Talk:Reclaimed word

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)

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)

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)

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)

New refactoring issue

Possible issues on what should be where among:

• Reclaiming
• Reappropriation
• Cultural appropriation
• Cultural diffusion
• and possibly some other topics

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

"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)

Scope and aptness of the term

• "Reclaiming" can apply to any symbol, not just to words. For example, the Irish tricolour has been displayed prominently by Sinn Féin in recent years, leading to calls for moderate Irish nationalists to "reclaim" the flag from "extremists". (e.g. Time to reclaim the Tricolour from SF John A Murphy, Sunday Independent, 2002-06-09.)

• 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)

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)

Whore and bitch?? Mainstream acceptance???

This sentence confuses me:

Whore and bitch are two widely-known examples of reclaimed words that have re-entered mainstream culture in a largely acceptable light. ... With the exception of "whore" and "bitch" as just mentioned, the reclaimed words meanwhile keep their original, negative connotations outside of those communities.

I can't believe these words have lost their negative connotation in mainstream culture. I've removed the claimed "whore and bitch" exception from the article b/c it's not sourced and seems completely unbelievable. I think for most mainstream women bitch and whore are among the top five most offensive names to be called. Hoping To Help (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More than one word?

"Tree hugger" is two words. Other phrases like, "Jesus Freak" and "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" have gone through a linguistic reclaiming process such as this article describes. Why limit it to just single words? --Nerd42 (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaijin?

This page lists Gaijin as a reclaimed word. I'm not sure I see it -- it means, literally, "foreigner". It can be used in a derogatory context, but then, so can any other synonym for it in Japanese. The first (non-dead) reference on the Gaijin page supposedly indicating that it is derogatory says:

While the term itself has no derogatory meaning, it emphasizes the exclusiveness of Japanese attitude and has therefore picked up pejorative connotations that many Westerners resent

which indicates to me that it's neutral in usage. For any possible neutral synonym for "black person", there are people offended by it, too, but that doesn't make them all pejorative. I've heard "foreigner" used as a derogatory word in America -- should we list that here, too?

Can a word be "reclaimed" if it's not inherently derogatory to begin with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

References needed

This article badly needs references for all the examples given; not that they are all pejorative terms, but that they have been 'reclaimed' by the groups they refer to and used as a form of self-identity. In some cases this seems doubtful; can anyone, for instance, give a single example of a feminist self-identifying as a 'feminazi'? Robofish (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)