Talk:Indigenous intellectual property

message: This indigenous intellectual property article was identified as needed/absent following discussions at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board, Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive 8#Traditional_Knowledge_Disclaimer and Wikipedia_talk:General_disclaimer#Traditional_Knowledge.
It remains, at present, a 'work in progress', as I for one hope and intend to include brief review of various declarations, extracts from United Nations Declarations, summary of WIPO and other fact finding reports, identify laws around the world relating to indigenous IP etc (yep, lots of fun, for those who wish to assist expand it!) Bruceanthro (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in Progress

message: This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new  request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
I have found on an Anthropological journal from the university of Chicago: Current Anthropology: Can Culture Be Copyrighted? a very good example of a dispute for cultural patrimony: It is the Hopi & Apache versus American Museums in 1994. They wanted everything back, including written records. This was allowed under the NAPGRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Do you think it is a good idea to post it up?
Xavier Peniche (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be posted in its entirety, but it can probably be cited as a reference. — GorillaWarfare talk 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopi and Apache Versus American Museums

message: This article is a total mess.  Headings are not to contain links or refs or repeat article title. References are full of all capitals when they should be title case. There are far too many quotes, making it is difficult to read as it is not really formal prose. Editors of this article should become more familiar with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Shiftchange, I think you're being a little harsh.  I've seen plenty of articles in far worse condition than this one .. and I think the content is pretty informative.  I, for one, have had a look at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as suggested, and see a preference that external links not be used within the body of the text; and preference that quotations should not be italised plus few others .. but didn't find those conventions asking/requiring that article heading not be repeated in headings & overuse of quotes etc?!   I will, though, if I get a chance later tonight, try to bring more in line with style convention as suggested/asked! Bruceanthro (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

text: +1  18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess

message: Going along with the "Mess" comments above, this article has huge problems.
Clean up: External links in the body, links in section headers, etc.
Original research: This article is ostensibly about intellectual property, yet it talks about and quotes extensively from many declarations that have no real application to the topic. Some government somewhere asserting that cultures should protect culture is NOT the same thing as saying that intellectual property rights were given. The editor who did this made that conclusion, but there is no sources actually supporting that right. Similarly, examples of cultures being offended by use of terms in their culture in advertising or marketing and the company backing down is NOT an admission that the culture had intellectual property rights. 
POV-pushing: By including all of this material that is not directly related, the article is slanted in a major way toward the view that these groups should or do have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them. There also is basically nothing to demonstrate the actual prevailing legal thought around the world, which is that these groups do not and should not have any special intellectual property rights. 
Frankly, in order for this article to be compliant with Wikipedia policies, it would require completely removing the majority of the current content and a total rewrite of the rest. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is on Indigenous intellectual property, intellectual property has its own article. You appear to have a particular problem with anything on indigenous or traditional knowledge and IP, see public domain. I will sort out the sourcing and will remove the tag. Please read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All content in the article appears to be sources. I have removed the neutrality and NPOV tag. Please explain what problems you see with the article in reference to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the lede: "ongoing misappropriation and misuse".  Obviously, that's opinion, and is welcome if properly cited as such.  Arguments thatthese groups should have intellectual property rights that no law has actually given them is fine, but fiction isn't. --Elvey (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: Tags identify article as having multiple issues, including some POV etc. 
Working onwards from the first paragraph which described the article as being about a 'term' that is used in national and international forums .. to remove POV and issues .. it seems appropriate to try to limit leading paragraph to simple description of the term and it's use .. and shift referenced opinion, such as the following, to a new section .. perhaps entitled 'debate' or 'competing opinions' about the relative pros and cons of the term and/or way it is being used:
Exerpt from pov:
:</ref>
:Professor Michael F. Brown has described the origin, goals, and challenges facing the movement to establish indigenous IP rights in law thusly:
The digital revolution has dramatically increased the ability of in-
dividuals and corporations to appropriate and proﬁt from the cul-
tural knowledge of indigenous peoples, which is largely unpro-
tected by existing intellectual property law. In response, legal
scholars, anthropologists, and native activists now propose new
legal regimes designed to defend indigenous cultures by radically
expanding the notion of copyright. Unfortunately, these propos-
als are often informed by romantic assumptions that ignore the
broader crisis of intellectual property and the already imperiled
status of the public domain.
Would be glad to make a start on some of the debate around the term and it's use etc .. but should also suggest, in relation to comment made back in December that 'indigenous intellectual property' may be a fiction .. that irrespective of whether or not the term/ concept is linked to anything real in the world  .. much like much debated terms such as justice etc .. it is, never-the-less, a term/ concept that does exist .. and IS, as a matter of fact, being used by within the World Intellectual Property Organisation and around the world.
Hope this assists.  Bruceanthro (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still horribly biased toward promoting these non-existent "rights" and highly misleading. There is no sane discussion of the topic, only promotion of extreme positions as if they were the only ones out there. Even the name of the article is biased, as the things being discussed do not fall under normal legal definitions of "intellectual property." I have restored the tags, as no improvements happened. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing issues &  Removing Issues tags  

