Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

this is entirely biased

how can a "person of color" be the same as another "person of color"? are all white people the same? are all Black people the same? that is over-the-top stupid. can an Egyptian wear corn rows? is an Egyptian Black? How about a Sudanese? Is a Sudanese person Black? Is she/he Jamaican? No. is it OK for the Sudanese to wear corn rows? If one truly believes in the "horror" of cultural appropriation, that person must admit that corn rows belong to Jamaicans and not to ANYONE else, regardless of their skin tone. I am sure that there are pale Jamaicans. There are dark ones, too. This is very simple--they are still Jamaican. They all can have corn rows. OK? Now, can a Black person from NYC wear a corn row? Nope. that should be cultural appropriation, correct? that person from NYC, regardless of skin tone, is unlikely to be fully Jamaican or even partly. So, can that person wear corn rows because of skin tone? can another not wear them because of skin tone?

this article should be despised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.189.42 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear which content you think should be changed and what reliable secondary sources support your suggested changes. — Bilorv (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you have strong views on the topic, but this talk page is not a forum for discussing them. Dyrnych (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be a different user than the one who flagged the article for bias. As the IP who flagged it has not been forthcoming with any productive suggestions, I don't think there's any reason to leave the tag up. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is entirely biased. The mere existence of this article in wikipedia defines itself as a libelum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.142.212.220 (talk) 19:32 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The article continues to grow as an ever increasing list

This article continues to grow as editors add more and more instances alleged to be cultural appropriation. What would be approriate criteria to handle these good faith additions? I don't think we want to simply say "no more!", but what criteria would be best to evaluate new examples? Pete unseth (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the large scope of the topic, any examples should not be just one event, but a series of events or extremely long-standing event (such as the general usage of Native American clothing in fashion, or the use of mascots based on Native people stereotypes). An example should illustrate something important about the practice of cultural appropriation, the definition of the concept, the way it is applied or the criticisms that are made of it, rather than being an example for example's sake. The content at present should be trimmed, and possibly the section renamed from "Examples" to something that connotes the aim is to describe the most major types of cultural appropriation in these fields, rather than to list all instances. Maybe "Types" or "Occurrences". Meanwhile, "Celebrity controversies" has to go completely, with anything relevant merged into the corresponding specific articles or the (possibly renamed) "Examples" section in the appropriate topic area. — Bilorv (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am boldly deleting the "Celebrity Controversies" section, per MOS:CULTURALREFS and WP:EXAMPLES. I have been editing this article for years and I have yet to see any substantive defense for its inclusion. As is obvious from its history, it practically invites additions (often based on original research) whenever there's a new celebrity controversy that could possibly touch on the subject. Dyrnych (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No complaints here. — Bilorv (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I concur and I have again removed this section, pending reversal of this consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Donkey Hot-day, the removal was explained here, please discuss it. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose if one wants to prevent an article from being excessively lengthy, then he/she'd remove it. I suppose lists in general don't have a place in Wikipedia in accordance to one of its policies? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Quotes by Susan Scafidi

This article's reference to "A Guide to Understanding and Avoiding Cultural Appropriation". ThoughtCo. 14 January 2019. includes an quote without attribution to Susan Scafidi, law professor at Fordham University. I propose changing this reference to "Scafidi's interview". with Jezebel or her book "Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law." - DutchTreat (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Jezebel (RSP entry) is sometimes considered a bit of a dubious source but the book is actually already cited for the same claim, directly after the ThoughtCo reference. I guess the ThoughtCo cite can be removed as redundant if you think that's desirable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Good to know that the Jezebel source has been questioned in the past. The quote in the reference is incomplete. I propose removing the quote embedded in the reference. - DutchTreat (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Like this? I've removed the ThougthCo reference (redundant) and the quote in the "Who Owns Culture?" reference (incomplete). Undo some/all of that if it's not what you meant. — Bilorv (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: This is an improvement. Thank you for the edits. - DutchTreat (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, no problem. — Bilorv (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Appropriating forms: Drag queens or Mpreg?

Should the article include references to men impersonating women in Drag queen performances or MPreg where men pretend to be pregnant? These are pertaining to cis-women, but I was wondering it is worth mentioning the phenomena when a male imitates or mocks a female. Drag queens are popular elements of the LGBTQ community for a long time (and now the MPreg genre). 2603:8001:2601:F351:1965:B0AC:C8F3:920A (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that either of these are cultural appropriation? If not, no. If so, let's see them and assess where to go from there. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the criticism section due?

I've looked through the five people credited with criticism of the concept and all but one of them feel out of place.

