. The featherwrapping is not done in a traditional manner. If you zoom in on the loom work on the browband of the bonnet the pattern is not original, it is mass-produced loomwork that can be purchased online that is supposed to be in a 'Great Lakes' style. That is how one is able to tell that the bonnet in the pic is not traditional. Regarding the claim by talk, some Nations have a 1/4 blood quantum requirement. Some have no blood quantum requirement. In order to be enrolled in a Nation you must meet their enrollment requirements which they as sovereign Nations have every right to determine. I know of no Nation that turns it's back completely to descendants who can demonstrate their connection to community so long it's not the perpetuation of family myth. If you can't show how you connect how do you actually know?Indigenous girl (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should have realized Moar shouting was called for. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Address the policy and I won't have to shout. Dyrnych (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I am referring to User:Pete unseth in my post where it addresses 'talk'. I need to pay better attention when I preview. My apologies.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych, you quite emphatically stated,"YOU ARE NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THE ETHNICITY OR RACE OF A PERSON IN A PHOTO. NOR ARE YOU A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR WHETHER A WAR BONNET IS FAKE.". Let's pretend for a moment that the person depicted is Native American. They are embarassing their family and community by holding a beer while wearing the bonnet. Because they are at Mardi Gras they are not in a cultural setting where they would or should be wearing a bonnet. Perhaps he isn't aware of that. If that is the case then he did not earn the bonnet. Let's pretend for a moment that he is not Native American and is wearing an authentic bonnet. Well then he is subject to arrest, fines and possible incarceration because it would be illegal for him to be in possession of eagle feathers. This is a talk page so I am not going to provide the statutes as there is no need to source material however if your googlefoo is not in good form this evening please ping me and I will source the US Federal statute.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that you may be knowledgeable about this, but your knowledge is not a basis for a statement of fact in a Wikipedia article, per WP:OR. We need a reliable source for the proposition that the individual depicted is non-Native and/or that the bonnet is inauthentic. Editor analysis is not a substitute for that. Dyrnych (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dyrnych. I invite you to peruse the referenced links on the article page. Some of them address your concerns. If the picture feels to inflamatory to you I can look for another one tomorrow that is a bit more obviously inappropriate, perhaps where the photographer notes that the individual is not Native American or First Nations. Would that make you feel better?Indigenous girl (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dyrnych, would you be opposed to this photograph https://www.flickr.com/photos/kt_ries/5848405597/in/photolist-wmMfwX-vpj7TC-bPDU1n-bPDTJp-bAKeW1-c7dXYY-912gHy-bAwFYQ-bAPxjJ-bPJcji-bPJc8K-5LDo8T-5LDmGM-bPDU3V-bPDTZ4-bAKfmA-bPDTGP-9UNBeg-bPDTUZ-bAPx73-bPJbZT-bAKf3U-bAKf7W-39xVNG-df5Nit-bAKfcE-bAPwSb-bAPwLY-bPJceT-bAPwX1-bPJbNZ-bPDbWc-bPJcc6-bPJc2n-bAKf6Q-bAPwKu-bAPxnw-bAPxtN-bAPxoY-bPJc6P ? It's Creative Commons and the photographer's quote addresses the issue at hand. Of course if you find this also to be a bit too harsh I could continue to search. I am actually trying to find a suitable photograph to use of Christina Fallon, the daughter of the Governor of Oklahoma since it's been established that she is not Native American or First Nations and that the headdress she likes to don to feel like a proper hipster is fake. At least I would hope it's fake otherwise she would be subject to arrest, fines and possible incarceration and I don't think her mom would appreciate that.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as we have a source that identifies the subject of whichever photo we use as non-Native, I'm perfectly fine with it. Dyrnych (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What a lot of lovely original research we have on that photo. Do you want to take a guess at the subject's age and name as well? You don't know his ethnic background. No offence intended, but this is a basic wikipedia rule. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if we should even be using an image that clearly shows the face of a member of public on this article. I'd suggest nuking that image and finding one that has less issues. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spacecowboy420, this is the talk page yes? I was simply explaining how easy it is to recognize the authenticity of a bonnet since Dyrnych questioned the ability to do so. It's really rather simple. Please note I did not add this information to the article itsself, I do understand wikipedia guidelines :) I don't care to guess his age, I do not possess that gift as I am not a carnie or a member of any other segment of society that claims to have these abilities. I have no problem with substituting a different photo. I provided a link to one.Indigenous girl (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the individual in question appears to be riding Big Al Taplet's bicycle(Big Al Taplet is a fairly well known outsider artist and that is clearly his bicycle) I've attempted to contact Big Al just out of curiosity. I understand this is original research and I will not of course add it to the article.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Indigenous girl. My comments were not based on what you said on the talk page, to be honest, I skipped over a lot of the comments. It was based purely on the caption that was put for the bonnet. I think that considering the amount of discussion about the image, it would be so much easier to find an image with less ambiguous qualities. I suggest an image of a fancy dress war bonnet (or similar costume) without the wearer. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I will undo the last revert on the image caption for the following reasons.