message: Overhauled the article, though it was mostly just formatting problems by the time I came across it. This is well-sourced and documents an issue that can be contentious. But just because someone may not like the concept of intellectual property rights, doesn't mean we don't document the issue on Wikipedia. Do we go to articles on freeing the slaves or African Americans getting the vote and flag it for POV issues and demand there be a "criticism" section? The article documents the issue, and largely relies on quotes from the Indigenous groups themselves. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated

message: so, there is NO criticism of this concept?
none at all?
REALLY?'
Lx 121 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "offensive" is highly subjective. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and is not censored to protect people's feelings. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "criticism" section, or rather, the lack thereof 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indigenous intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613105447/http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858 to http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/638858
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indigenous intellectual property. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150626112013/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626112013/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indigenous intellectual property. 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  tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1992/52.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210023314/http://www.indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_search&areas=content&searchphrase=all&searchword=TEK to http://www.indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_search&areas=content&searchphrase=all&searchword=TEK
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Indigenous intellectual property. 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/20160330114112/http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf to https://arts.adelaide.edu.au/linguistics/guide.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305155048/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html to http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/features/spirg-hagan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521222630/http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/LiveArticle.asp?ArtID=1234231829 to http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/livearticle.asp?ArtID=1234231829
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please stop edit warring. We do not need to list every declaration about Indigenous intellectual property as not every declaration is notable. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: you were removing references and information from the page  your edits I saw on Recent changes that's why undid them Jack90s15 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content not on the person removing it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should not list every single example of every claim that any tribe has ever made. Please provide a valid reason for inclusion of each example. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just making sure you were not trying to the page was not being Vandalized It came up on the Recent changes I see now you were not trying to do such a thingJack90s15 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have admitted that you were wrong to revert, I am now going to reinstate the change if that's OK. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: yes since you explained why you were doing itJack90s15 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing and not edit warring. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I am not edit warring nor inserting WP:OR. Please do not make accusations w/o evidence. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You have reverted three times to your preferred version and received a final warning. You do not have consensus to remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced opinion. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. I only reinstated my edit once after being reverted. The second reinstatement was only after the other user said it was OK. I have not reverted since nor do I intend to until discussion concludes. I had already made my final revert before your first warning and made zero edits to the page whatsoever between your first warning and your "final" warning. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am willing to compromise. I'll leave out the criticism section for now since it's unsourced but I still think that we need to reduce the number of declarations. I don't think it's necessary to include all of them because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it adds unnecessary clutter the page. If you disagree, can you explain why? (Same editor from before different IP) 46.140.62.94 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

text: This talk page is for discussions about article content exclusively. If you have an issue with my conduct you can bring it up on my talk page or at ANI. I did not remove the warnings to hide part actions. In fact, I left a note at the top of the page linking to the page history where the notices can be found. What evidence do you have that I am in any way related to the UTRS troll? Why haven't you opened an SPI? 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I have restored the warnings to remove any doubt about my intentions. I would ask that you please assume good faith on my part. 5.104.90.107 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive examples of declarations regarding IIP 

