Jump to content

Talk:Popular culture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Intro edit

You may well say, who am I to edit this page? What makes you an expert in pop culture? Well, I hate popular culture, at least certain part of it, and I know what I hate.Paul V. Keller (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


While I strongly agree with the "Popular culture and the Wikipedia" section in this article, I wonder if it belongs there:

  1. it violates the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references guideline; and
  2. it's probably POV (thh it's a POV I certainly embrace).

Thoughts? • Benc • 20:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd argue that this paragraph is not so much about the Wikipedia as about popular culture. Put it this way: what happens when you invite the general public to coauthor an encyclopedia? You get an encyclopedia that has a huge amount of popular culture in it. In other words, the Wikipedia is an inadvertent experiment that reveals (at least in a very approximate way) what a large fraction of people's minds is occupied with popular culture. I feel that this is interesting and is one of the things I've learned by working on the Wikipedia.
The section also makes the claim that the Wikipedia is actually better than other encyclopedias because it covers so much popular culture. This is perhaps a clearer violation of the bans on self-reference and on POV, and seems to me the most plausible candidate for deletion. Opus33 21:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One of the niftiest edits I ever made to Wikipedia was when I was able to source the Chinese Wikipedia regarding an urban legend which had become attached to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The protestors had staged a hunger strike, which to Western observors had seemed to do them no harm; but it became believed by some in China that some protestors had starved to death. This had come to be reported as fact in the Chinese Wikipedia, (I don't know if it is still there). Anyway this made a nice addition to the English article. Fred Bauder 23:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

This is not mentioned in the article, but is an illustration of how popular culture and Wikipedia may interact. This can come in the guise of error which people insist on including or as in the above illustration a window into a particular popular culture. Fred Bauder 23:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Definite article before "Wikipedia"

Hmm... I was certain that normal usage is that one says the Wikipedia. The analogue I had in mind was the Encylopedia Brittanica, right? Opus33 03:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removal of sections

I removed the section on "Popular culture and the Wikipedia" for the reasons mentioned above. If it were better written and sourced, it might be usable, but a section dedicated to Wikipedia is hardly necessary at this point to an encyclopedia article about popular culture. I also removed the "References" section because it only contained a mention of an urban legend, one which has no relationship to the article's content and does not establish how urban legends relate to popular culture (I'm not arguing that they don't, but you can't start rambling about tangents without somehow showing that they relate to the topic at hand). --Michael Snow 00:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which Bennett?

Pardon my ignorance, but which "Bennett" does this article refer to at the end of the 1st paragraph? After this is figured out, it can be linked to the relevant person's article. Danga 12:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I presume William Bennett via http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3058/is_200209/ai_n7696609 --Jahsonic 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've added a cleanup tag to this article because I think it can be improved upon significantly. But I'm not sure how to approach it myself. Basically, I think what's there at the moment is very confusing and doesn't give a clear (or indeed, accurate) description of this phenomenon. As it stands, it's largely a hotch-potch of poorly chosen examples that don't serve much other than to further cloud the issue. And just in a general sense, it doesn't strike one as terribly 'encyclopaedic'. I hope I'm not the only one with this opinion, but if I am, feel free to remove the tag. Thanks. 80.177.20.202 02:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually disagree with this somewhat, reason being: after reading through it I could find nothing to denote that it isn't informative on the subject, especially considering nailing down the genesis of it all isn't an exceptionally easy task nor is there any one "definitive" source regarding it all. What I slightly agree with is the hodge-podge of examples, but given the wide array to choose from, much of it could be a lot worse than what was used. Of course, room for disagreement with my own interpretation is fair and if any believe it should be remarked, feel free to do so. TheMonkofDestiny 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well yes, indeed, much improvement has occurred since i actually tagged the article as needing a cleanup back in september (but then again, that's the point of cleanups, right?). so obviously its removal comes with a whole new batch of circumstances, ones which i am willing to adopt and indeed agree with — i think it has been cleaned up sufficiently. now i'd just rank it as another one of thousands of respectable, but far from perfect, wikipedia articles :) 80.177.20.202 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

"Culture, as a way of defining ones self, needs to attract people's interest and persuade them to invest a part of themselves in it. People like to feel a part of a tribe and understand their identity within that tribe. This works well in small communities and people feel needed and special in their small world. Mass culture however lets people define themselves in relation to everybody else in mass society. In a sense it 'makes the ball park a lot bigger' and we have to fight harder to find and keep our identity."