1. We are unaware of the ethnic background of the image subject. Any comment along the lines of "he looks/acts white" is pure OR and just as offensive as people wearing a war bonnet as a costume. If you can find a better imagine with a source stating the ethnic background of the subject, I suggest you use it, or leave race out of the comment. WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES makes it clear that selecting images based on ethnic background is considered to be original research.

2. MOS:CAPTIONS "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." Fifty Six Words is not succinct. Not by any stretch of the imagination could it ever be considered to be succinct. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by having information on a caption that would be better placed in a later section of the article.

3. It's the lead image. As per WP:LEADIMAGE it should be "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" which it most certainly isn't. It's not a professional quality image, the subject and context are ambiguous.

4. As per Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Defamation "Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category. Defamation is both a legal and moral issue; therefore, Commons does not base decisions on whether the subject is able or likely to sue." making unsubstantiated claims about the subject's ethnic background and making accusations of culture appropriation on an image with a clearly identifiable member of the public is unacceptable and most certainly falls within the category of "unfairly ridicule or demean the subject". Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

[Undent] Spacecowboy420, you wrote, "My comments were not based on what you said on the talk page, to be honest, I skipped over a lot of the comments." If you are not willing to read others' comments on the talk page, you should not be reverting and saying, "see talk page." The caption no longer mentions ethnicity, nor did earlier versions before others added it in. Rather it focuses on cultural protocol. I have no attachment to this particular image, but others added it and hipster headdresses seem to be a prime example. If a better photo with the proper licensing is available, replacing it is fine with me. I'm going to ask again, Have you read the sources? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: You seem to be misunderstanding the issue that other editors have with the photo and caption. This is the argument that you seem to be making: "The article has sources which state that an example of cultural appropriation is a Native American headdress worn by a non-Native or without the proper protocol." Fine, great. I don't think that anyone is disputing that statement. But here's the problem: we don't have a source that identifies this specific photo as an example of cultural appropriation. You can't just state, as you did earlier, that your understanding of cultural protocol is sufficient to declare this photo a violation or that your understanding of headdresses is sufficient to proclaim this a knockoff. As I stated earlier, that is original research. I asked you to explain how it's NOT an example of original research and (as you've often done on this talk page) you declined to respond to the policy in question, preferring to offer the same irrelevant argument restated above. So I ask you to either identify a source that states that the specific image in question is cultural appropriation or concede the argument. Dyrnych (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read the sources you will see that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a knockoff, or whether or not the guy has (or believes he has) some Native blood. The sources explain why what he's doing is wrong. The individual's hipster headdress is an example of appropriation, as stated in the sources. If you feel we need a photo that says, in the licensing info uploaded to WP, "This photo is an example of cultural appropriation", rather than just posting an example of what is said in the sourced content, I think this is asking for more than is needed and at this point you're just being disruptive. Good luck finding something that says that, with proper licensing. Find a better photo if you don't like this one. This photo is there because the licensing is appropriate. I don't care about this particular photo, or even about having one, but others seem to want an illustration. What I do care about is when people post misinformation about Native protocols, and demonstrate clearly they have not read the sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As an attempt to bring peaceful resolution to the discussion of the caption for the man with a warbonnet, could we write a caption that did not specifically identify the man's ethnicity? For example, "An example of behavior that is labeled Cultural Appropriation would be a non-Native American wearing a warbonnet." Would this be an acceptable compromise?Pete unseth (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Saying "non-Native" was actually my initial compromise when others kept inserting "Caucasian":[1] My most recent compromise, that has zero mention of any ethnicity, and that Mr.420 just removed:[2] stresses that this is about cultural protocols, not blood. I'm also fine with other versions we've agreed on that don't mention ethnicity at all. Ironically, we've had versions that said nothing about ethnicity stay stable for weeks while people wanted to shout here about things that weren't even in the caption. *shrugs* - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is misinforming whom? I'm deleting the photo and the caption, since you don't care about it and refuse to address the OR implications of the caption. Also, I am beyond tired of your unfounded, bullshit accusations of inappropriate conduct. Dyrnych (talk)