message: There are duplications between the Declarations and Claims of Violations sections. Even if there isn't a ton of duplicated content, it points to the fact that editors have skipped sections to start new ones, and this needs to be restructured to flow better. Still looking this over to see if I have a clear idea on how to best do this. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: CorbieVreccan, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that you're well-involved here and shouldn't have blocked anyone with whom you're having a disagreement. Likewise, blocking a TOR node indefinitely seems to run contrary to WP guidance. What am I missing? Buffs (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the block history. It has built to this. I can review it in the future. For the moment, there are a number of issues here, and with the user who has used three different IPs and two different named accounts, just on this page. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it seems you should report it to an uninvolved administrator (seem that a WP:SOCK may be a factor) to handle it + block the TOR node for something other than an indefinite period of time. Buffs (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Ones does simply never block a person with whom one is in a content dispute. It is grounds for desysopping.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought people using TOR were supposed to ask for an exemption? Indigenous girl (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but policy states that blocks are supposed to be made by an uninvolved administrator. Also, an online check shows that the IP is not actually a TOR node. That being said, I think that  should have started this discussion somewhere else as it is not related to article improvement. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked the IP for being a proxy, per the policy - "Open proxies may be blocked on sight according to the policy on open proxies" - not per content disputes. The proxy had previously been blocked for three months so I increased it.  Then I took it SPI. The case was evaluated by other admins and closed. When it was cleared from Tor I reduced it from indef. I didn't engage here because it had already been handled by other admins and this is not the place for it. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Block seems out of line

message: #Yes It is a history of not examples of. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: #No Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and too many examples can distract from the main topic. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the full text of every claim that's been made. It's some of the historically-relevant resolutions that have been made over decades, with relevant quotes from some of them. I thought you'd read the article. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean I didn't read the article. Please stop this incivility. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: * Neither; objection to RfC. The RfC doesn't accurately capture the dispute, and seems to be framed to lead to a particular result. It's inappropriate to set either an upper or a lower bound on the number of items to list. Inclusion or exclusion should be done on a case-by-case basis based on applicable policies such as WP:V and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Moreover, there seems to be a disagreement about the nature of the section. Should it be an exhaustive list or just examples, and either way, what should the inclusion criteria be? This is where the dispute seems to lie. Although not strictly applicable, WP:LSC might serve as a helpful guideline. In my view RfC should be closed/withdrawn and re-written as something along the lines of: "Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list of all such claims and declarations, or a limited number of the most notable examples?" R2 (bleep) 15:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   see below. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list? SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support. I think I considered doing this when I did cleanup, but decided to wait for more discussion. It's gone this long without major edits, I think it can wait till you have the time and energy for it. Looking through the edit history, I only see one, relatively minor edit on the article, that you've done. That would put you in the category of someone who hasn't been in any kind of edit war on this. I'd support you doing the changes. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please stop referring to any/all edits as "edit warring". You're unnecessarily rachetting up the tension here. Plus, I'm sure you have no problem with someone who supports your POV nearly 100% of the time rewriting the article. As it stands, you two are the only ones who are opposing the changes. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, once again, misrepresenting what has happened here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffs I offered to do something. No one opposed my offer. I broke things down into categories in my sandbox and realized that it did not improve the article. I have stated previously that I agree that the article is sloppy and biased. I also have not said yes or no regarding the RfC. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (intentionally ignoring Corbie's remarks)  Are you thinking something like this? We should have more prose and less quotes. Additionally, the article needs significant TLC on opposition. Right now, it's nearly exclusively protest-ish and "we want this; here's what we say" + "others that want this too; here's what they say" Buffs (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not entirely onboard this is somewhat of an improvement. I really feel that a complete overhaul is warranted. It is in no way up to WP standards. It would be nice if we could all work collaboratively though I do not know how this can happen constructively. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to help with an overhaul, though I don't know when I would be able to get to it. I could immediately do something simple like separating the declarations and claims into two different sections, which would at least make that section less cumbersome and make more sense structurally. If everyone is ok with that, I'll do that and then we can discuss other improvements. I don't have any specific knowledge of this subject- I just came here from the RfC, but I would be glad to help where I can.Tchouppy (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then let's start with what I had and add/subtract to/from it. I'm not interested in mandating every little change. Let's just use that as a starting point. Everyone onboard? Buffs (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to read what you had tagged me in above before. But, yes, that is generally what I was envisioning and seems more effective than the current list of declarations. I think that would be an appropriate starting point if others agree. Tchouppy (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list? 

