Talk:Acculturation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

The article on acculturation is a good start to a subject that has a long history recieveing recent interest from scholars of several fields. The main fields contributing to the study of acculturation are cultural anthropology, psychology/counseling, and sociology. There may be others worth mentioning.

I believe a more rigorous article would make this article a useful and popular item. I encourage interested parties to give some time and thought to the article.

Jdcounselling 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jews:no to assimilation, yes to acculturation

Jews today, like their ancestors in Alexandria, can be influenced by the world around them, adopt the ideas of surrounding culture, yet remain loyal Jews and not completely assimilate. We can live in both worlds and make a success of that situation. That is an important message for any Jew in modern times who wants to be both a civilized person and a true believer.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 08:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your passion for the subject is noted. Not sure how this helps improving the article though...--Jdcounselling 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I didn't know what acculturation was, so I came here. There's an awful lot of text before the initial definition, in comparison to other pages in Wikipedia. Someone shorten that, or am I outta line? Dean 23:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is not a Dictionary

Maybe a little long but depends on the topic. I liked the fuller explanation. Some articles in Wikipedia are very long with graphics and lots of links. This is not just a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus green (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Very Detailed

Lots of careful work here. Thought provoking. Takes about 10 minutes to read. I guess for some that's too much even for such an important topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus green (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That there has been copious and intelligent work is not questioned, but it takes less than ten minutes to discern reasons for concern, as offered above. Copyediting will be helpful, losing boldfacing throughout, and conversational tone ('you', 'I', etc) is unencyclopedic. Recent edits have relied a lot on citing one author, which may be appropriate, but their prominence in the field is unclear. Additional concerns are raised by the copying of much of the recent text to other Wikipedia articles--that's usually unnecessary and not done. Also, please sign in when you edit--it looks as if one editor may be using multiple accounts here. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Irony of Ironies

Responding to the section Jews on assimilation "no," the book that introduced Gudykunst and Kim's theory of cultural adaptation, which has been reprinted and widely used as a college textbook for over 20 years uses the title "Communicating with Strangers." According the their text, they selected their title purposefully referencing George Simmel's famous work Der Fremde, but I am not sure they read Simmel's book because it was about being Jewish in Germany in the 1930's and how for generations Jews had integrated into German society without being forced to abandon, unlearn or deculturize themselves until things took a terrible turn. Simmel was talking about how people can be physically close but culturally distant and how that could work to everyone's satisfaction. He was drawing important distinctions between assimilation, acculturation, and integration. He was saying that a vibrant community is one with diversity. The point of Simmel's work would seem to totally contradict the thrust of Gudykunst and Kim's theory of cultural adaptation which equates adaptation with assimilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus green (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Which seems to touch on one of my concerns: that original synthesis is being used throughout to draw conclusions about the validity of the theories of particular authors. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay like and distillation of sources toward original research

Recent passages of content appear to draw conclusions based on cited sources, and are written in an essay-like rather than encyclopedic fashion. Examples:

A pure postmodern nihilist, if one exists, is not likely to fight for anything. This may be good or it may be bad depending on your own beliefs and value system.

Bottom line, prejudice is not only inescapable but it it a necessary condition for understanding or sense-making as we know it.

Finally, if you choose to communicate in a three-dimensional signalic modality, for instance in x's and o's rather than p's and q's, few if any will care because everything in the signalic modality is arbitrary. The circumstantial nature of the relative communicative competence and effectiveness of one style over another can be exemplified by coaching. It may be more advantageous given the goal of winning for an athletic coach to be highly idolic and emotional in a half-time speech even equating the stadium with "our house," this season as "our time," and the number previously worn by a deceased teammate as "his presence on the field" when worn by another player, but it is more advantageous to be less emotional and more dissociated and signalic when discussing the x's and o's of strategy and tactics days in advance of a game. This is why it is not advisable for an otherwise very sober and analytic surgeon to perform emergency surgery on his own family member but it is advisable and appropriate for the same father or spouse to become emotionally involved and overtly cheer for the same family member during a sporting event or musical performance.

Perspectivism in epistemological terms is unavoidable. Just as I cannot go to the gym and lose weight for you so too I cannot learn for you. You must learn for yourself. You must make the knowledge your own. How an individual acculturates is a very individual and personal process. A predominantly idolic person will integrate into a social mileiu differently than a symbolic or signalic person.

There are many such passages, though well-written, which merit attention. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Claims such as Gudykunst and Kim (2003) mistakenly use several terms interchangeably including; integration, adaptation, assimilation, evolution, and so forth. and Gudykunst and Kim (2003) make it a point to postulate a utopian or ideal type person they confusingly call an "intercultural person" or a "universal person" with "transcultural identity" are currently unsourced, and leave the impression that the Wikipedia contributor is making the judgment as to the 'mistakes' and 'confusion'. There are many such examples here. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 76.248.147.199 that the tone of the article is decidedly unencyclopedic. The tone is more like that of a thesis or some kind of an academic position piece. Aside from what 76.248.147.199 mentions above, I think we should also work to reduce or at least to properly explicate the neologisms and technical terms that characterize this article. In some cases (e.g. "enculturation") wikilinks may be all that are needed, but for other terms (e.g. "idolic reality", "signalic modality", "perspectival nature of perception", "integrationism" versus "assimilationism", etc.) more explanatory work needs to be done for laymen like me. -Thibbs (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism concern

In trying to clean up this article in the last few days, I found myself dealing with a great number of formatting and typographical issues normally associated with copy & pasted text. While this certainly does not imply that the text was earlier published elsewhere, it does raise some warning flags about potential plagiarism. With this in mind I followed up on the issue by searching online for the same text and I discovered the page of another Wikipedia user (here) that copies the text verbatim. Although this other contributor has in fact edited the "Acculturation" article, his last edit here was made prior to the introduction of the text found in his userspace. It's quite possible that he copied the text from this article into his userspace to work on later, but anyway I found the issue puzzling so I contacted him here regarding the authorship of the text. Hopefully this is just a personal unpublished essay that was originally written in a word processor for original publication on Wikipedia. Absent any information to the contrary I don't think it's a plagiarism, but I think it is best to follow up on it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudos, Thibbs, for taking the time to look into this. I don't know the answer to the chicken/egg dilemma here, but am inclined to go with the personal unpublished essay angle, in which case it appears to be largely an original research synthesis. Thank you, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Over a year has passed without any real improvement. The article reads like an undergraduate essay, albeit a good one. --Ef80 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Better pictures

The picture only shows a one way adoption of a culture. Better images that depict a variety of adoptions would be better. The images currently better represent enculturation rather than acculturation. Eg.: would hippies be a good example of acculturation? Power Yoga? Coffee? The Norman Conquest? 59.96.196.40 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Psy

Suggestions

I was looking at the article and noticed a few problems with the learning material of your topic:

1) Some of the sources that are used are outdated due to the concern of modern examples of acculturation. IE. Kramer, Eric Mark (1997a) and (1997b)

2)The viewpoints of acculturation is over represented: There were more than enough examples that were given on this specific topic

StoopidCat (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Updates

Hello Wikipedians,

I took all of your much-appreciated feedback into consideration when I made my most recent edits. My goals were to expand the page by linking this page to more pages, to clarify some of your ideas, and to include more recent and culturally relevant peer-reviewed research. As always, your feedback is welcomed!

Best,

Heatherlcody (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: StoopidCat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SRP101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Phchan1. Peer reviewers: Zjm648003854, Leoalves11, Yuki119808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)