Talk:Cultural appropriation

Wiki Education assignment: Cross-Cultural Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rhonda0607, Dmctagg1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dlushing, KMONET777.

Wiki Education assignment: Spark 1 Social Justice and Child Lit

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdlizzie (article contribs).

The criticism section, part deux

Four years ago, I made comments about the criticism section, which is really just an arbitrary collection of individuals who at one point or another spoke negatively of the subject. Here is the relevant archived thread.

Since then, not only were my objections not addressed, but the section grew with three more entries, which are again, just cherry-picked individuals who at one point or another said something negative of the concept. As it stands, only one out of the eight different and completely unconnected paragraphs, only the the comments made by Yascha Mounk are in any way meaningful.

McWorther is a right wing pundit, who is frequently pushed by conservatives as a dissenting voice in matters concerning race. Jonah Goldberg is a conservative political commentator and his opinion on the subject is purely reactionary, and not based on any meaningful observation. Neither of these people are an authority on the subject.

Shriver and Evaristo are two writers reacting to criticism. They don't speak in any official capacity and have zero authority on the subject matter.

The Harward Crimson article is an opinion piece from a student newspaper, and the Chris Berg article is just an objectively lower quality version of Yascha Mounk's critique, which is the only inclusion in the list that qualifies as a meaningful criticism of the concept, as opposed to just random famous people complaining but offering nothing to back up their complaints. As such, I am deleting all but the final paragraph of the section. Please discuss here before reverting. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

as opposed to just random famous people complaining but offering nothing to back up their complaints borders on WP:OR as you are making your own inferences about the information in those sources. Since then, not only were my objections not addressed is blatantly untrue when someone responded to your previous comment on this. I would agree with removing the Harvard Crimson and Daily Beast sources on the grounds that they are not reliable, but removing the other paragraphs by declaring that the authors actually don't know what they are talking about or their opinions don't matter is not a judgement up to you. They are reliable sources, and as WP:DUE says, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

Jonah Goldberg with The Chicago Tribune is a reliable source.

Chris Berg with The Drum (TV program)/Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a reliable source.

Lionel Shriver with The Guardian is a reliable source.

Kwame Anthony Appiah with The New York Times is a reliable source.

Bernardine Evaristo's statements as written in The Times is a reliable source.

These are attributed WP:RSOPINIONs, which are perfectly reasonable. As above _{so below} 07:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I concur with As above's remarks. IMHO John McWhorter's comments should be kept as he is a notable author (also, as far as I can tell he is not a "right-wing pundit", which in his case would be a bit of a distortion of that concept). However, if The Daily Beast is considered took weak a source for this subject, I won't mind if it is kept out. Nothing to add on this matter. Psychloppos (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable. See above. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in reliable sources are reliable so long as they are attributed per WP:RSOPINION, which they are. As above _{so below} 22:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can be excellent sources for attributed criticism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

An article does not need to include every single opinion of every single person on a relevant subject, attributed or otherwise. Of course right wing pundits are going to call the concept of cultural appropriation ridiculous - they need to keep the 24/7 "outrage over wokeness" machine running at all times. Wikipedia does not have to amplify their voices. Of course some authors are going to get defensive over their use of outdated and problematic tropes and act combative when called out instead of exercising some form of self-reflection and learning to do better - famous people tend to suffer from ego problems. Wikipedia does not have to treat their knee-jerk reactions as gospel. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm just responding to your claim that Opinion pieces are not reliable. Wikipedia does not exclude right-wing writers, and we don't make dueness decisions based on what politics you like and which you dislike. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia does exclude people just saying what you'd expect them to say on any given topic given their political biases. As much as I would love to see Christopher Hitchens cited on every single article that has to do with Christianity saying "this is all bullshit", I understand that doing so would be entirely undue. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken to think that wikipedia does exclude people just saying what you'd expect them to say on any given topic given their political biases. That is nowhere in any policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh? In that case I want to see a criticism section on every single article relating to Christianity citing various critiques of christianity and of religion as a whole from all major atheist thinkers. My reasoning is that there is no point in citing atheist writers calling religion nonsense on every single religion-related article, because it is self evident that they would think that, and their opinion does not contribute to the article in any meaningful way. But according to you, this is not the case. I trust that your position is consistent. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a weird rhetorical strategy from the losing side of an argument.

Notable views on the notion of cultural appropriation, including critical ones, will be included. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

