Talk:Reclaiming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh my. This is an advertisement, not an article. Anyone else want to rewrite it, or should I give it a go. In this state, the article barely deserves to exist. --NoMoon 10:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

there are some serious NPOV issues here i think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.173.126.147 (talk • contribs) 5 March 2007.

Since the article has been completely rewritten since the issues that were raised above (and below), what exactly do you consider NPOV issues? - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Could be

Yeah - it's a bit too "true believer"/"Jonestown" for me too. But this is San Francisco - one has to let the pot smoke clear before assessing much. I've cleaned it up a bit, making it less Madison Avenue. I have to say, I've been disturbed by some of the self-promotion of authors and teachers going on in Reclaiming generally, but it's certainly no worse than Pat Robertson and the 700 Club crowd. ManyFireflies 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs)

Per the above, I've sent Reclaim here. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've trimmed the (now second) section pretty severly, but this article is still poor. Please don't just give me a {{sofixit}} bite, either. How about some suggestions? - brenneman(t)(c) 06:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want a sofixit "bite," then maybe you should describe what is so "poor" about it, so readers have something to suggest toward. Also, I am moving the NPOV tage down, as the top section never had any objections to it levelled on those grounds. Jacqui ★ 14:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] split?

This is two articles on one page. Any objection to spliting them? Name opinions for the resulting articles? Tedernst | talk 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the second section could be called Reclaiming tradition or Reclaiming (paganism) Kmusser 15:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please split, and turn this into a disambiguation. I ran across this as I was working on an article that probably should be combined with the first part of this: Reappropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to take the bull by the horns and do this. It's at Reclaiming (neopaganism). - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. Kmusser 05:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New refactoring issue

Possible issues on what should be where among:

How should we refactor, how should we disambiguate? Discussion is at Talk:Reappropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Porch monkey"

I haven't seen Clerks II. Given that the writer/director is white, I don't see how it can be a reclaiming of the term "Porch monkey". If someone can clarify, great; otherwise, this should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope and aptness of the term

  • The above example differs from the listed word examples in another way: the assumption is that the tricolour originally "belonged" to moderates, was "claimed" by extremists, and ought to be "reclaimed" by its original owners. This is in contrast to, say, nigger, which never previously "belonged" to the people now "reclaiming" it. The prefix re- is ambiguous: added to some verbs, it means "repeat the previous action"; added to others, it means "undo the previous action". I don't know any other context where reclaim can have this sense of "claim forward" rather than "claim back". jnestorius(talk) 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment all I've done is cross-linked to Reappropriation. Certainly the current articles overlap.

  • if there is one concept, the articles should be merged;
  • if there are two distinct concepts, the difference should be highlighted and explained. Both concepts might often be referred to by the same name; that's what disambiguation pages are for. jnestorius(talk) 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Reclaiming has the specific connotation that those doing this are part of the group in question. Reappropriation does not. Thus, a white American might reappropriate the image of Juan Valdez on behalf of activism on behalf of coffee farmers, but only a Colombian could reclaim it. Also, reappropriation doesn't necessarily mean turning something into a positive, just using it differently. For example, one could reappropriate (though, I suppose, some would say, just appropriate) a Disney character in a work critical of the Disney studio. (The line between reappropriation and appropriation is imprecise, but reclaiming, probably a subset of reappropriation, doesn't tend to get anywhere near that line.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geek/Nerd

I seriously doubt that the reclamation of these terms are limited to those in thier teens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.175.144 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)