Talk:Underwater basket weaving

Definition

Though this may not be verifiable, in some circles the class "underwater basket weaving" is thought to be a fictional idea. Some kids hear the phrase and think that it means "weaving baskets underwater" as though the class would need to be taught at the pool. 19:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that's what underwater basket weaving was, making baskets underwater.

I put in lots of links cause I figured if we were linking things like college, university, and humor, why not just link any word that has an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.248.249 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

see WP:EL -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Slant

Is it just me, or has this recently be rewritten and almost vandalized with what seems to be an extreme slant, and original and probably unverifiable research? I highly recommend looking up some of the things that were edited recently, and rewriting the article with removal of the quasi-vandalism in mind.

Also, I have seen no other mention of it being a sport anywhere, so this may or may not be someone's vandalism.

Ruduen 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a sense of humor man, LOL. I do think it was a joke. I wouldn't call it vandalism; just someone inserting satire into an appropriate subject. Though I don't know who Joeseph Mayberry is, so this personal reference should definitely be removed if the identity can't be verified. lololol

But seriously using a personal name could be slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.5.156 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Liz Cain

The Elizabeth Cain the article links to was born in 1962, several decades after the claimed invention of underwater basketweaving. Assuming the article is factual, is there another person that it should be redirected to, or should the link just be removed? Night1stalker 05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not current class offerings

No courses in basket weaving were found via these Google searches:

• Saint Joseph's College in Indiana:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.saintjoe.edu+basket+weaving

• Simon Fraser University in Canada:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.sfu.ca+basket+weaving

-Ac44ck (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote

I rewrote this, the page was a mess, and poorly researched. There is apparently a reference from 1954, but can't confirm: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705d&L=ads-l&P=11797 Fences and windows (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Early uses: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Nh8MAAAAIBAJ&sjid=llwDAAAAIBAJ&dq=underwater-basket-weaving&pg=5729%2C6367233 and http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s8QNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YXQDAAAAIBAJ&dq=underwater-basket-weaving&pg=6458%2C5722435 Fences and windows (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another joke syllabua was posted in 2003 by a student, Keith Adams, at CSU Chico:[1] Fences and windows (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What?

What does the picture of the Cherokee man soaking weaving material in water have to with this term? Wikipedia shows the world teh stoopid again. Are you kidding me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.225.245 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Basket weaving

It seems that plain old basket weaving slightly preceded underwater basket weaving as the butt of the joke. the first time I can find basket weaving being referred to pejoratively is in Life magazine in September 1951 as an easy course for footballers at American colleges.[2] It was also mentioned pejoratively in the same context in two news articles in 1954:[3][4] Fences&Windows 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible origin of the phrase

There's a strange, unsourced reference to Baleen in this section, which I'm removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.123.77 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

College Pro Football

What exactly is this supposed to mean. The link is just to the American football article, which doesn't explain anything. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable

You know, it's amazing how people can get away with denigrating one of the oldest skills and most important crafts in human civilization. We really need a response section from native elders. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "crafts" can be considered to flag the problem right off -- United States universities are usually not supposed to teach "crafts" as such, since that would be vocational education (though university academics can certainly sometimes study crafts in their historical and cultural contexts). AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like some clarification on this claim. It sounds to me like you are trying to make the distinction between liberal arts and job training, a distinction that became irrelevant some time last century. Most major universities teach crafts, such as medicine, computer programming, journalism, film, web design, etc. Basket weaving, one of the oldest crafts known to humanity, is no different, but unlikely to land you a good job. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The boundaries can be fuzzy at times, but Universities are in general supposed to teach "arts" and "sciences" and preparations for entering a professional career, but not "crafts" as such. On that scale, basket-weaving is at best parallel to training to be an auto-mechanic, and is at worst parallel to purely-frivolous "extras", and either way would not be seen to have much in common with the core mission of a university... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, basket weaving is an art like any other fine art taught in every major university, and informs the understanding of anthropology, archaeology, and even mathematics. There are entire books and fields of inquiry devoted to basket weaving, in an attempt to understand, for example, the Native American culture of the Southwest, stretching back eight millennia. Your POV reminds of a time when ethnic studies of every kind, except those of classical western culture, could not be found in academia. And to address your point about auto mechanics, that's a specific subset of engineering which is taught in universities, but at a more abstract level, with students focusing on creating new forms of vehicles and engines rather than just servicing them. Sorry, but this argument against basket weaving has too much of a racial overtone for me to take seriously. Understanding basket weaving is part of an academic curriculum, and this attempt to denigrate it smacks of overt ignorance, perhaps a vestigial remnant of the anti-Native Ameican fervor that once dominated the academy. In the name of numbers, in the pursuit of efficiency and speed, everything connected to the subjective expression produced from the human hand is being eliminated from the lexicon and the culture to make way for the new robot overlords. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger -- I didn't create the common views of the core mission of U.S. universities, and I'm not responsible for them, and ranting at me won't change them. I'm sure that knitting is also a highly-skilled activity with a long cultural tradition and connections to certain aspects of mathematics, but knitting is not normally taught in credit-towards-graduation courses in U.S. universities...

