Talk:Cultural icon

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GlasHero (article contribs).

The Angel of the North

An attempt is being made to delete The Angel of the North from this article on the grounds that it is not "a world known icon". However that is not the criterion for this article, which is not a "List of World Known Icons" but a general introduction to "Cultural icon". There is no doubt that the Angel of the North is a famous cultural icon:

• The Gateshead council ref is actually titled " Angel of the North an English icon"

and explicitly writes "Gateshead's famous Angel of the North is now one of 12 official ‘Icons of England’."

• The Future matters site explicitly writes "The development of cultural icons such as Sage, Baltic and The Angel of the North have shown that iconic projects can go a long way to improving external perceptions of an area".

• The Guardian article says it is "Britain's most famous piece of modern public art".

• The additional Creative Clusters website says "the borough’s two most famous cultural icons, the Angel of the North and the Gateshead Millennium Bridge".

The Angel of the North is thus explicitly stated to be a famous cultural icon. It is a striking monument and is now certainly one of the best know icons of the Northeast of England. There is no objection to the addition of some more examples to illustrate the article, but there is no sense in removing correctly-placed and well-sourced material from the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• It should *not* be here. Look again at the purpose of the article. It's about well-known cultural icons, which have established a commonly understood significance beyond their initial intent, including only a few, limited examples. A recently erected statue (and yes, 1998 is recent), created specifically to be representative of some region, is definitely outside the bounds of this piece; and trying to include it opens the floodgates to anything and everything someone wants to claim as an "icon." The quotes you pull above demonstrate the unfortunate problem with the mis/over-use of "cultural icon" -- which is precisely what the last section of the article points out. --HidariMigi (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the point of view. The example is clearly proven to have been repeatedly named as a famous cultural icon. You have no justification for the WP:OR claim that "recently erected" is a disqualification - that's just your opinion; similarly "created ... to be representative of some region" - again, that's merely an opinion, not fact.

However I agree we only need a few examples here to prove the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Too UK-centric

While reading through this page, I found it to be a little too specific to the UK. Could we add other cultural references to it, especially if it's something non-Western. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllemonique (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lists by Country

Again there has been an attempt to turn this article into an unsourced image gallery of original research. I outlined the problems with this previously here. This article is about the concept of cultural icons. It is not the place to create a list of what some editors think are cultural icons, without any references. Particularly when they're factually suspect. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why only USA cultural icon

Why only a photo of stuff related US. Wikipedia is active all around the world. I think there should be no photo. If there is no reply here by 1st July, I will strongly consider removing it. WARNER one--9999 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That stuff isn't even popularly understood to be an American cultural icon in USA today (2018). It should be some Indian stuff like Buddha or something 173.88.130.255 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

References

There are a number of references e.g. "Foudy et al, 2003" that are incomplete and therefore useless to find the source. Btljs (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Over-usage

I'm not sure that the article should be quite so hung up on the over-usage of the term. This is an encyclopaedia article ABOUT the subject NOT the term itself. It would be more interesting to find out the processes which lead to iconic status and see whether these have changed. Someone somewhere will always be moaning about use of some word to mean something it didn't when they were younger and the world was golden. It's totally not NPOV to imply that Spongebob Squarepants has any less right to be called iconic than, say Madonna (I had to re-read this as I thought it meant the mother of Christ, who is, after all, an icon). Btljs (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The "Cultural Icon" article on wikipedia seems quite short for an entry rated Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Counting 457 words excluding references, it has significant less content than similarly important entries. Other examples of Mid-importance articles provided by wikipedia include:

• Titan in fiction, which contains 2,938 words.
• Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which contains 8,728 words.
• Space warfare in fiction, which contains 2086 words. Although this is the shortest example article, it also contains 10 "See also" links to additional content.