This paragraph contains many platitudes. In particular, the 'ball park' phrase is annoying. The first two sentences do not say anything that is not already evident and do not seem to add anything to the article. Rintrah 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed some of the important history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_culture&diff=50545397&oldid=49010889


That's the one that saw it done away with. This person added some good contributions, but (probably by accident), this person deleted much of the history of early pop culture. This should be addressed. --Gaming King 18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a section called "popular culture in popular culture." Tell me all about how popular culture appears in video games, cartoons, and teen movies. I need to know! Brian G. Crawford 01:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a Popular culture in popular culture article, for satirical prposes (but with real information). Totnesmartin 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed a section by this title which was added April 3[1], I really don't think it's appropriate to have a section whose title is intended to be a joke in the article,try Uncyclopedia. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The section "in popular culture" is a legitimate section in an article. Whether or not it is perceived to be a joke in This article is separate from its legitimacy as a section. The section "In popular culture" is not a joke simply because it is in an article about popular culture. Popular culture as an idea or as a subject matter of discourse does appear in media which is itself also popular culture. The fact that such a thing seems recursive doesn't mean it isn't separate from the simple definition of popular culture itself, and it does not make it unworthy of mention or unworthy of having examples given. The section "Popular culture, in popular culture" might sound like a joke, but is only as much of a joke as its contents, for which there is legitimate material. 75.65.3.183 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This section keeps getting recreated as a list of references to "popular culture". In other words, it keeps getting recreated as a list of TV shows and pop segments about popular culture. Given that TV shows and radio shows are pop culture, we just keep getting a list of TV/radio shows that reference other TV/radio shows. Does nobody else see the massive problem here? If someone wants to create a section about critical examinations of popular culture (properly referenced, and not just a collection of Gary Coleman jokes from Family Guy), then they can go ahead. However, listing references to popular culture is just an indiscriminate list of information that easily balloons and defeats the purpose of an article. --Wafulz 21:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Done: Created a start on a cited, encyclopedic section that talks about self-reference in popular culture, along with some cultural criticism. Feel free to extend or modify this section, but please discuss prior to removing it, and also please be ready to substantiate any additions with a citation. As Wafulz indicated, indiscriminate list of information applies here, this is not the place to exhaustively list your favorite TV shows. Also, WP:WEIGHT indicates any additions must be proportionate to the subject matter of the article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And it desperately needs to include this xkcd comic simply for the alt-text. The world will implode.
People did edit it in, but neither the world nor the blogosphere imploded. xkcd lied.--Father Goose (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping it would be there, too, but I suppose it is inappropriate. And an implosion would imply that the blogosphere became vacuous, or went away. And as evidenced by all the recent debate over this section of this page, it instead more accurately caused and explosion of the blogosphere. --Chadoh (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone put it in already. It's funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.88.192 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I added in a section about the xkcd comic, citing the comic itself and merely stating what it is. It is an excellent example of pop culture in pop culture, and having only TV shows as examples of such references is a rather limited outlook on popular cutlure. Is this comic not pop culture? Does it not reference pop culture in a direct way that may better show the reader what the topic is? I have seen the Seinfield show referenced above, and I was still a bit confused by its paragraph. If you feel the section I added was inappropriately worded, feel free to edit, but it's existence in this section of the article seems hard to argue with. (and as stated above, "The fact that such a thing seems recursive doesn't mean it isn't separate from the simple definition of popular culture itself, and it does not make it unworthy of mention or unworthy of having examples given.")

This article needs a section called "popular culture in popular culture in popular culture." Tell me all about how popular culture in popular culture appears in metagames, satire and comedys. 125.236.180.250 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First person?

Why is this article written partly in first person plural? Sheep81 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs to be Wikified badly. --P-Chan 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins

Thje origins section contains no dates other than a mention of WWII. I would expect a section with such a title to at least try to give some date of birth (beginning of the 20th century, Victorian era, 17th century,...the Twenties???) 211.225.32.196 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

added references and cite

This article seems to share a similarity with pop icon, both can stand a bit more citation. It would seem one issue is everyone immersed in pop culture is in some respects an "expert", and thus some kind of validational framework may help to solidify the article structure. Any thoughts? Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: For example, does anyone have any support or explanation for this section? It seems a very vague, folksy tone, and 'off-the-cuff':

If one regards culture as a way of defining oneself (an extremely individualist approach), ...[snip]... (such as a wide-spread language, a former colonial empire, a religion...) or even of a whole planet.

It seems this deserves a rework in order to improve the article. dr.ef.tymac 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Not insightful

This article adds precious little insight into the elements of sales and marketing which are so tightly woven into most of what is called Pop culture that the "culture" , or "grown from roots" part of the term has very tenuous connection to its roots. GregInCanada 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What you want is a Marxist approach. Fair enough, but if such a view is included in the article, several other political methods of analysis queues up -- all of them focusing mainly on one small part of the issue. Sales and marketing today is a part of all culture; not just the "popular" kind. The kind of insight that's really missing here: The article deals mainly with "modern pop culture in the Western world", as distinct from "elite culture". But these levels of culture are intervowen and dynamically changing: Some of what's "elite culture" now was created within a "popular culture" context, and vice versa. Traditional, political theory most often conceal this complexity. -- Linkomfod 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Removed the definition from the lead - popular culture (literally: culture of the people). Im not an English professor but seems like someone is unsure what literally means there. NatashaUK 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy

Shouldn't Family Guy be mentioned somewhere in the article? After all, it's very famous for the cultural references. TheBlazikenMaster 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, because this isn't meant to be an exhaustive article of mentions and uses of popular culture. Seinfeld and The Simpsons are just given as illustrative examples.-Wafulz 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy has away more popular culture than Simpsons, I know because I watched all episodes up to season 9 of Simpsons and all episodes up to volume 4 of Family Guy, including the FG movie. TheBlazikenMaster 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. That is original research.
  2. That is your opinion. You are not a reliable source.
  3. This still doesn't address the fact that the current examples are illustrative and there is no need to make an exhaustive list.-Wafulz 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Better examples?