message: #Yes. I don't see any harm in making a complete list; the no votes aren't compelling. The list isn't unwieldy and seems valuable to readers. I don't know much about the subject matter but agree with Tchouppy that it would be more helpful if the rest of the article were built out. R2 (bleep) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: #No Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and too many examples can distract from the main topic. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: * Can anyone speak to whether the current list would satisfy our notability standard for standalone lists, namely, have items of this type been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? Please ping me. (No talkback please.) R2 (bleep) 18:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support. I think I considered doing this when I did cleanup, but decided to wait for more discussion. It's gone this long without major edits, I think it can wait till you have the time and energy for it. Looking through the edit history, I only see one, relatively minor edit on the article, that you've done. That would put you in the category of someone who hasn't been in any kind of edit war on this. I'd support you doing the changes. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please stop referring to any/all edits as "edit warring". You're unnecessarily rachetting up the tension here. Plus, I'm sure you have no problem with someone who supports your POV nearly 100% of the time rewriting the article. As it stands, you two are the only ones who are opposing the changes. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, once again, misrepresenting what has happened here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffs I offered to do something. No one opposed my offer. I broke things down into categories in my sandbox and realized that it did not improve the article. I have stated previously that I agree that the article is sloppy and biased. I also have not said yes or no regarding the RfC. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (intentionally ignoring Corbie's remarks)  Are you thinking something like this? We should have more prose and less quotes. Additionally, the article needs significant TLC on opposition. Right now, it's nearly exclusively protest-ish and "we want this; here's what we say" + "others that want this too; here's what they say" Buffs (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am not entirely onboard this is somewhat of an improvement. I really feel that a complete overhaul is warranted. It is in no way up to WP standards. It would be nice if we could all work collaboratively though I do not know how this can happen constructively. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to help with an overhaul, though I don't know when I would be able to get to it. I could immediately do something simple like separating the declarations and claims into two different sections, which would at least make that section less cumbersome and make more sense structurally. If everyone is ok with that, I'll do that and then we can discuss other improvements. I don't have any specific knowledge of this subject- I just came here from the RfC, but I would be glad to help where I can.Tchouppy (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then let's start with what I had and add/subtract to/from it. I'm not interested in mandating every little change. Let's just use that as a starting point. Everyone onboard? Buffs (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I hadn't had a chance to read what you had tagged me in above before. But, yes, that is generally what I was envisioning and seems more effective than the current list of declarations. I think that would be an appropriate starting point if others agree. Tchouppy (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: All I've added a POV tag to this article. Of the 42 citations in this article, 18 are primary sources (11 originating from the same UN body). 11 additional sources are from advocacy or activist articles. 10 are from third party sources, but of these only 2 are NOT Maori-related and both of those are Anti-Cultural Appropriation advocates in academic publications. Of the remaining 3 citations, one is self-published, one is an unpublished law school paper, and one is a dead link.
If you take out issues related to the Maori, 100% of the article is primary sources, self published articles, and advocacy/activist pieces. Ergo, in addition to the WP:MOS issues listed above, this article is woefully out of compliance with WP:NPOV and needs an overhaul. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gone through the sources, but I agree with the tag. The article's language reads non-neutrally. Many statements likely require in-text attribution. R2 (bleep) 04:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ahrtoodeetoo, your input in the above RfC would be appreciated too. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree regarding neutrality. The article is extremely biased. The criticism section needs to be expanded but I do not support a full on copy and paste from the Cultural appropriation article. As I stated above under the latest RfC as it stands now the article already looks sloppy, we don't need to add to that when we should be cleaning things up. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: This article needed a criticism section so I have added one from our article on cultural appropriation. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The section from CA was about the concept in general, with no content about Indigenous Intellectual Property issues, so I cut it. Link to it for the general issue of cultural appropriation. But it adds nothing to the issue of Indigenous Intellectual Property. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriation of culture is indeed what this legal concept attempts to address. While I don't think the concept has legal merit (and, if implemented, would destroy the foundations of our copyright system, introduce lawsuits galore over innocuous things), the fact that it IS something people are pushing to attempt to provide legal remedies for cultural appropriation is clearly a related matter. For now, the placeholder is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The four images could be more informative and would look better if they were larger and aesthetically placed instead of being haphazardly off to the side. Shadamss (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MOS#Images Buffs (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: After encountering this 'paper' being cited to as evidence that the composer of Ka mate was not Te Rauparaha for the first time in my life, I read it closely, and it is self-published by an amateur folksong historian, and is not verified or corroborated or even cited by any other researchers in this area. Further, it directly contradicts other published sources.
So have removed it in line with WP:SELFPUB until the author's reliability in the field can be verified. Cyresse (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on composition of Ka mate haka written by John Archer.