And the generic conservative knee-jerk reaction of "It's stupid woke nonsense" is not notable. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You’ve really failed to make a convincing case for that. I would encourage you to read the notability and NPOV policies to mine for support to explain your argument, but I know that none of Wikipedia’s policies contains material supportive to your argument, so instead I will tell you not to waste your time, and remember that anything that annoys you about reliable secondary sources (such as, say, publishing and commenting on expressions of views that you believe ought not be dignified with publicity) will be reflected on a good Wikipedia article, because all we do is summarize. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You fundamentally do not comprehend WP:NPOV. As above _{so below} 22:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean WP:UNDUE? That!s exactly where I'm coming from. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not just the reliability of the sources that I'm calling into question but also the whether or not they're due. I will concede on the Berg and Appiah paragraphs as they do appear relevant. However, I cannot agree on the inclusion of Goldberg, Shriver or Evaristo. Just because their comments were published in reliable sources doesn't change the fact that their critique boils down to a reflexive personal dislike. "I don't like it" or "it's nonsense" is not criticism. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Shriver discussing how the idea of cultural appropriation intersects with authors and their writing and saying Yet that's what we're paid to do, isn't it? Step into other people's shoes, and try on their hats is not "I don't like it" or "It's nonsense". Goldberg discussing his opinion that, if modern standards of cultural appropriation were applied to significant cultural shifts of the past, then many things we take for granted in the present day wouldn't exist isn't "I don't like it" or "It's nonsense". The only example that even gets close to "I don't like it" or "It's nonsense" is Eravisto's, but that is only by virtue of not being able to read the full article, which I'm sure would have much more depth than is currently reflected in the page.

All of this is to say, these are personal judgements (WP:OR) of the content of those sources to decide that they are not criticism, when they plainly are. As above _{so below} 23:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I fully support As above's comments. Psychloppos (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In other words Shriver's commentary is a flat reassertion of the very same outdated and problematic ideas of representing other cultures in fiction, that the discourse around cultural appropriation was meant to challenge. That is not criticism. That is sticking one's head into the ground and ignoring criticism.

That you claim about what Goldberg said is NOT in the disputed paragraph. And even if this is the point that he was trying to make, in what quality does he make these comments. He's neither a historian nor a sociologist providing high quality arguments to a broader discussion. both the clickbait title of his article and his use of discrediting terms like "desperate to be offended" clearly shows that he's just a right wing pundit writing about "muh woke outrage", as opposed to a subject matter expert ready to contribute to the discourse in a useful manner.

These examples do absolutely nothing to improve the article. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In other words, you think that sources are not relevant because you don't agree with them and you don't like the way they are worded. Psychloppos (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I articulated my arguments multiple times. It is not my fault that you choose to disregard them. If you have nothing else to contribute to this discussion besides hurling personal attacks and cheerleading everyone who holds a different position from me, then I must conclude that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve this article. Well, I am not here to humor you. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:IDHT... As above _{so below} 10:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how that applies to me. Psychloppos followed me here from a completely unrelated talk page. Him replying "I agree" to everything you say and "You're wrong" to everything I say does not result in a community consensus. Your response above did not address my points about the Goldberg and Shriver paragraphs. What is the thing that I'm supposedly not hearing? 46.97.170.26 (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That your points about the Goldberg and Shriver sources are pure WP:OR, which I've been saying since the very first time I responded to you. It does not matter what you personally think about what Goldberg and Shriver have to say about cultural appropriation, they are writing in reliable sources as WP:RSOPINIONs, and it is not as if their position is an incredibly rare one that we can discount per WP:DUE, when there are six different reliably sourced paragraphs of criticism, and probably further more that could be found. As above _{so below} 22:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to what information is included in an article. It does not apply to evaluating whether a source is up to wikipedia's standards or not. This article is about Cultural Appropriation and the section is about criticism of the term. It's not about Goldberg or Shriver, so whether my evaluation of their reliability and of whether or not they're qualified to contribute to the discourse in any meaningful way. We don't cite creationists on articles related to evolution and this is no different. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it is different. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to what information is included in an article and thus also applies to removing information based on what is plainly your own interpretation of what Goldberg and Shriver are saying. both the clickbait title of his article and his use of discrediting terms like "desperate to be offended" clearly shows that he's just a right wing pundit writing about "muh woke outrage" is plain as day personal analysis of a source to come to a conclusion not explicit in the source, and using that conclusion to discount it. The fact is, The Guardian and The Chicago Tribune are reliable sources, this isn't WP:UNDUE weight being given to a WP:FRINGE opinion (as further exemplified by the numerous other criticisms Zanahary has added since this started).

At this point, though, this discussion has run its course and so there's no point in continuing to argue. If I were you, I might take the fact that this is the third time you've tried to remove the bulk of the criticism, the third time you've been reverted, and that no-one else has agreed with you as clues that maybe the consensus is not for your viewpoint. As above _{so below} 03:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

...as further exemplified by the numerous other criticisms Zanahary has added since this started

Those criticisms are not the subject of this discussion. I'm only talking about two specific criticisms from people who are not subject matter experts and their opinion is informed entirely by their personal biases. Especially because the more better criticisms are included, the more unnecessary those two become. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think that the key point is that the criticism section should focus on subject-matter experts, since those exist and are the best sources available, but beyond that it ought to be divided into threads of commentary, with similar opinions combined (eg. x, y, and z say xyz.) Think about what the section should look like when it's complete. The risk of such sections is that they essentially turn into nose-counting - an indiscriminate collection of anyone who has ever criticized the concept in any RS. That's not encyclopedic writing; it's undue to eg. cite eg. five different people from the same political perspective in a way that gives them each their own paragraph and extended quote when they're basically establishing the same thing. Instead, things like that should be combined into a more brief summary. And ideally the section should be cited, as much as possible, to secondary sources summarizing and characterizing criticism, rather than solely to a bunch of opinion pieces; that would give us more indication of which criticisms are actually relevant and what their significance is. --Aquillion (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)