If you want to expand the examples beyond American television (but not much) how about Stay Tuned and Bad Wolf as examples? And (the name escapes me) the author who uses the events in famous novels as cross-referencing "real" settings in his stories. And plain old metafiction needs a link here too. Totnesmartin 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The author is Jasper Fforde. Totnesmartin 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article could do with...

...some of Theodor Adorno's criticisms? Totnesmartin 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Western pop culture

See my comments at Western culture for my suggestion regarding Western popular culture. -Harmil (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Blood Sisters?

I have yet to find any evidence on the existence of the aformentioned show, referenced in the "Examples from American television" section. Is it possible that the information is made up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.66.185 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to me to be very biased. I nominated it to be checked for neutrality. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.253.57 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A question or two.

Id never heard this term before I stumbled across Wikipedia last year, so can someone explain simply?

Also, what is it to me? Does it have any relevance? It seems like something made by the media judging what is "Popular" or not. I like what I like whether its known or not.

Thanks. Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


If you have not come across this term before it is safe to say it has no relevance to you, and I am a little puzzled as to why you are questioning it.
It is a term used widely, and for a number of years. It was certainly not created by 'the media' in the way you are suggesting, if anything, it is academic.
Popular culture simply refers to anything 'mainstream'.
(although 'mainstream' could also be argued)

Doitdoitdoitnow (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. Explains it to me. 77.99.186.110 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvastarr (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no.

I agree that we need validational framework. This whole page reads oddly. Perhaps it's too big a subject for one page, since huge portions of the rest of wikipedia could theoretically link here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvastarr (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a load of trivial and tedious references used to replace real humour.

Wikipedia seems to love this brand of humour. I rarely hear this term in usage only on here really.

Seems more of an american thing made famous by MTV.

Can anybody shed any light why it's so "popular" or needed? 77.99.186.110 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be looking for a definition of popular culture. I assume then that the article Popular culture, did not provide a quick definition which answered your questions. Hyacinth (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That article is too in depth for me. Im just looking for what it basically means, not what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.186.110 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You want to know the meaning of something without even knowing what it is? Hyacinth (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like someone has a grudge against pop culture references on WP. Anyway, this term is used widely and is not something that was invented or made famous by MTV. In fact, I doubt anyone on MTV has ever uttered the term. I think "pop culture" is actually "modern culture", people use the term when they want to refer to the popular media such as music, tv, and movies. When you think of actual "culture" you think of the arts and humanities such as theater, paintings, and literature. There really is no difference between the two, culture is culture no matter how you label it... whether you're sipping wine and enjoying an orchestra, or chugging beer and moshing at a rock concert. To say one is worth more than the other is pure snobbery. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ErgoSum88, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining about it like that. Makes more sense to me now.

Cheers! 77.99.186.110 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, this talk page isn't or settling grudges with Wikipedia, it's for improving the article, Popular culture.
If one has a problem with Wikipedia policy or practice as a whole one should visit Help:Contents or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy or assistant). Hyacinth (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


It wasnt so much a settling of a grudge, it was more so a question. Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Institutional propagation section

ok, quotes are important, but just listing quotes related to the topic wihtout real context just makes an article hard to read, this section doesn't really have a sort of conclusion. good quotes but some text would be nice ;) 80.108.32.133 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