Evaristo and Shriver are writers, and while the former is an academic, her academic qualifications involve creative writing. The latter is worse, because her "criticism" isn't criticism at all. It was a response to her critics. A response that itself sparked controversy.

Goldberg has no credentials relevant to the subject, and his "criticism" is just a rehash of the same old right wing talking points, that do not come from a position of authority.

Finally, while McWorther is an academic with credentials, his political views make it questionable whether his opinions on cultural appropriation are coming from a place of authority, or are slanted by personal bias.

That, and criticism sections are generally not a good idea anyway. I propose the criticism section be completely deleted, and Appiah's comments on cultural appropriation be placed under "Responses" instead. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For a topic like this, a section on criticism is almost imperative. The concept is clearly explained and documented, but it is logical to show that it is not universally approved. The objection to McWhorter is that he has political bias. Certainly not the only person cited in the article who has a political view. There is no policy that cited people must not have political views. We should retain the criticism section, though it can certainly be improved. Pete unseth (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pete unseth:Sorry it took me this long to get back. My issue with McWOrther isn't that he has political views - most people do, after all. My issue with him, is that his political views are fringe, especially the ones that have relvance to this particular topic. His opinion on the subject isn't criticism, it's political punditry.

Criticism may be imperative, and as I stated, Appiah's criticism is good, and should be kept, but criticism sections are not encouraged on the site. The criticisms of the concept belong under "responses", not a separate section. Furthermore, outside of Appiah's criticism, which comes from a position of authority, none of the other criticisms are due, and in the case of Shriver, there isn't even any real criticism at all. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

First historical references to Cultural Appropriation

I am attempting to add a citation to what Oxford English Dictionary identifies as the first reference to Cultural Appropriation, by Arthur E. Christy. However, my attempt to add this source keeps getting reverted by a user who seems intent on edit warring and wikilawyering over the issue. I am finding the discussion intractable with the other user, and need some assistance. Could others please provide input—do we want to include this source? It seems to me like it should be essential and is well-supported and readily viewable.

DullRoar (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@DullRoar and WikiLinuz: Hello. The OED blog post is attributed to "Katherine Connor Martin, Head of US Dictionaries". This is not a WP:UGC site, so this arguably qualifies as a WP:NEWSBLOG, or if it's a WP:SPS, it's from a topic expert writing about an area of expertise (specifically the claims made by the OED). It is not an extraordinary or self-serving claim, and this link is useful to readers to summarize the OED itself, which is obviously reliable.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Feminist Book Club source doesn't appear to meet WP:RS and should not be used.

I have no idea why the ref is formatted so that Arthur E. Christy links to The Sense of the Past. I assume that's an error. Otherwise, as a supplemental primary source, this seem appropriate.

I see a benefit in mentioning this earliest attested usage of the term, as supported by the OED, but I don't think it should replace existing sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I have no interest in this topic of discussion. Edits were reverted solely because they doesn't meet the policies. For the Feminist Book Club to meet WP:NEWSBLOG, the columns' article should be published in a medium that meets WP:RSP - [...] news organization's normal fact-checking process. Feminist Book Club certainly doesn't meet this. And, I think for the immense claim like the "cultural appropriation" term first being used by Arthur E. Christy should have a peer-reviewed academic source supporting that.

I guess someone else can handle this further; I'm bailing. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 03:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. For future reference, there are several sources being discussed. The OED blog was introduced on this talk page. The feminist book club one and the primary source were the ones cited in the reverted edit. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion, I have re-added a mention of the Christy essay. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Colonialism

According to The Oxford Dictionary, colonialism is "the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically". Meanwhile, cultural appropriation is defined as "the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society". Colonialism is a deliberate, often violent practice where in many cases cultural appropriation is accidental. These two topics have no connection other than the fact that they both involve specific cultures. Hutz18 (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hutz18: the connection is that cultural appropriation is often propagated under colonial rule. There's an entire article on this: Cultural imperialism. ––FormalDude talk 09:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: so I'd definitely have to disagree with you on that. Cultural appropriation is stated as being "the adoption of the iconography of another culture" while cultural imperialism is "the imposition by one usually politically or economically dominant community of various aspects of its own culture onto another nondominant community.". If anything, cultural appropriation and cultural imperialism are opposites as one relates to forcing culture on a community while the other is about taking culture from a community. Hutz18 (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure that's partially true but they still overlap. For example the Europeans participated in cultural appropriation when colonizing the Americas (as is explained in the Cultural imperialism article: Euro-American culture has made a habit of appropriating, and redefining what is 'distinctive' and constitutive of Native Americans. ––FormalDude talk 10:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hutz18: That's not what cultural appropriation is at all. The definition goes like this: "inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one [minority] culture by members of the [dominant] culture" - in which the minority culture was previously colonized by the dominant culture, and there's the nuance: "these elements are used outside of their original cultural context ─ sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating [previous colonies'] culture – the practice is often received negatively", and no, cultural appropriation isn't accidental, although it may in few cases. Colonialism is the precise term. Cultural imperialism is an "imposition", not "appropriation"; there's a distinction. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 15:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DWmR-bYUMAAXDe4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Film and television section