The small amount of content in the article overrepresent some examples and fails to explain the importance of cultural icons. In it's brief introduction, the article begins with a definition of cultural icons and explains the term is used in many fields. Some believe the term is heavily overused and misused, which may explain the lack of detail in the article. Beyond the introduction, "Cultural Icon" focuses mainly on types of cultural icons and examples of the various types. Examples from London are overrepresented compared to the other nations and cultures mentioned. Furthermore, many predominant countries and cultures are excluded completely. The final section of the article focuses on the use of cultural icons in popular cultures, where the overuse of the term has lead to its criticism.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

The information is not out of date, but the article could use many additions. I took the point about the overuse as a reason by wikipedia editors to leave the article in its short form. However, I conjecture that this point is slightly biased to the use of the term in the media. A more complete version of the article could describe the history of cultural icons, provide a more varied and uniform approach to highlighting examples and explain what led the terms overuse.

GlasHero (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC) GlasHero (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Madonna as a "cultural icon"?

A living human is not an "artefact" - a non-living object or concept creating by humans, not humans, themselves. Being an artefact is precisely what is defined as the characteristic of a cultural icon in the very first sentence of the article. Ultimately, this article is a confused mix of the pop-cultural abuse of the word "icon" and the more anthropological "cultural icon" -- which is why Madonna is somehow presented as being "verified" as an icon. By that token *every* world-wide celebrity is an icon, which ultimately counters the point of the article. --HidariMigi (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that historically, a "cultural icon" and an "artefact" is more anthropological. But, in a globalization era there is other definitions like any other terms (that as encyclopedia, is our obligation to present all the information). I will talk about specific Madonna. There is other stars, but there is Madonna (she has a different status that other celebrities/musicians, even between the best-selling worldwide). This is according to cultural studies named Madonna Studies (and this is social science):

• Madonna has been identified as a "cultural artefact": that means that she has values for the American culture.

• Madonna is a multi-textual "cultural artifact" and she must to be read/interpret.

• Madonna as a star is not just an image, a representation. She is a cultural object in the anthropological sense of culture.

Madonna is a cultural icon

With Madonna there is several references that came from cultural studies, academic world beyond music sources or "pop culture" references. For example, verify this context and "because she circulates constantly in the cultural practices of everyday life".

So, I don't know what is the problem to be neutral and include a example with a Madonna's photo as a cultural icon because she is. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As stated previously, there is a continuously expanding mis-application of "cultural icon" to be inclusive of anything and everything that is recognized by greater than a handful of people. If Madonna is a cultural artefact, as claimed by a Marxist Glaswegian in The Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Scottish Literature then so are Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Whitney Houston, Taylor Swift, ad infinitum.

So too are any number of other contemporary famous people, such as Kim Kardashian, David Beckham, Queen Elizabeth, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, etc etc. There's not really any dividing line, once you've claimed a living person as an "icon" - because there will always be someone who thinks of them as "iconic." All celebrities and politicians have their admirers, after all.

If that's your argument, I'd suggest that this article has no practical value and should be merged into pop icon, since Madonna is already prominently featured there.--HidariMigi (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably, they are more pop icon and music icons (Whitney Houston, Miley Cyrus... etc), and not cultural icons. Madonna has a impact in subcultures and cultures more than any other artist. She trascended the term "pop star" to become in a cultural icon according to the source. She is a multi-textual thing in the cultural studies and a object (literally and metaphorically). An anthropologist explained that cultural icons are examples of things like Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Madonna (also), hamburgers, sport shoes are elements of unification and hegemonization of the culture (I will find the link if you wanna).

Today, the article was changed and is not bad. There is other reliable references that includes in the definition of this term a "persons between things". I don't think that the reference is not bad, because is even from an academic author. Remember, that cultural artefact (that is linked since here) has a error: the definition is not complete but there is used by anthropology, ethnology, and sociology. So, they are not exact sciences, like exact sciences. Not exact sciences always have changes like with this term. So, I think that if you wanna change something properly reference, reach a consensus please. All Wikipedia's articles needs to be neutral and include all point of view, so if they are authors that said that "persons between things" (academics claims) or others that the word "iconic" or "icon" is used many items of popular culture (newspapers claims) is okay, we can include both. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In short, such claims are hogwash. What cultural identity does Madonna represent? She has no single representation (are we talking 80s "Material Girl" Madonna, 90s "Vogue" Madonna", or 2000s British Madonna?) -- nor single authentic cultural symbolism. She is merely another target of pop cultural "scholars" who needs something to write about postulating neo-Marxist interpretations of Western values. In this way, she is no different than any other celebrities-- and one can argue for "iconic" nature of every single one I listed. Since you asked for it:

Whitney Houston:

• Book: Whitney: Tribute to an Icon
• Article: Whitney Cultural Icon of Our Era
• Article: In honor of Whitney Houston, Gov. Christie ordering flags flown at half-staff in N.J.: ""Whitney Houston was an important part of the cultural fabric of this state," Christie said during a press briefing today. "She was a cultural icon in this state..."
• Article: Whitney Houston Named 2012 MTV EMA Global Icon

Miley Cyrus:

• Article: Cultural icon Miley Cyrus knows exactly what she’s doing: "A COLLEGE in New York state reportedly offers a sociology course analysing the different ­facets of Miley Cyrus through the lens of race, gender and media identity politics, and invites students to challenge the superficial assessments routinely imposed on the former Disney star."
• Article: Colleges embrace pop-culture studies of stars like Miley Cyrus and Beyoncé: "In a career of less than a decade, Miss Miley has already proved herself “a useful primary document” for discussions of sex and power in media, teacher Carolyn Chernoff says.

In short, if Madonna, then the following should likewise be included, as mentioned previously: Beyonce, Lady Gaga [1], Miley Cyrus, Whitney Houston, Taylor Swift[2], Kim Kardashian, David Beckham, Queen Elizabeth, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin [3], Donald Trump, etc. etc.

Which is why this is nothing more than a rehash of pop icon. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Superfluous references about Houston and Cyrus. We're talking about the same and the same over and over again. So, for justify that an "person" can be consider like a "cultural icon" is not wrong. Especially, when they have references and is just an idea from journalists and not academics that the word "iconic" or "icon" came from popular culture. This is a social term, and the social sciences are not exact, can be support for several disciplines. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with all its sides and shades, and to be truthful. Therefore, I don’t understand why we have to hide a fact that has reliable sources as well. We don’t have to cherry pick statements, we have to show all that’s in front of us and that actually comes from real sources. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you not pay attention that the references to Miley Cyrus were from academics, studying her as a "primary document” for discussions of sex and power in media? These are, as you asked, "proper references" to the iconic status of the individuals mentioned.

Again, one can scrape whatever obscure "academic" work-- such as the Marxist interpretation from the "Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Scottish Literature" you referenced initially as defining Madonna as a "cultural artefact"-- and find someone who has written about the cultural significance of any celebrity.

Again, for Whitney Houston, from a book used for educational analysis, providing context for an article on Houston's passing: "...[Bogart] also offers a careful appraisal of her work over her entire career, examining whether Houston deserved the metaphorical title of "queen" that was so often used to describe her status as a female pop singer and cultural icon." [4].

You claim "cultural icon" as a "social term" and and yet you choose minor sourcing for inclusion of Madonna, like the "Australasian gay & lesbian law journal" and "Economies of Signs and Space" from the Department of Administrative and Social Studies, Teesside Polytechnic of Middlesbrough, England. Cherry-picking, indeed.