XKCD: Comic parodying Wikipedia

http://xkcd.com/446/ Vandals are coming? --71.72.228.13 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There ought too to be a 'in popular culture' section for this article!24.47.151.201 (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, it's an effort to create a more comprehensive Wikipedia article. Granted some of those stubs could use some attention but work is work! 72.196.14.187 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a wonderful addition to have an "In Popular Culture" section in this article... watching the blogoshpere implode would be awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.81.160 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Joking aside, I think it would at least be non-vandalism to add some note or reference to the XKCD comic on this pageFordi (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that this article has absolutely nothing to do with xkcd whatsoever, and this article isn't very related to the "In Popular Culture" concept. I've said in many comment areas (which oddly find their way deleted, and never with any kind of explanation) that there's already an article suited for redirect: Wikipedia:"In popular culture" - redirecting it here doesn't make too much sense, at all. That being said, I am still curious as to why multiple talk page entries have been deleted without notice - is there an article outlining the policy of what can and can't be removed from talk pages, and why? I'd like to see that. X-Kal (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Very few things should be removed from talk pages -- see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments.--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the fact that the page already has a section titled "self-referentiality" makes it almost irresistable to edit in something about the comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.18.230 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ever since that xkcd comic was posted, I have watched editors try and add a section or paragraph to this page (see article history) while other editors have come along and reverted the changes citing "vandalism" in the edit summary. I think its time to put this issue to rest. As far as relevance goes, I think if NBC Nightly News did a story about "In popular culture" sections in Wikipedia then nobody would have a problem adding that anecdote to this article. But because some lowly webcomic made a cartoon about this, some people think it isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. I think it is relevant and deserves a mention in this article, and if anyone wants to challenge this notion then I invite them to join the discussion. Otherwise, I'm going to start reverting the reverts of the deletionists. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Lowly webcomic? You have no idea. By the way, the same happened to Citation Needed. Why is "Popular Culture in Popular Culture" section referencing the xkcd entry so bad? 189.155.246.223 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it's the wrong article for that. It'd be bad to try to make the blogosphere implode and _miss_.137.224.252.10 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't specific to the academic topic of "popular culture"; it's a joke about Wikipedia's ad hoc style of listing a given subject's presence and influence in popular culture. Jokes made in the popular media about Wikipedia do belong on the page Wikipedia in culture. The biggest reason why so many people are trying to insert it in this specific article (where it doesn't belong, from an organizational point of view) is because the xkcd author put an additional joke in the image's alt tag saying that "the blogosphere would collapse" if a reference to the comic were placed in Wikipedia's "In popular culture" article. Ha ha, yes, but that still doesn't mean it belongs in this article, which is not about Wikipedia or "popular culture sections".--Father Goose (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point FatherGoose, I was just a little miffed at it being labeled as vandalism... nor did I see any reason to semi-protect the page. One could argue that, in fact, xkcd is part of popular culture and thus deserves a mention but its way too early in the morning for that, and I'm late for work. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" - Wikipedia:Avoid_self-reference#Articles are about their subjects. Hyacinth (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps then "Wikipedia:In popular culture"? Tsuyoshikentsu (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If someone would like to take a peek at that section, actually, I think that's a worthy addition, although I would hope for more than a quick blurb about "Hey folks, this concept was mentioned in xkcd" - there's some important commentary we're missing amidst the revert/vandalism/etc war we seem to be locked in, right now. X-Kal (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference#Writing about Wikipedia itself. Hyacinth (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a specific Wikipedia page, use external link style so the link will make sense in any context."189.155.246.223 (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Avoid_self-reference#Articles are about their subjects. Hyacinth (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyacinth, we get the freaking point. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not. Hyacinth (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes xkcd notable in regards to self-reference within populur culture? Hyacinth (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One way or another it's not staying in this article because this isn't the right place for it, despite xkcd saying "edit this into Wikipedia for epic lulz". Besides, the blogosphere has successfully imploded, so we need to move on to the next joke now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh golly gee, I just can't wait for the next joke! xkcd gives my life so much purpose! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-10 16:00Z

Wouldn't this all be fixed if the "in popular culture" entry redirected to "wikipedia: in popular culture" instead of this article? I agree that the comic wasn't about popular culture, so adding a reference here would make little sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.198.176 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture has been referenced by many online web pages, online blogs, and even television. Some notable examples include;

This paragraph could be improved, but I don't have the relevant information. I think these points could usefully be be addressed.

  1. The heading and first sentence aren't clear. Does it mean The idea of an "in popular culture" list has been used in ... or The idea of an "in popular culture" list has been parodied in...? Or something else?
  2. The Wikipedia link is to this same page. That's just weird and confusing.
  3. The Colbert Report reference needs more details, maybe a citation. I'm all agog to go and view the relevant parts of that show now, but I don't want to trawl through all the episodes to find it.
  4. Ditto for the Simpsons link, can't the specific episodes be noted? Also, is this just the same episode mentioned in the above section, in which case this reference is redundant. Lessthanideal (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, so? What does that have to do with this article? Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't even need to be there because the article already has a section about "Popular Culture within Popular Culture" ... see "Self-Referentiality". dr.ef.tymac (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hyacinth - When I wrote the comment, that paragraph was in the article... I see someone has sensibly removed it now. Lessthanideal (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of all of us being tangled in a constant battle against crazed xkcd fans attempting to add a needless "In Popular Culture" section to this Popular Culture article, why not just rename the "Self-Referentiality" section "Popular Culture in Popular Culture?" This section already contains necessary information that is neither excessive or random. It stays on topic, and will end the problem of constant vetting of xkcd fans changes. 71.64.106.72 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah, they'd still insist on inserting mention of xkcd in the article. As time goes on, they'll tire of it, or just forget about it, and stop trying. There are already far fewer xkcd-related edits to the article than there were when the "pop culture" strip was first released.--Father Goose (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wiki policy page discussing 'in popular culture' sections of articles? If not, should there be? If so, should it be linked from here? Maybe there is and I'm missing it.--Justfred (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Respond to self: duh. Wikipedia:IPC--Justfred (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the section to xkcd. Hyacinth (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

lol wat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.143.143 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is bias than Fox News. Dumaka (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Particularly apt: http://xkcd.com/446/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrmdave (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is it supposed to be funny because wood isn't a concept, because wood is too common to be listed, or because the listings are super-dork rather than popular culture? Hyacinth (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's funny because listing every use of wood in popular culture would be very, very long, and very, very pointless. NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed

The above was removed without explanation. An prior revision was removed with the following explanation: "If the article references something which in turn references the same very article, then that is Wikipedia self-referencing which is not allowed. Removing." Hyacinth (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The xkcd comic is a comment specifically about Wikipedia's "in popular culture" sections. This article is about the broader subject of popular culture in general, and does not even mention Wikipedia's pop culture sections otherwise, so it doesn't seem particularly relevant.
I'm not sure the self-reference argument makes any sense. --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
When I removed it, it said this: "The idea of "in popular culture" has been used in self-reference in popular culture in the comic xkcd, particularly the comic "In Popular Culture", available at www.xkcd.com/446, which curiously enough references this section."
That was a reference to xkcd which in turn referenced that very section (according to the text), and I'm pretty sure having a reference to something that in turn references Wikipedia is not allowed.--GoldenMew (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Writing about something that mentioned Wikipedia is acceptable if it's a prominently relevant story. This isn't, though, and you're right that we should avoid giving undue weight to things that mention Wikipedia, simply because we happen to be editing Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was one of those who removed it, about an hour before you posted this, Hyacinth. I certainly didn't remove it without explanation though, nor was my removal the one you quote there. I removed it here with editsummary: "re-revert (history shows clear consensus, of multiple established editors, that doesn't belong in article)." Here's the sequence:
  1. User:GoldenMew removed it August 16, 22:56.
  2. You re-added it without explanation, using the content text in your editsummary.
  3. An IP removed the re-addition.
  4. You Undid that IP's edit, marked as minor, and using the default edit summary; which, incidentally, is (per its editnotice) intended only for undoing vandalism.
  5. I reverted your edit, with my editsummary I quoted above.
For clarity, here's further details of the "clear consensus of multiple…" from the article history:
  • Luksuh
  • McGeddon
  • Soap
  • Themfromspace
  • (me)
  • Gregorik; occasional IP w/editsummary. (All 2009.)
  • 2008: Father Goose, Feezo, Ju66l3r, Brandon, Guest9999, etc.
That's not just 1 or 2 established editors removing it and not reinserting. That's consistent agreement among a significant amount of editors going back 1–2 years.
The following may be relevant: Articles for deletion/"In Popular Culture", Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, and mainspace: Wikipedia in culture. Regardless of its popularity the webcomic isn't a scholarly source, or a reliable source period. The specific cartoon was a joke on articles habitual listing of instances of their subject within popular culture—shows and the like, and recursion. It was not scholarly analysis of ethnography, culture and society. It doesn't belong in this article. –Whitehorse1 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article

I have tagged this article with a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV] tag as it seems to be written from a very anti-popular culture point of view, with subtle jabs all over the place (such as linking 'culture' to the 'cult' page). Nearly all the quotes within the article take a critical viewpoint of popular culture. The page should be edited to remove these biases, possibly creating another section labeled "criticisms of popular culture' in which references and an overview of these concerns can be voiced. 66.63.103.149 (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article as a whole is OK. There's already a section tag in place, indicating bias. Gregorik (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

issue with first definition

Wikipedia is supposed to be the people's encyclopedia, not just academics'. I agree with the second section's acknowledgment that popular culture is hard to define, and that both "popular" and "culture" are essentially contested concepts. However, the opening definition is abstruse. What is "deemed preferred by the mainstream" has absolutely no empirical validity, unless someone has conducted a comprehensive survey of the "mainstream." Furthermore, the term "mainstream" itself is a reification. I contest the existence of anything that can be agreed to be "popular culture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdavis1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're free to contest anything but on that basis much of the Wikipedia content could be challenged and/or erased. All WP articles are based on consensus and no one else seems to challenge this definition. It's probably the best definition most of us could (re-)conceive. What would be yours? Gregorik (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"The totality of [blah, blah, blah - insert here] that the average person of any society is likely to have encountered or been influenced by." Essentially, my issue is that the "mainstream" shouldn't necessarily have to "prefer" something in order for it to be "popular culture," they just have to come into contact with it, plain and simple. For instance, a Coca Cola commercial might have influenced me, and thus 'cultivated' some thought or behavior in me, even though I don't even like Coca Cola or the commercial particularly. With this definition, we would be taking out what I consider to be the faulty notion that one must go out of one's way to receive culture. Even the bourgeois who go to classical concerts are influenced by much of the same culture as that brainless raver. What if 51% of Americans listened to Beethoven everyday, and only 49% listened to Jay-Z? Would we be ready to identify Beethoven as a pop culture icon? Csdavis1 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourced content