I'm sure that some institutions (especially in the U.S. southwest) teach the anthropology of basket-weaving (though I have no idea whether there are separate courses on the subject), but this would be impeccably academic , and so rather different from the non-academic things which are ridiculed by being likened to underwater-basketweaving... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This university you describe is a glorified vocational school for making money, not producing education. Studying basket weaving anywhere in the world is an educational enterprise in and of itself. In Hawaii, weaving baskets from Freycinetia arborea, reveals expert skill and discipline. In one notable example, the weaving of makaloa on the island of Niihau, becomes an interdisciplinary inquiry, involving the ecology of Cyperus laevigatus and the understanding of invasive species that destroyed its habitat, understanding the practice of patterned weaves by Native Hawaiians, the meaning of the geometric figures employed, the use of the material, and their eventual extirpation from the culture as technology, population loss, and environmental degradation resulted when "civilization" and "progress" took hold. In recent years, wastewater management specialists have researched whether it is possible to plant Cyperus laevigatus to both reclaim water and provide material for weaving the mats. Basket weaving, therefore, can be a profitable enterprise for all people, not just for the banksters, who are taught, educated, and exported by universities around the world for the benefit of some people. Basket weaving should be a mandatory course for those wishing to receive an MBA. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed your little rant. Too bad it had no relevance for article improvement (what this page is supposed to be used for). AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Except, I specifically described the problem and the proposed improvement in my very first comment, at which point you led the digression by attempting to dissect the meaning of the word "craft" and all it implies. The very idea that basket weaving is something that should not be taught at the university level is profoundly wrong and needs to be addressed in the form of a rebuttal. And, I suspect that if any MBA was required to take a course in basket weaving, they would soon discover a myriad of new applications and inventions based on the craft itself that could be applied to new products. This article is nothing but blatant, unabashed ethnocentrism and an attack on native crafts, and this kind of cultural propaganda needs to be made explicit to our reader. A good argument could be made that a culture that can grow, refine, manufacture, and create baskets from grass to finished product is probably more advanced and more "civilized"—from a sustainability perspective—than a technological culture that must rely on imports from foreign countries where labor is exploited to produce products made by machines, where consumers have no idea how the finished product is made, and are totally reliant on a system that controls their entire life. That's not an "advancement", that's a descent into primitivism and total ignorance, like zoo animals, you receive your things through bars in the cage, never wondering where it came from nor caring. It's quite the masquerade to discover that we are told the exact opposite in this article, that somehow, actual crafts created from plants grown by a knowledgeable people who were smart enough to survive for thousands of years, that these crafts which were then woven into usable products in a sustainable way through centuries of practice and refinement is somehow "beneath" those who get their products on the cheap from who knows where and have no idea how to produce it themselves! If this is what your universities are teaching, then they should all be shut down. The world certainly does not need more banksters and exploiters that the university system seems to produce like an endless stream of sewage, but we certainly need more basket weavers who not only give equally from what they take, but provide the knowledge needed to sustain the skill forever. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)(UTC)

Dude, I get it that you're a deep ecological thinker, and Koyaanisqatsi and all that, but this page is for discussing improvements to the article Underwater basket weaving, not for hosting essays on your general philosophy of life. The word "crafts" is in fact an extremely relevant key word when it comes to demarcating areas which are broadly considered appropriate and inappropriate for academic teaching at American Universities (since it can be considered appropriate to teach about crafts in a suitably academic manner, but it's rarely considered appropriate to teach craft skills directly in credit-towards-graduation courses).