You don't have consensus to do that. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering the amount of issues regarding that image that have not been addressed, until there is clear consensus regarding the use of that image and the caption, deleting it seems very sensible. I am against anything regarding the race or background of the photo subject. As much as you can't made a comment on what race he "looks like", you can't make any comments on him being non-native, without knowing his background. Making a general statement along the lines of ""An example of behavior that is labeled Cultural Appropriation would be a non-Native American wearing a warbonnet." would be equally wrong, changing the wording would still imply that the subject of the photo, is the subject of the caption.

We could go in the other direction, and have a headdress being worn in a suitable setting, with wording along the lines of "only when worn in a culturally sensitive manner etc etc"

Or we don't even have to base the lead image on anything native american, this article is based on the appropriation of all cultures. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So, only white people can "culturally appropriate"?

I'd like to see one of the SJWs with their white guilt to explain why this isn't cultural appropriation: http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/72335/marlon_wayans_72335.jpg

If you could point out which culture is being appropriated from and the significance of the items being appropraited it would help to form an explaination. Is everything in the picture supposed to be the intellectual pproperty of one ethnicity or culture?Indigenous girl (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to engage with this topic, given that it doesn't seem to be geared towards improving the article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Find something reliable, with a source stating that it is cultural appropriation, and it would be suitable for the article. Doesn't matter about the background of the person, it just needs a reliable source. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with the OP. The majority of so-called African-American culture is misappropriated, from dreadlocks originating in the "brown" Mediterranean Caucasian cultures, from Gaulia to Greece, to Phoenecian (Greek) Libya to Egyptian wigs to Parthia (Persia, Iran) & Indo-Arya (Iran & Indian sub-continent), from dreadlocks to clothing to language & slang from West Indians (Indian imports to the Caribbean) to so-called "soul food", which is absolutely poor English food from England & Acadian Creole. W124l29 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing personal opinions about African-American culture. Dyrnych (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussion of objective facts.W124l29 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And I repeat, this is a forum for discussion of objective facts. Because you disagree with what I typed does not make it an opinion. Ignorance or denial of objective fact is something else entirely, and this article does not focus on any specific biological race or ethnicity but rather cultural appropriation & misappropriation. If it did, then I would question its validity in being on Wikipedia as much as I already do question its objectivity & objective of those who created it. We must be careful when adding sociology-specific articles to Wikipedia, being as that sociology is not a science and is entirely subject to the bias & opinionated whims of those who write articles within it. There is no peer review, and so it should not be treated as if there were. I quote WP:NOTFORUM: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles."; WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOVW124l29 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:YouShouldn'tBeTryingToDiscussAnArticleOnSociologyIfYouDon'tThinkIt'sScience, and WP:YouShouldn'tBeEditingWikipediaIfYouThinkItOnlyCoversObjectiveTruthAndIfYouThinkOnlyScienceCountsAsObjectiveTruth. -