The last sentence of the first paragraph is currently sourced by nine different sources. Is not that too much? I mean, most are Christian; there might be the need for more diversity. Furthermore, the last source, titled "Japan’s increasingly superficial pop culture?," does not look like a RS to me, even though the link contains some interesting information (consult comments) that might benefit of being included in some way or another in the article, especially through inspiration from some of its ideas. Twipley (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial claims need to be backed up with multiple references on WP, as in this lead. The Japan-related source is a blog, but we need to examine if the blogger is notable; then it can stay. Gregorik (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, this is nonsense. Statements in the WP:LEAD in a developed article should not be referenced at all, they should summarize information from the article body (which should obviously be referenced, but in the body, not the lead). Pasting a whole bunch of footnotes to a controversial statement is extremely bad style. Pick one good reference and drop the others. It the statement is controversial, cite another one good reference stating as much. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourced content

The last sentence of the first paragraph is currently sourced by nine different sources. Is not that too much? I mean, most are Christian; there might be the need for more diversity. Furthermore, the last source, titled "Japan’s increasingly superficial pop culture?," does not look like a RS to me, even though the link contains some interesting information (consult comments) that might benefit of being included in some way or another in the article, especially through inspiration from some of its ideas. Twipley (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial claims need to be backed up with multiple references on WP, as in this lead. The Japan-related source is a blog, but we need to examine if the blogger is notable; then it can stay. Gregorik (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, this is nonsense. Statements in the WP:LEAD in a developed article should not be referenced at all, they should summarize information from the article body (which should obviously be referenced, but in the body, not the lead). Pasting a whole bunch of footnotes to a controversial statement is extremely bad style. Pick one good reference and drop the others. It the statement is controversial, cite another one good reference stating as much. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

issue with first definition

Wikipedia is supposed to be the people's encyclopedia, not just academics'. I agree with the second section's acknowledgment that popular culture is hard to define, and that both "popular" and "culture" are essentially contested concepts. However, the opening definition is abstruse. What is "deemed preferred by the mainstream" has absolutely no empirical validity, unless someone has conducted a comprehensive survey of the "mainstream." Furthermore, the term "mainstream" itself is a reification. I contest the existence of anything that can be agreed to be "popular culture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdavis1 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're free to contest anything but on that basis much of the Wikipedia content could be challenged and/or erased. All WP articles are based on consensus and no one else seems to challenge this definition. It's probably the best definition most of us could (re-)conceive. What would be yours? Gregorik (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"The totality of [blah, blah, blah - insert here] that the average person of any society is likely to have encountered or been influenced by." Essentially, my issue is that the "mainstream" shouldn't necessarily have to "prefer" something in order for it to be "popular culture," they just have to come into contact with it, plain and simple. For instance, a Coca Cola commercial might have influenced me, and thus 'cultivated' some thought or behavior in me, even though I don't even like Coca Cola or the commercial particularly. With this definition, we would be taking out what I consider to be the faulty notion that one must go out of one's way to receive culture. Even the bourgeois who go to classical concerts are influenced by much of the same culture as that brainless raver. What if 51% of Americans listened to Beethoven everyday, and only 49% listened to Jay-Z? Would we be ready to identify Beethoven as a pop culture icon? Csdavis1 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

issue with this paragraph

"Culture, as a way of defining ones self, needs to attract people's interest and persuade them to invest a part of themselves in it. People like to feel a part of a tribe and understand their identity within that tribe. This works well in small communities and people feel needed and special in their small world. Mass culture however lets people define themselves in relation to everybody else in mass society. In a sense it 'makes the ball park a lot bigger' and we have to fight harder to find and keep our identity."

ok... "needs to attract..." totally implies a sense of duty on the part of culture, as though culture is an agent that is actively engaging in people's lives. what ever happened to viewing culture as a matter of circumstance? whats up with the idea of an overarching duty? can culture conceivably fail to fulfull any such duty? i cant speak for everyone, but i really dont think the bulk of us see things on those terms at all.

"people like to feel a part of the tribe..." ok imho this just sounds a little naive. do we really need to put a "tribe mentality" spin on it?

"Alpha" society members

I removed this line:

"Still another [view] says that popular culture is actually the culture adopted by cultural mavens or alphas, and then modified later by the laggards of the mainstream."

For one, pop culture isn't "modified" by people. For example, if MTV Cribs shows extravagant and excessive lifestyles, people try to emulate, not modify. It's proven sociological fact that people have a tendency to go with the flow.

Secondly, "laggards of the mainstream" is very POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Usernamefortonyd


That's a fanatically holistic view of the issue: the exchange between cultures and individuals is two way -- user:anonymous

Moved from article

"Apparently an oxymoron, (from wikipedia), "Gnosticism has seen something of a resurgence in popular culture in recent years."

Please keep "Talk" on the "Talk" page.

I'd say esotericism of all kinds, including ideas from Gnosticism, has *definitely* become part of popular culture in recent years.

Irrelevant Part

"In the absence of agreement on what popular culture, the popular arts, or mass culture may be, I will offer my own definition. (I prefer the term popular culture not only because it is the most widely accepted description of what we are talking about, but also because it seems to me the most accurate.)"