In the past, feminists have complained that some things that were traditionally mainly done by women were somewhat arbitrarily classified as "crafts" while comparable things that were traditionally mainly done by men were given the dignity of "arts", and it could be that a parallel complaint about basket-weaving has some merit, but this has only very tangential relevance to the article Underwater basket weaving (discussing which is the intended purpose of this page). AnonMoos (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my specific requests for expansion and improvement. I wrote absolutely noting about deep ecology nor my philosophy of life. I wrote specifically about the inherent ethnocentrism in this article and it's total failure to represent the topic accurately. On what authority did you remove my comments? Your actions appear tyrannical, despotic, and display a heavy handed authoritarian impulse which you appear to wield for no purpose other than your own personal satisfaction. I would say that you have not improved this talk page with your deletions, a decision you made on no rational basis and without any regard to this discussion on this page. Is this how you conduct discussion on Wikipedia? I'm sorry, but I won't accept it. As for this article, let's get down to brass tasks and start with the current nonsense in the lead sourced to Tuckett 2003. Please address it. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I excised your broad vague rambling generalized disquisitions about your overall personal philosophy of life and/or laments about the general nature of Western civilization and/or education, without specific relevance to the improvement of this particular article. You can rant and rave and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue all you want, but the fact remains that there are specific policies governing the use of article talk pages on Wikipedia, and you've violated some of them. My comments above provided a factual explanation in painfully excruciating detail of the background context (which exists whether you like it or not) according to which "underwater basket-weaving" can be seen as laughable as an academic course in American universities. Too bad that your only response is to shoot the messenger (even though I've never said whether I agree or disagree with such attitudes, merely reported on their existence) and to launch into fresh new tirades with ever-decreasing relevance to the subject of improving Wikipedia article Underwater basket weaving... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not get to make the determination of what can and can't be excised. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You restored the content I removed to show you how it felt, and now I've restored it again. Don't you dare touch my text without discussion. Now, how about addressing the points I raised in this discussion instead of acting as judge, jury, and executioner? If you can't address these points, then stop editing here. You've engaged in nothing but distraction and personal attacks. I have discussed neither my personal philosophy nor anything remotely having to do with deep ecology. I have discussed what is wrong with this article and how to fix it by introducing other POV. I have also observed that the sources do not reflect the content and are being used incorrectly. You have failed to respond to these points, instead you have chosen to delete my comments. You don't get to make that determination. So either address the discussion or leave. Contrary to what you claim, you haven't offered anything remotely resembling a "factual explanation", you've offered only your opinion. There is nothing "laughable" about basket weaving at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever -- the difference between me and you is that I'm trying to keep things on-topic with respect to the intended purpose of this page (i.e. improving article Underwater basket weaving), while you're indulging yourself in free-floating word-association tirades which have no bearing whatsoever on that topic. Since your only goal seems to be to use Wikipedia as a host for your generalized essays on your overall philosophy of life, I'll consider them only insofar as they have any relevance to the improvement of article Underwater basket weaving. Since such relevance is zero up to this point, that means I feel free to ignore them. AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Current problems

• Underwater basket weaving is an idiom referring in a negative way to supposedly easy and/or worthless college or university courses, and used generally to refer to a perceived decline in educational standards
  • This statement is sourced to Tuckett 2003 which does not support the statement with a source about the subject. It merely critiques adult education in the UK and mentions the phrase in passing. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• The term also serves as an intentionally humorous generic answer to questions about an academic degree. It is also used to humorously refer to any non-academic elective course, specifically one that does not count towards any graduation requirements.
  • This statement is unsourced. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- sources are often only strictly required in the case of controversial or legitimately disputed material, and I don't see any legitimate dispute here. Look how the phrase is used in almost any campus newspaper, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of evidence for this or similar meanings. Here's a starter Google search: [5] -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced comment

"However, the joke is seen by some as being disrespectful of indigenous cultures, and the joke designer issued an apology which was posted on the Coursera class page for 'Aboriginal Worldviews and Education.'"

This statement is unsourced, and it really needs to be sourced, because otherwise anyone can simply make up that so-and-so party was offended. Was there REALLY widespread offense here? If not, this statement should be removed. If so, then woe betide us! Tpkatsa (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. See my comment below too. Zezen (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

PC joke?

Was this apology meant as another joke, poking fun at political correctness?

 ...we were not intending to be disrespectful to indigenous cultures, and we sincerely apologize to anyone we offended by the content of our video."[30] Zezen (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

lol

is it just me or isn't it kinda missing the point to put in an image of somebody basket-weaving underwater in an article about underwater basket weaving being used as a metaphor? it reeks of bored wikipedia addicts trying to score invisible internet points by adding whatever they can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:7042:700:C593:DB50:34C3:9570 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)