I'm sorry, but we got to find more examples for this section than just Ghost in the Shell. The first paragraph is simply about racial bias in Hollywood, particularly against Asians. Saturdayopen (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is quite guilty of this throughout, but the aim shouldn't be to list all examples or even all major examples―TVTropes might be a better place for that. The point here should be to give illustrative examples and use them to make academic points about the concept as it applies generally to (e.g.) television and film. See Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 8#The article continues to grow as an ever increasing list. — Bilorv (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

List of terms related to cultural appropriation

There seems to be an abundance of pejoratives which are used to describe various instances of cultural appropriation and racial misrepresentation. Plastic Paddy, Plastic shaman, Plastic Brit, Brownface, Yellowface, RedfacePretendian, etc.

I believe these are plentiful enough to warrant a list article of their own, or at least a list contained within either this page or another relevant page. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this, people. SpiralSource (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 6 May 2022‎

I don't know that this would meet the standalone list criteria, but the terms should be covered within this article with descriptions of their meaning if there are reliable sources that say they are related to cultural appropriation. A list section might be a sensible way of doing this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This should not become an ever-expanding list of examples

This article keeps growing as people add more examples. I am not saying that the examples are not valid. But simply adding more examples may not be helpful. Editors should ask themselves, "Will my example add to the understanding of the subject?" Otherwise, this article will continue to grow in size, but not grow in its ability to inform readers. I'm not saying "don't add", but I am saying "think before you add". Pete unseth (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The coverage of examples has gotten out of hand. Maybe only use those which have an article? valereee (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Bad English

The term should be "cultural misappropriation" as misappropriate means, "to take something for wrong or illegal purposes." Appropriate means, "to make one's own." To not distinguish this nuance makes it seem as though every instance of cultural flow is immoral—the logical conclusion of which is that cultures should not interact at all, which is not what this concept intends to advocate. To quote the article, "Critics note that the concept is often misunderstood or misapplied by the general public, and that charges of "cultural appropriation" are at times misapplied to situations such as trying food from a different culture or learning about different cultures." The lack of ability to distinguish this nuance is the main source of criticism against the concept. 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:8546:2162:AF38:9F8D (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. The problem is, almost all the sources misuse these phrases and therefore say "appropriation" when "misappropriation" would be more correct. If you look in the talk archives, we've had this discussion before. Multiple times. What we kept concluding is that, as WP can't publish Original Research, we have to wait until reliable sources catch up and change the wording. And we don't know if that's going to happen. Unfortunately, this may be a situation where, instead, the meaning of "appropriation" is changing, much as has happened with the colloquial misuse of "literally".

If there are now adequate reliable sources to change it, post them here for consensus. You could just be bold, but as it affects the title, I'd seek consensus first. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Gothic lolita fashion is an inaccurate example for religious cultural appropriation

As gothic lolita fashion is inspired and influenced by general gothic fashion I would argue that linking the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goth_subculture#Styling which mentions "It [Gothic fashion] also frequently expresses pagan, occult or other religious imagery" is a more accurate example of religious cultural appropriation. Additionally, the article used as an example contains several major inaccuracies regarding the fashion and subculture. Duck-in-Frills (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Duck-in-Frills: thanks for your comment. Volunteers are encouraged to be bold and make changes themselves unless there's some reason not to (like if the change is expected to be contested). Sometimes your changes get reverted, or adapted, and that's when to go into discussion.

