Talk:Culture shock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.
This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
01/08/07 Removed vandalism from 'Coping with culture shock section "* and also you remember your wife and you want to do sex" 195.8.190.54 10:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Culture shock displays common symptoms, in four stages. The first is the honeymoon or tourist stage, which lasts a few weeks. In this stage, people perceive everything around them as great. The next stage is shock, described above. After that, there is negotiation, wherein people work to resolve the differences in culture. The final stage is acceptance when people realize that there are both good and bad things about the culture, and they can work with it." 'This text cannot be utilized unless properly sourced.' Madangry 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why not? The German article (de:Kulturschock) says essentially the same thing and credits it to Kalvero Oberg. I would think that a quick consultation of works by Oberg would be enough to substantiate the material. As someone who has observed many people in culture shock, I feel that the description was accurate (no, I did not write it).
- I also had doubts about other deletions from this article you made today, and was about to revert them because I saw no explanation for them here on the talk page. The list of real-world examples seem to me to be quite pertinent, and none contained overtly POV statements. I would like to put them back. Could you share your opinion as to why they don't belong?
- You also shortened the list of steps a person experiencing culture shock could take to deal with the situation, even though the advice (though ungrammatical in places) seemed sound. (These are not intended as a challenge or provocation, it's request—I'm truly interested in knowing your thoughts.)
- Finally, I believe the final section—that titled Commentary—reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedic article, and therefore that it should be rewritten to provide information (rather than opinion) or be removed. Any thoughts on this matter, too? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Why can it not be included unless properly sourced? NOthing on this website can be included unless already sourced. I agree, the commentary does read like an editorial...but believe it or not the sections I deleted felt more like someone's journal entry full of opinions and assumptions and felt more like an editorial than even the commentary!!!! As someone who has experienced culture shock...none of the text I deleted applied to me. And so this cannot be left in as being attributed to ALL who experience it. Furthermore...culture shock is not reserved for vacationers....and so all of the "Have fun while you are on vacation and don't stay indoors, and remember humans are bad everywhere" stuff came out. Again, it should read like an encyclopedia entry, not a travel guide. None of the text said "You may try..." Or "A feeling of disgust may arise" it was all stating that culture shock is "this" and only this. Which obviously is not true as in the case of disgust, I never felt disgust when in culture shock. Quite the opposite. Anyway, everything I deleted was due to POV issues. Everything left is notable and NPOV. Now for the text above regarding the four stages...if you put a link to the exact non-wiki article you paraphrased it from I have no problem including it. Or if you add things back A) It must read like an encyclopedia entry (which the previous article did not) and b) you must attribute all of the ideas to Oreberg and that all of the text is based on his opinions or all text from his article. You cannot list it as truths or facts as they are not. Also...remember, you cannot use WIKIPEDIA to verify information. It MUST be an outside source. I stand by all of my deletions. Madangry 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't intend to get into either a pissing contest or an edit war with you, but much of the deleted material (which, again, I did not write, so I do not have a vested emotional interest in it) is sourced at the bottom of the article: in particular, deleted material seems close to the content of the sources cited at http://www.doctortravel.ca/culture_shock.asp and http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/CGuanipa/cultshok.htm. Do you believe those sources lack credibility?
If you felt that it was POV because in wasn't couched in non-committal wording, then rather than simply delete it, wouldn't it be better to rewrite it so it was no longer POV? As far as using Wikipedia to verify information is concerned, I think you might be misinterpreting the policy. Of course, it could be me who is erroneous, but we are repeatedly encouraged to translate articles from other languages, and to draw on other-language articles for expanding and improving articles (for instance, through the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Echo); doesn't this conflict with the interpretation cite above of not using Wikipedia to verify information?
The previous content did not strike me as being particularly unencyclopedic in presentation, let alone travelogue-like. Deleting sourced material as unsourced and of inappropriate tone while leaving other material that is obviously an expression of opinion (not bad in itself, however) seems a bit incongruous to me. Jim_Lockhart 05:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that I live in the United States and have been to Canada, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, etc. Each country afforded me with completely different feelings of culture shock, none of which these articles touch on, and in fact what they do touch on I've never felt. So no, I do not believe these articles to be anything more than opinion. Having the article linked at the bottom does not work as a casual reader would not know those were the sources being used for this text. You must include a disclaimer in the text otherwise it will be implied that you DID write it on your own. "The following is this author's interpretation of culture shock and how to deal with it," etc. All you did was atrribute the coining of the term. This is not sourcing it. Echoing is something completely different than using another wiki article to determine credibility.... Now, if you want to add that stuff back in do it. I don't really care anymore. I just want the wiki world to know that I do not feel the deleted sections were factual nor written as an encyclopedia entry and rather than mark the article for deletion I took out the highly questionable material (When happening on the page it was marked for cleanup, and cleanup is what I did.) I will now remove the commentary. Even though it is MUCH more well written and much more believable than the text based on the articles linked at the bottom, it too is not written in encyclopedia form. Madangry 19:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- The "Coping with Culture shock" section DOES read like a travelguide. It talks about telephone signals, staying in contact with family, psychological help, remembering there is no perfect holiday, not spending time alone in a room all day, getting taken advantage of, and what to do when preparing for a holiday (business men flying to another country also feel culture shock, as do foreign exchange students....culture shock is not a vacationers disease). The "examples" section was all opinion and if these two sections are based on the article....let readers click to read the article. These opinions and helpful hints for vacationers should not be included in the article about what culture shock is. Madangry 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
"Avoid being offended themselves, offending locals or any more general cultural misunderstanding, they can familiarise themselves with the local customs and language."
not always the case. our experience moving from los angeles to miami was learning the lesson that you have to be fiercely more aggressive in miami or you get taken advantage of. also points on racism from local people in the new place of residence should be added.
[edit] transwiki to wikibooks
Seriously,if it reads like a travel guide a little, then make it one?
[edit] Revert
I've reverted revision 135025088, made by User:Mattcain at 15:42, 1 June 2007 to revision 104497059, made by User:155.33.160.222 at 13:34, 31 January 2007, reasons being:
- At the time of my first edit the new article was less than half the size of the original article, and lacked specific information that the previous one offered and adequate structure
- All of the information that was previously unsourced now properly cite references
I've incorporated all the additional information from the later revision into the earlier one. If you have any concerns, please raise them on this discussion page or my talk page. Guycalledryan 09:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