This behavior is very hostile and should not be tolerated here. (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sociology is not a science, and I do not appreciate your misuse of "WP:" to create some sort of condescending attempt at hashtagging a response. Wikipedia only covers objective facts. That someone might disagree with a concept, where discussion of a concept is just that, there should be verifiable balance to that conversation. This article has "problematic" bias, per WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOV. Again, We must be careful when adding sociology-specific articles to Wikipedia, being as that sociology is not a science and is entirely subject to the bias & opinionated whims of those who write articles within it. There is no peer review, and so it should not be treated as if there were. I quote WP:NOTFORUM: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles." My statements pertain especially to the wording of said articles, where they are given Wikipedia's authoritative voice as if they are indeed objective facts of truth versus subjectively formed. W124l29 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sociology is a STEM discipline as recognized by the NSF. That it's not peer-reviewed is blatantly false (go browse List of sociology journals). Your personal opinions on the discipline have no bearing on how wikipedia treats Sociological academic research. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, what Evergreen said. Sociology is a social science and an academic discipline which means that it (unofficial tally) and others in that group receive move peer evaluation than anything else on the planet. Carptrash (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cultural appropriation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141019234344/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Still needs good definition

This article needs a clearer definition of what is "cultural appropriation". Here are some examples that would be classified as cultural appropriation by some definitions: A Japanese conductor in a tuxedo leading a Japanese orchestra and choir performing Beethoven's 9th symphony. African farmers growing corn/maize. People of non-Italian descent eating pizza. People outside of the USA drinking Coca-Cola or wearing jeans. Europeans performing Hip Hop. Gurkha military bagpipers wearing kilts. People around the world wearing Manchester United jerseys.

I hope we can agree that these are acceptable practices. BUT, how do we distinguish such cases of borrowing from cases where people find it objectionable? Until this can be clarified in a way that is broadly understood, this article will continue to cause some to mock and others to post on this Talk page with contributions that are either too protective against any borrowing, or posts that mock the idea that borrowing can ever be offensive. When is borrowing from another culture seen as honoring it vs. dishonoring it? Pete unseth (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For this article, I guess it becomes appropriation, when someone cries about it in the media. It's mostly some underachieving minor public figure crying for attention, people like Azealia Banks have more publicity attached to their claims of cultural appropriation, than they do to their actual career. But hey, I'm biased - I used to play cowboys and indians as a kid, I guess I have disrespected an entire nation. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.”

The concept of sacred or religious or military/earned objects and tattoos is of significance here in comparison to some examples given. Consent also, is of significance, as in cultures that have been enslaved or less officially financially dominated. To give an example, there are some aspects of vodou that shouldn't be practiced, or can't be, without officiating by a houngan or mambo practitioner, but everyone is free to worship their ancestors in their own homes using established vodou rituals.

To speak frankly for a moment, this talk page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's claims of NPOV, and has diminished my trust in the site's overall ability to engage with maturity on serious topics. Not talking about the top commenter here, but "cowboys and Indians" fan there is right, even if they don't know it - it's not hard to find Native discussions on how damaging those stereotypes are, unless you're just not willing to listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.143.15 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission". To say that this definition is problematic to the point of being ridiculous is an understatement. For one thing, no one is "taking" anything. Someone in Nebraska performing acupuncture is not stealing "traditional knowledge". Those who are supposedly "culturally appropriating" are creating their own, not "taking". An Irish person wearing his own "war bonnet" didn't "take" it from someone else. The notion that this involves some sort of zero sum game is ludicrous and is part of the reason the entire concept of cultural appropriation is absolutely absurd and those peddling this ridiculous garbage should have as much derision heaped upon them as is humanly possible. Stealing artifacts is a different story and should not be included in the same category as wearing dreadlocks. That I have to even clarify this demonstrates how fuc*ing stupid this is. Moreover, whose "permission" am I supposed to get before I "appropriate" something? Is there an official I have to ask before I cook Vietnamese food, or perform a Native American dance, or learn a song performed in another language? Again, the whole concept is self-evidently silly. That anyone takes this nonsense seriously shows how much grievance-mongering and identity-politics have infected absolutely everything.72.49.235.222 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead

The original lead seemed to be very POV, accepting certain minority and politically correct views on the subject. I introduced reliable content to balance the lead, as is required as per NPOV,etc. Cultural appropriation is a controversial opinion, the lead either needs to accept nether opinion and state very fucking clearly that this is a minority opinion, or it needs to give both sides of the story.