Here, I can't quite work out what changes you are proposing for this article, so it would be better for you to actually make those changes, and then I could comment on whether I prefer that version or the previous version. Just note that all information in Wikipedia needs a reliable source and let me know on my talk page if you're struggle to edit for some technical reason. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Black Santa Clause is Cultural appropriation

You forgot to add how a Black Santa Clause is Cultural appropriation. 2600:1008:B12E:69DA:1856:9CFC:126E:285A (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a wp:reliable source stating it is? Who says Santa Clause is not Black? Evidence for that? Adakiko (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Cultural misappropriation

Cultural misappropriation redirects here. But there's no explanation for it. Were there anything about? Xdtp (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

I added this: {{Redirect-distinguish-text|Cultural misappropriation}} to the article. Peaceray (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I guess. I didn't know it was necessary, I thought that message was useful for disambiguating articles. Xdtp (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think "cultural misappropriation" and "cultural appropriation" are synonyms. But I'm not sure how the redirect hatnote helps. The first step should really be finding a reliable source that uses the word "misappropriation" and explains what it means. — Bilorv (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Some people probably use them interchangeably but there's an indistinct division between two deceptively similar things, one of which is worse than the other. Misappropriation is about not only appropriating but also using it in an unconscious/unaware or unintentional way specifically, but that's how I interpret it. There can be more elaborated ways of explaining the different, sorry because I don't think I explained it well. But I believe the linguistic context/consensus is that both are synonymous. Xdtp (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, without support, the hatnote is entirely useless, and indeed misleading to the extent that it implies, wrongly, that "cultural misappropriation" is mentioned in the article. Without such a mention, the term should not be redirecting here, nor should there be a hatnote. The term (like the subject of the article, complete with a definition as "inappropriate") begs the question of who says what is appropriate, or whether everybody else's assent must be unconditional. Since, clearly, it isn't, the article is correctly tagged as POV. Any discussion of "misappropriation" or "inappropriate appropriation" (er, possibly there's a problem with that phrase, inherent in the article...) needs to be framed so that it is not in Wikipedia's voice, i.e. we can say "X asserts that behaviour x1 is inappropriate" and "Scholar Y writes that X is assuming that x1 because ...", but we should not be placing ourselves in either X's or Y's shoes. Any statement that behaviour x1 is "worse" than x2 violates WP:NPOV. Probably, the article needs a major rewrite. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well indeed, the article does need a complete rewrite, but so far no-one's been either brave or foolish enough to wade in. The solution to the "cultural misappropriation" redirect is to mention the term anywhere in the article as either a synonym or related term of "cultural appropriation" with a reliable source for the definition. The hatnote should be removed either way. — Bilorv (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Article quality and source quality

This article is in a truly terrible state. I've just pulled a several items like a few blogs inserted throughout the article, a link to Healthline, and a random aside about the Kievan Rus'.

WP:RS is not a suggestion, it's a policy, and this article's references need a much closer look. There are plenty of high quality articles from scholars on this topic and there is absolutely no reason the sourcing should be so poor on this article.

Rather than try to improve what we have here—which is about as terrible as one can imagine—I highly recommend that someone just start from scratch here using only WP:RS-compliant sources, ideally from scholars who specialize in topics like cultural diffusion, which this article does not even so much as mention exterior to the "see also" section. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup, Bloodofox. I agree that a rewrite is needed. The bulk of the article needs to be academic sources: journals or books. If they have any place at all, news reports and opinion pieces should be limited to the most major or characteristic examples of what the term means in common usage or what impact the term's popularisation has had. However, this is all easier said than done; I couldn't commit to this rewrite myself. — Bilorv (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely regular blogs and other non-RS sources should be removed. However,

Per This RfC: Request for comment regarding Keene, Adrienne Keene's official blog, Native Appropriations, meets the criteria noted as an exception in the WP:BLOG policy/guideline: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Per the RfC, Keene is a notable expert on the topic of cultural appropriation from Native American cultures, having been cited by RS sources on the topic; therefore her writings on her official site are an acceptable source on this topic. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Seems like a pretty regular flow of IP disruption. Should we semi the article? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Confusing Cultural Appropriation with Cultural Misappropriation

As of now, typing in "Cultural Misappropriation" gives this article as the first option. There is also a disclaimer on the top that states "There is an article named "Cultural Misappropriation"" which directs us to this page, which obviously is not the name of this page. I believe that this is a weird aspect of the page, as we have stopped redirecting people to this article if they searched the term Cultural Misappropriation. In the first few citations of the article, they are clearly named or are related to Cultural Misappropriation, instead of Cultural Appropriation. The second one, on the word(s) Cultural Appropriation, is related to Prince Harry misrepresenting Australian Indigenous Culture (IIRC). There are varying opinions on this topic. Wikipedia is a main source of information for many people. We should be using neutral, reliable sources specifically using the term "Cultural Appropriation" so that Wikipedia can stand neutral on the topic. Wikipedia should remove the words such as "inappropriate and unacknowledged" so that it can offer unbiased information. Mansur Badr (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Cultural misappropriation is a redirect to this page. There is no article by the name "Cultural misappropriation", nor has there ever been. Redirects can be turned into articles if the topic is "notable".