I don't think Wikipedia articles should be written in the first person, so I removed this sentence. The absence of agreement on the definition of pop culture was already mentioned earlier, so it doesn't need to be rementioned, and the definition that was provided below was fine.

Kraftwerk citation

Several sources for the quotation needing a citation can be found, such as here: http://www.artistopia.com/kraftwerk and here: http://www.musicaldb.com/artists/Kraftwerk/. But also appears in an early version of Wikipedia: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk . It's not obvious who copied who.

Could someone who knows what they're doing please verify, and edit the page to add the citation if they believe this is correct?

Christian references

Anonymous user here--I just noticed that, out of the first ten references, about half a dozen are to Christian POV web sites, though the information attributed is general and not POV. Surely there are better (academic, non-biased) sources from which to draw a characterization of popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.4.60 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, i came here to make a joke about the idea of an article about the use of "in popular culture" in popular culture. surprise, we have a subsection on this. now, if we can find evidence in popular culture that this recursive meme itself is being spread, we can have a further subsection with the title of this comment. anyone for infinite recursivity? Oh, its in here already...well, that's actually really cool.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read [[2]]?I've come here by reading the tooltip(mouse over the image)...:D--87.7.73.98 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah, and i just came here again, forgetting i came her earlier. senility has its benefits(merc)76.253.6.53 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This article needs an In Popular Culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, since it already has this section, i agree it needs this section, otherwise the section would no longer exist, and the emptiness therein would become a black hole eating up all of WP:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've renamed this section to "Intertextuality", lifting a prominent word from the contents of section - it's maybe a bit oblique, so if anyone has a better suggestion ("self-reference"?), feel free to change it. Calling the section about self-reference "[Popular culture] in popular culture" seems needlessly confusing to the reader, and I assume it's just there because of the Xkcd gag. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I really think someone ought to put in a bit about the xkcd cartoon about this. If no one objects, I could work on it, but if someone is better at this stuff, feel free. It's at: http://xkcd.com/446/. Bigroryg (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please see the previous discussions on this in the talk archives (e.g. #29) – there's long consensus it doesn't belong here. Thanks, Bigroryg. –Whitehorse1 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just cut both of these again. A title of "[Popular culture] in popular culture" is amusing, but is clearer as "self-referentiality" or something, and clarity should trump a good joke if we're writing an encyclopedia.
"The popular webcomic xkcd also references this self-referentiality in the title text of the comic 'In Popular Culture'." just means "if you put this article down and open a comic if you can open a comic on the device you were reading this on, there'll be a joke about the title of the section you just read, the end", which is again just a joke rather than anything that advances the reader's understanding of pop culture.
As the actual strip of XKCD that we're discussing shows us, adding "that show I like made a joke about this" often just makes a Wikipedia article look dumb. WP:XKCD has a good breakdown of when these kinds of references are useful, and when they're not. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If people decide to change the name of this section again, please also fix Popular culture in popular culture. I'm getting tired of changing the section anchor. Maybe use an {{anchor}} with the current section name? --NYKevin 06:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Self-referentiality"

Looking at this again (after an IP skipped boldly past the section and tried to start a new one about popular-culture-in-popular-culture), should we perhaps just lose the "Self-referentiality" section? It has an air of somebody trying to write several academic-sounding paragraphs to make a "Popular culture in popular culture" section exist in order to honour the XKCD gag, rather than something that would have been written on its own merits. (High culture does not have a "high culture in high culture" section, pop music does not have "pop music in pop music", even though there's plenty of self-referentiality in both.) --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cut this section, after three months with no response. --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Literature section

I don't understand why this section was in the article. It was totally unreferenced and seems to be about propaganda. I've deleted it. Feel free to add it back if you can find some references Bhny (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that some of the articles use for information and reference were articles of a certain bias. By including these types of articles that carry a certain tone in them puts feelings into the facts that should not be there. However this article does read from a neutral stance, not leaning towards anything in particular. This does give a more broad stance on what popular culture is and not a lot of examples. It includes some of the history and how popular culture emerged. The information within this article is relatively up to date with references. Oliviawholley93 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)oliviawholley93

The term and how it started

This article strikes me as confused in certain ways, but I agree when it suggests that popular culture has a meaning other than "culture that's popular". (In fancy lingo, that "popular culture" is not completely compositional.) I think that most people here would agree.

The article says:

Although the Oxford English Dictionary lists the first use [of the term] as 1854, it appears in an address by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in 1818: Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich (1818). The Address of Pestalozzi to the British Public. I see that it is impossible to attain this end without founding the means of popular culture and instruction upon a basis which cannot be got at otherwise than in a profound examination of Man himself; without such an investigation and such a basis all is darkness.