Trim or add content to balance the lead, which do people prefer? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't balance the lead at all. You added what is effectively a criticism of the concept before the actual definition of the concept. I agree that the lead needs balance, but that's hardly the way to do it. And edit-warring your content in doesn't do a lot to bolster your cause. Dyrnych (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm edit-warring, so you reverted me. Yeah, right. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

But either way, it's just a re-wording that is required. I'm sure I can fit it into the lead with the definition first. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych is correct here. Criticism of the concept doesn't come before the definition of the concept; that is undue weight for the lead. Your clicking "undo" on multiple editors to repeatedly reinstate your additions is most definitely edit-warring. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 15:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the concept already exists in the Overview section: "Proponents view cultural borrowing as inevitable and a contribution to diversity and free expression. This view distinguishes outright cultural theft or exotic stereotyping from more benign borrowing or appreciation. Cultural borrowing and cross-fertilization is seen by proponents as a generally positive thing, and as something which is usually done out of admiration of (and with no intent to harm) the cultures being imitated. The language of "appropriation" is sometimes criticized as misleadingly implying "theft" when applied to culture, which is not generally seen as an exhaustible resource."

This could use expansion and involve further additions to the body of the article, instead of just the lede. Speaking about the concept, has anyone addressed the role of loanwords in transmitting cultural concepts? Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Corbie, when I look at the edit history of this article over the last few months, you seem to have clicked the undo button more than any other editor. If you want to discuss article content here, please do so. If you want to criticize my actions as an editor, then perhaps it would be more productive for you to look at your own edits first. Regarding criticism before the definition, I think I've already covered that point with the post directly above yours. I'm here to talk about the article, and improve it. My feeling is that cultural appropriation while notable enough to deserve an article, represents a minority viewpoint. As such, criticism is quite suitable for the lead, as many readers never make it further than that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with other editors. No way criticism comes before definition. I'm not convinced that the "political correctness" of the term is notable enough to be in the lead, but I'm not against it being in the lead if we can show it's a major notable criticism of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Should I have used a very large font? I'm sure I can fit it into the lead with the definition first I agreed to that point yesterday, and pointed out where I agreed to that point in my previous post. Showing it is or isn't notable is easy. Either there are reliable sources or there aren't. I've always found notability to be one of the less ambiguous areas on wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you said that. Just agreeing with the comments. Forgive me if I'm not 100% clear ... it's late I should be in bed. I guess the question is more about due weight then. Is political correctness a major component of the concept? Do we give it lots of coverage? Curious what others think about putting it in lead and where if so EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's late for you. I've just got into the office, so I'm grumpy. It's nice to think of the human behind the keyboard, and understand we all have lives that are reflected in our talk page comments. I don't think political correctness is a part of the concept, but I do think that a lot of the criticism of the term cultural appropriation comes from the opinion that it is a politically correct term. I guess, I'm just looking for a way to have the lead explain that this is an opinion that has enough criticism to consider it as a minority view, or at least consider it not to be an overwhelming majority view. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The term "cultural appropriation" has proved slippery enough here; trying to define it with an even more slippery neologism such as "Politically Correct" would bring about less clarity, not more. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a pure guess, I would imagine that there are far, far more sources regarding the term politically Correct and far more accurate descriptions from those sources. If we can have an article on cultural appropriation, I'm pretty sure we can use a far more established term like politically correct. I would never suggest that we define cultural appropriation as a politically correct term, we shouldn't define anything, that's what reliable sources do for us. Besides, there is a huge difference between "cultural appropriation is a politically correct term" and "cultural appropriation is a concept that has been considered to be politically correct by some"

The lead is full of " is seen by some...", " is sometimes termed...", "According to authors in the field...", etc.