In this case, however, the terms "cultural appropriation" and "cultural misappropriation" can be used synonymously. Some authors may ascribe specific, distinct meanings within their publications for the two terms. This article is about the subject, not the word itself (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), so sources using different terminology that refers to the same subject can be combined. — Bilorv (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment seemed like I meant that "Cultural Misappropriation" was a seperate article and that directing it to "Cultural Appropriation" was what was weird about the article, that was not what was meant by the comment.

What I had wanted to convey, quite unsuccessfully after rereading my comment, was that the article could've portrayed a bias because of the sources presented and used in it, most of it has a bias. As far as I know, some of (if not most) public interpretation of the term, outside of the United States of America, is different. So, we start differentiating between the terms, at the very least, and account for different interpretations. Mansur Badr (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

But as Bilorv already said, most sources use them as synonyms at this point. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If you go back through talk archives, the issue of the dual terminology has been discussed a number of times. It's a matter of linguistic drift. There is a certain degree of confusion in the population as a whole, and there has also been some intentional confusion on the parts of some writers with opinions on the matter, for instance when writing clickbait on the topic (or misrepresenting the topic, imho). The phrase "cultural appropriation" has become largely used to mean what is actually cultural misappropriation. At times we've tried to make that distinction and source it. Other times people have deleted the content that makes the distinction. I'm tempted to compare it to the linguistic drift that has resulted in large segments of the population now using the word "literally" when they actually mean figuratively. YMMV. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Wording and NPOV

Using the example of the photo caption of the model wearing a war bonnet in Examples; are being "blonde, tattooed, female" and "wearing makeup, shorts and t-shirt" all individual reasons someone should not wear a war bonnet? I am not very knowledgeable about Native American culture in the context of war bonnets, and admit I am making assumptions and asking questions from a position of ignorance, and do not mean to offend. If the implication is that the model in question is not Native American, and we know this, then that would be a much more appropriate identifier for context. I could also see how accessorising with a war bonnet for the commercial fashion industry might also come into the equation, regardless of context.

If any of the specific identifiers I previously mentioned are reasons someone should not wear a war bonnet, then this should be clarified. Without context, at best it does not sound like a very NPOV, and at worst, like a criticism of Native Americans who might share any of those qualities. If this information is for the visually impaired, I previously assumed that it is better suited to the specific image description, rather than the thumbnail, otherwise nearly every picture caption would need to be multiple lines long. For comparison, IMO the cossack picture is a good example of relevant information that adds to the context of an image in this article, while avoiding redundant or potentially subjective implications. Llamageddon (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Previously we had an image of a young, red-headed, lightskinned man who appeared to be at a party, and appeared to be drinking. People edit-warred over whether to describe him as white, and other factors, even though the photo description seemed to indicate it was taken at a drinking party - which was most definitely inappropriate. This one seemed a better image.

If you read the associated sourcing and links, yes, these factors are definitely relevant. In the cultures that have them, they are akin to war medals. They must be earned. They are usually only worn by high status leaders, in most cases only males. They are usually ceremonial gear. For a model in makeup to wear one for a fashion shoot is regarded pretty universally as inappropriate. Rather that call her by a racial or ethnic designation (as we don't actually know her race or ethnicity) a visual description is more neutral. Tattooing is irrelevant to qualification, but as it's an important theme on her t-shirt and the theme of the photoshoot, I included it for only that reason. The caption has been there for quite a while and you're the only one to take issue with it. But again, if you'd read the article, sources, and linked articles, I think this would already be clear. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It seemed worth noting on the talk page, being preferable to make note of concerns here, rather than comment through submissions and reversions. It is understandable why some of the phenotypes, and fashion choices might seem necessary to reference. Arguably, it would be preferable to find an image that is in reference to a documented claim of someone misusing or misrepresenting cultural dress, rather than tacitly suggest that this might be the case, by highlighting specific elements of a person's outward characteristics. Especially if using indicators, like being blonde, being a woman, or having tattoos, that, depending on context, could just as easily be used as examples of people incorrectly assuming someone is engaging in cultural appropriation. Llamageddon (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible equivocation on the word "critic."

The word "critic" is variously used to refer to critics of the term and concept (e.g., people who question the existence or scope of CA) and critics of practices alleged to be CA. Sometimes it's clarified, other times it isn't.

I understand that this concept is extremely controversial but the article may be trying too hard to please everyone. 2603:7081:1603:A300:65F7:6E1F:C966:FE1E (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What changes are you proposing be made to the article? You can make them directly, typically without creating an account. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)