Talk:Reappropriation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Race and ethnicity[edit]

The subsection §Examples§§Race and ethnicity (see e.g. ver 688756291) is highly problematic. It is a pastiche of entries which are either original research, unsupported, simple slang words for a group which are not reappropriations, or are not about race and ethnicity. I've boldly removed the ones which are unsupported, or which do not belong in an article about reappropriation.

One of the main problems were those entries in the list that are merely slang words for a minority group, with no indication that they have been reappropriated by that group; if anything, they belong in some other article like "slang words for minority groups" or similar; for example: Mick, Polack, Chink, Fenian, etc.

Some entries are racial or ethnic, but were historically a proper term not an insult, even if they fell out of common use, so not pertinent to this article. Example: Negress

Some entries are neither racial or ethnic, nor were they historically used as insults. Examples: Ginger, Hoosier, Tar Heel, Yinzer

Some entries are racial or ethnic and may have been insults in some other language but not the language of the minority group; in the case where the minority group picks up the term, it is not "reappropriation" but "appropriation" (since the word never existed in English before). Example: Farang.

A few of the deleted entries may be legitimate for this list. Example: redneck. This entry should be restored, with appropriate sourcing.

Additional entries in this list are welcome, but please be sure they meet these conditions:

  • the term was used historically as an insult against a racial or ethnic group at some time in the past (and possibly still is)
  • (some) members of the group now use the term in a positive or at least neutral way as a self-reference

and be sure to provide a source that demonstrates this. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Mathglot (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same idea, but for the section Reappropriation#Other examples. Examples of some entries which may deserve to be included if proper sources can be found demonstrating the two conditions: fat, tranny, geek. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bunch more removals of unsourced examples, some of which have been there since 2010, and were inherited from the merger from Reclaimed word. (So the editor who imported them here was not the one who originally added the unsourced material to the other article.) Also added some referencing and improved some others, tagged a few weak ones that could use better sources, and added new examples "peckerwood" and "white trash". Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Arcade[edit]

Regarding the following section:

The New York performance artist Penny Arcade sold what turned out to be her most popular show on the basis of the title, Bitch! Dyke! Faghag! Whore!, words she was reclaiming.

There was formerly an original research tag saying "Says who? Just because she used slurs doesn't automatically mean they are being 'reclaimed'". I replaced it with these references[1][2] However, I haven't seen these performances. I'm not sure whether to cite the web site or the performance it describes. Someone please fix the citation who knows better. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sondra.kinsey, Imho, the evidence given so far for this seems weak. First of all, your two references are really just one, published at two different urls, but having the same quotation alleging "reclamation". But I don't buy it, I don't think she's reclaiming at all; I think she's shock-jocking, to sell tickets and her PoV, which is half of what Gay Shame is all about. For another thing, they beat her to it by a long shot, for the first three at least; nothing much left for her to reclaim, really. And I don't think she's had much effect on the fourth one.
Secondly, how is an unnamed reviewer on some university website remotely a reliable source? If this New York performance is truly about reclamation, then you'll find something about it at New York Mag, NY Times reviews, the New Yorker, and other local or national media. If you can find some good sources, then fine; but if there's nothing forthcoming within a reasonable time, I'd be inclined to delete this. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Agreed. I removed the sentence.  Done Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sharing the index: Performance http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28447/
  2. ^ The deprivation indices: Taking stock of the FTSE http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28449/

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Reappropriation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reclamation or reappropriation[edit]

It seems that reclamation is more often used than reappropriation. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive; more evidence needed.
P.S.: took the liberty of retitling the section; feel free to move it back if you're not happy with it. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

who is Brontsema?[edit]

Name is inserted in article as if known, without reference or explanation of who it is

2601:1C1:8801:5B59:E9A7:F206:E5F4:7259 (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An "explanation" given in the "#See also" section does not seem right[edit]

the version of the article I looked at[edit]

This section (of this "Talk:" page ) was added when this version -- the "06:11, 1 August 2019" version -- was the current (latest) version of the "Reappropriation" article.

the "explanation" that does not seem right[edit]

The "explanation" given in the first entry in the "#See_also" section (in the above mentioned version of the article) says:

* Dysphemism treadmill, the process by which offensive terms can become acceptable without deliberate intervention.

but that does not seem to agree with some information found elsewhere.

that hyperlink may be a little bit tricky (or, "confusing")[edit]

For one thing, the hyperlink displayed as "Dysphemism treadmill" (the first two words of the "<blockquote>d" quote above) is a confusing one. It is displayed as "Dysphemism treadmill", which -- one might think! -- would lead, (via a redirect page), to the mainspace article about "Dysphemism" -- which the redirect page at Dysphemism treadmill" redirects to.

Not so fast!

However, that hyperlink -- (the one that is displayed as "Dysphemism treadmill") -- is piped to point to "Euphemism treadmill" instead; ...which, in turn, is a a redirect page, to the "#Evolution" section of [the article about] "Euphemism".

OK, so what does *that* (destination) say?[edit]

The "explanation" given there, does not say anything about "offensive terms" becoming "acceptable" [with or without "deliberate intervention"].

The word "treadmill" appears only once -- with or without "quote marks" -- there (in the "#Evolution" section of the article "Euphemism"). (In fact, only once in the entire article.) The sentence that contains the word "treadmill" says:

A euphemism may itself devolve into a taboo word, through the linguistic process known as semantic change (specifically pejoration) described by W. V. O. Quine,[16] and more recently dubbed the "euphemism treadmill" by Harvard professor Steven Pinker.[17]

...which seems very different from the "explanation" ("<blockquote>d" above) about << "[...] the process by which offensive terms can become acceptable [...]" >>.

For one thing, the "explanation" given -- (in the "#See_also" section of the "Reappropriation" article) -- says that it is explaining about the phrase "Dysphemism treadmill", but the authoritative source that it relies on, is talking about something completely different that can [also] happen "without deliberate intervention." The authoritative source is talking about the fact that (sometimes) a euphemism can devolve into a taboo word. That is almost 180 degrees the opposite of [the concept of] a word "becoming acceptable".

Any comments?[edit]

I might (eventually) add some more information here (on this "Talk:" page) about an idea for changing the wording so as to

  • still retain 'some' of the intent of the original author, if possible (if that "intent" can be reported by the author/editor, or discovered or deduced or 'surmised', somehow)

but also so as to

  • re-phrase things in a certain way, so as to avoid contradicting the relevant sentence in the "Euphemism" article (the article where the word "treadmill" appears) that is "linked to" from the entry in the "#See also" section. Also, so as to avoid linking to it, if it is the wrong source to be linking to.

However, (first) let's see whether anyone has any comments. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Jew" as a pejorative noun[edit]

This is a misconception, despite having multiple attributions.

"According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition (2000): "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun.""

The pejorative meaning is given when implied by the speaker, just as almost any similar word could be used pejoratively or respectfully, depending on intention. It's not an example of reappropriation; it may be an example of an opposite sort of phenomenon.

Drsruli (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should the word "retard"/"retarded" be added to the list?[edit]

I've seen many mentally disabled people use it (but this is of course completely anecdotal) 2603:9002:200:5289:8194:F613:BF5:5650 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reappropriation&oldid=1206183159"