I see no difference in including the reference to it being considered as a politically correct term, apart from having some personal reason for making the article biased towards a cause that they may have some real life connection to. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Blackface an example of cultural appropriation?

Okay, I get that it is a racist caricature, I understand that it is meant to mimic black people, however none of that seems to indicate cultural appropriation by the article's own definition. What exactly is the aspect of black culture being used in that case? It is their facial features, not their culture.

If blackface performances were associated with taking certain symbols of great importance to African Americans out of context, then by all means leave it in, and say that explicitly in the article. As the article stands, it does not describe the cultural appropriation involved with donning blackface. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly seems a bit odd to me too, but the sources provided in that part refer to it as cultural appropriation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not noteworthy, also very opinion based, request for removal

I Think this whole article is part solemnly on opinions and has no noteworthy news value, it only covers some social media discussions. I request for it to be removed. CoatThese (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The concept of cultural appropriation exists and has been the subject of robust debate in the United States and elsewhere. It is a notable topic for an article. There are definitely dubious sources in this article, but there are also some very high-quality sources. As to "it only covers some social media discussions," I don't even know how to respond to this in light of the actual content of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Dyrnych, cultural appropriation is an important topic of discussion.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RS and unattributed opinions

Dyrnych's edit today ([3]) made me realize we are sourcing a bunch of opinion pieces and treating them as RS. Opinion pieces need to attribute the opinion to the author, right? WaPo's PostEverything and the Boston Globe pieces are categorized by the website as opinion pieces. The McWhorter piece is arguably an opinion piece as well. Any suggestions on how to address this? I imagine there are other places that need this corrected too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are RS for their opinions, and I think it's enough that the opinion pieces be treated as opinion ("proponents claim," etc.) rather than that each opinion be attributed to a particular author. I agree that the article is riddled with opinion presented as fact and many such claims (maybe even claims I've added) could use some acknowledgement that they're opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'm okay with "proponent/opponents claim" as an overarching attribution to various opinions. So long as we keep it clear which parts are opinion and which are not. I know this topic is largely discussed in what used to be called the Blogosphere and is largely opinions (even if from prominent figures). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Should "Appropriation of one's culture" be deleted?

An editor inserted data on a case where people wearing clothes of their own heritage were attacked for wearing these clothes because others might misunderstand. Another editor reverted it, saying it was "undue weight".

I am not sure why this is undue weight. There is more space devoted to a number of individual cases claimed to be inappropriate appropriation. Personally, I feel that this case shows how the concept of cultural appropriation is being applied and misapplied more widely than is appropriate. Pete unseth (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "undue weight" applied to the inclusion of the incident so much as it applied to the fact that the editor created a heading-level entry for an anecdote. I agree that it could conceivably be placed elsewhere in the article, but also that it does not deserve its own heading. Dyrnych (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dyrnych - yeah it was the header and the size of the coverage that made me reference UNDUE. But also WP:NOTNEWS is an issue here. If this were covered by a national outlet, I'd be more inclined to include it. But as it, I'm more inclined to say exclude it entirely. Squeezing in a sentence on it somewhere would be okay-ish to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I just moved this

from the "Academic study" section.

According to this view, acts of resistance to a dominant society, when undertaken by persons belonging to subordinate groups (i.e. when members of a marginalized community mimic and alter aspects of a dominant culture to assert their agency and resistance), are excepted from the usual understanding of cultural appropriation, because the power dynamic is reversed. A historical example is the emergence of Mods in the UK, in the late 1950s and early 1960s; largely working class youth imitated and exaggerated the highly tailored clothing styles, past and present, of the upper middle class and re-purposed iconic British symbols like the Union Jack and the Royal Air Force's rondel. In such cases, the borrowing and re-contextualization of cultural elements can also be termed as "cultural appropriation", however this usage is usually not intended to suggest any negative connotations.

To me this goes far beyond "citation needed" in an article such as this one. Whoever posted this section or who ever wants it in the article needs to provided a reference. Carptrash (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)