I get it, you really, really want Madonna in this article because you're a fan of her work.[5][6]. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Unusually for a WP page - which tend toward interminable lists - this page suffers from lack of material. I found it misleading that next to a paragraph on religious iconography citing Madonna is a photo of Madonna with no corresponding explanation in the main body. I actually have no problem with Madonna (the performer) being a cultural icon, but she shouldn't be the only one; The article should explain how a person becomes a cultural icon (ie. by consistently, over a reasonable period of time, being identified as such by a significantly large group of people) and then give an example of a political leader or activist, an artist, a business person etc. and state what part of culture they are iconic of (e.g. Gandhi and the lasting impact of peaceful protest). Madonna is iconic of a particular late 20th Century image of female independence and strength and this is entirely valid if balanced by other examples. Btljs (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'd agree, if the article were about notable individuals of a particular "culture" - but it is (or at least was) about identifiable objects representative of a specific culture, not the individuals that make up that culture. So I ask again, which culture does the "human character" of Madonna "represent"? The image caption claims her as a "global cultural icon" - which somehow presupposes there is a "global culture," an obvious false-hood. But ultimately, the article isn't about celebrities who are notable for representing particular values (no matter how positive) such as "female independence and strength." By that standard, I'd cite fictional representations Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer as more appropriate female "icons."--HidariMigi (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith if I like or not, Madonna; first, I like to be neutral. Maybe, was so high to claim her more than other artists. However, the critic point here is a "person" (like Madonna) that can be a "cultural icon". Is not wrong to say that a person can be one. There is references and meet the criteria by Wikipedia. Yes, I will recall that this is a "social term". We are not talking about a topic of mathemathics or physics. Generally, a term into the social sciencies can be supported by other disciplines and is in constant evolution. So, if your argument that the link for "Cultural artifact" is because is "anything created by humans" (hasn't references) needs to be only for "anthropology" and we need to delete ethnology and/or sociology. And please, is necessary to difference, in context "global culture" for many authors can be "globalization" so is not any "false-hood". I support point of view from @Btljs: that can be contextualize this article and/or wikify. The evolution of the term from several disciplines and point of views. I don't support a list, just to mention an example of a "human" as cultural icon (in these case, Madonna for example) like current examples in "Types" section. Be neutral with this article, not just one point of view. If you still in desagree, please, reach/ask for a consensus because we're are following the guidelines for Wikipedia. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 00:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• As requested, I've placed a notice at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Cultural_icon#Madonna_as_a_"cultural_icon". Please comment there. --HidariMigi (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the "dispute resolution noticeboard" notification. I know that I'm not a English native speaker and I hope that is understandable. However, I understand the point of view from @HidariMigi: but I ask for assume good faith because sentences like this are a little "presumptuous": "Ultimately, we may be at an impasse because of a slight language barrier, but also because the editor is a self-avowed fan of Madonna, and _{has an emotional attachment to her inclusion}". Ultimately, I don't care if Madonna's photo will stay or not in the article, but I asked to maintain like an example that a person can be include in the "cultural icon" term. We have references from academics sources that a person can be a "cultural icon". But for the user, all are invalid sources. I don't know what is the problem to present all point of view of this term and be neutral by guidelines of Wikipedia. We have the hidden notes to avoid any superfluous inclusion or some edit that can downgrade the article's quality in the future. I'm astonished that social science needs to be exact here and more for "anthropological" for example. Just to recap, I'm not care for the photo, which can illustrate the article, but removing part of the truth seems to me a violation. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please make such comments at the noticeboard; that is what it is there for. Thank you. --HidariMigi (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Image of Madonna

The consensus is to exclude the image of Madonna from the article. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the image of Madonna and the legend be retained in the article or removed from it?

Please state your opinions, in the form of Keep (or Yes) or Delete (or No) and a very brief statement as to why in the Survey. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion (that’s what it’s for). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No - Keeping the image of Madonna opens the page up for editors to add their favorite pop-stars. There are countless cultural media icons so narrowing it down to just adding an image of Madonna would be cherry-picking. Meatsgains (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Aside from cherry-picking, it is potentially confusing next to the prose that mentions "Madonna" with a link to Mary, mother of Jesus. Not to mention that "a human character" is a very odd description of her. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. A photograph of Madonna already appears in the article on Pop icon. That's quite enough. Plus, the article here doesn't mention pop icons (and, indeed, gives only passing reference in the first sentence to any type of "people as icons"), so there's little reason to include the photograph here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, per all 3 above. Note that this article now used to have a sprawling mass of national etc icons see this 2014 version, which was hard to control. I think they got shunted off to a list. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. If the picture belongs anywhere, it belongs in pop icon, as someone said above. It really doesn't add anything to article except to promote someone's favorite singer. There's an near-infinite list of people that could be added to the article, and to choose this one person is undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• delete a pop icon and cultural icon are different things. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Also, the caption is taken from an unsigned review blurb for a book about Madonna, so I am not sure it is an independent RS for the statement. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural icon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225101358/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Aug09/Art_Aug09_oped2.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Aug09/Art_Aug09_oped2.html

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) 10:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Icon (secular)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Icon (secular) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17 § Icon (secular) until a consensus is reached. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)