It seems to me that "popular" in the Pestalozzi quote has scope over both "culture" and "instruction". (Not "popular culture" + "instruction", but instead "popular (culture + instruction)".) If this is so, it would be odd for "popular culture" to be noncompositional (to mean something other than culture that's popular). And if Pestalozzi indeed meant "popular culture" compositionally, then his was merely a use of the two-word string, not of the term. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Popular culture. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be expanded. I'm not 100% sure what content should be added, though. What is Popular culture? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this section needs to be fleshed out a bit with additional credible citations and a perhaps a broader scope as well. The whole article overall might also benefit from some more cohesive and clearly organized sections, and a stronger emphasis on both relevant cultural theorists and good examples that give context. I'm a bit new to editing so I hope to get some great feedback from everyone as I improve my skills :)!--Itherina (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Itherina, good changes. Keep up the good work. AnaSoc (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Films

Should films be included in the entertainment section? Flxsh zeraora (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Whombaya

Popular culture (also called pop culture) is generally recognized[by whom?]

Some of these whomerisms are worse than others.

Here's the short answer: On one side, all of Madison Avenue and every senior editor in America who in any way depends upon their custom; on the other side, every left-leaning professor of the humanities in America who has ever lifted a political scalpel against the cisgender-blinkered patriarchy and its lost sheep.

And, seriously, that's just an appetizer in what could easily devolve into a complete national census (excepting a few nooks and crannies of West Virginia that resemble the culturally isolated valleys of Papua New Guinea—to spread some sour icing on the popular culture Hillbilly meme).

You people do realize that The Beverly Hillbillies was a double irony? — MaxEnt

I do realize that popular culture sucks as an analytic term. But so does pornography—if you don't know it until you see it, it's already far too late to use as a mental tool. Pornography is when appreciation of the human form—let's politely exclude furry bipeds and all manner of quadrupeds—begins to coalesce as an action potential. Popular culture is a heady mixture of hotness, sentimentality, nostalgia, tradition, kitsch, and hip non-conformity hand-me-downs. We all know it when we see it. — MaxEnt 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of this article

I agree with @Itherina: that this page is definitely in need of some reorganization!:) There seems to be a lot of work needed on the Popular culture page, missing citations and unverified/unverifiable information on the page. The page kind of reads like an essay, and I want to try to fix this. Overall the article has had good work done, but it needs more structure overall. Some things that I noticed off the top of my head that I would like to implement would be:

Want to work on the origin of popular culture more-- something like “the rise of popular culture”.
Fix “Labelling penny dreadfuls the Victorian equivalent of video games, The Guardian in 2016 described penny fiction as "Britain's first taste of mass-produced popular culture for the young".[14]” Maybe make a new section with penny dreadfuls and how they promoted popular culture. The main focus should be talking about how this was a spark for popular culture. Possibly make a "then and now" pop culture or the like to show the evolution to the popular culture of now. The shift seems a little abrupt.
Reorganize the definitions section, this could be made into a different subsection so the flow of the article is better within the History section
Move the “The abbreviated form "pop" for popular, as in pop music, dates from the late 1950s.[20] Although terms "pop" and "popular" are in some cases used interchangeably, and their meaning partially overlap, the term "pop" is narrower. Pop is specific of something containing qualities of mass appeal, while "popular" refers to what has gained popularity, regardless of its style.[21][22]” Section because it randomly appears in the section.
Film section needs to be reworked, as it simply states that “films started massive popular culture”.

With that being said, I will be working these changes in the upcoming week. Kara Fennimore (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've found two articles on popular culture, Welsh mythology in popular culture and Eunuchs in popular culture, that include literature, and have suggested that these two titles should be changed to properly reflected their content – e.g. xxxxxx in the arts and popular culture. Feedback would be helpful. There are very likely other similar cases. Rwood128 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

See also, Devil in popular culture, Lilith in popular culture, and Werewolf in popular culture, which further examples of this confusion. Rwood128 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing discussion on my Talk page (under Move) about changes I had made to the titles of several articles concerned with popular culture. The changes were to articles that included works of literature, opera, and other high art forms in addition to popular culture, i.e. "Arcadia in popular culture" was changed to Arcadia in the arts and popular culture, and I changed the werewolf article to Werewolf in fiction and media. These changes more accurately reflect the content. Rwood128 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
How is opera high art? I thought it was typical low culture: "formulaic, employing trope conventions, stock characters and character archetypes in a manner that can be perceived as more simplistic, crude, emotive, unbalanced, or blunt". Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm,Dimadick? Indeed there are operas to which your comments apply, at least at the level of character and plot – though this is often redeemed by the music. There are of course numerous operas to which this doesn't apply. Anyhow opera certainly doesn't fit the usual definition of popular culture. Rwood128 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed

There are numerous indications of personal research being infused into the fabric of this article. This needs to be significantly addressed and promptly dealt with. I would remind you of WP:Research when infusing articles with personal narratives. Johndvandevert (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kara Fennimore.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RoonilWazli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

There really should be some content in this article about cultural appropriation, and specifically the tendency of popular culture to misrepresent cultural practices for entertainment value. BD2412 T 06:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popular_culture/Archive_1&oldid=1210777280"