Talk:Culturism

I believe this article should not be deleted for two reasons. One is that it is already a word that has credence in the blogosphere. Put culturism in the google search engine and you will see several references to the word. It is in the air; it is not only my term. In fact, it is an addition to the culturist page which was set up by someone else (though it was orphaned). The original poster's quote still adorns the bottom of the post. Secondly, I believe this word will soon be even more widely used. It is good to have authoritative information (editable and debatable) on topics of public interest.

128.122.253.229 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The listing has been shorted and prepared for the suggested merger with culturist. I do not know how to do so. But those of you who had concerns are now welcome to eliminate culturist. Thanks for your concern.

www.pressjohn.com 05:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Culturist
Neither of these terms seem to be very widely used, but there is some use and it's already survived one proposed deletion, so I won't put it up for another one (but I won't argue if someone else does). elmindreda 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

elmindreda,

Since no one has taken you up on the offer, I probably should not bring up this topic. But I do not think that the two terms should be merged (not that I'm disinterested). "Culturist" was first used in a dictionary in 1820 and again appeared in 1913. Dictionary.com will confirm this. "Culturism" appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1879. They have different genitures.

It is, of course, true that they currently are related. But the definitions on the pages are different. And, if there is no outcry or lack of space, I would appreciate your giving it six more months without insisting on merging them. If you then feel the need to do so, that would be fine. But at that would disallow adding a history of the word, as they showed up independently. THanks, www.pressjohn.com 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC) John

Tone and Content
Regardless of whether the merge takes place, the style of both articles is far below the required standard by Wikipedia. In particular, the text is polemical. If you want to advance culturalist ideas, do so outside of Wikipedia. The point of a Wikipedia article is to be purely factual.

I propose the main text is amended as follows:

Culturism is a term referring to a political philosophy emphasizing cultural diversity. Culturism does not hold that any culture is better or worse than any other, but that all cultures have a right to define and defend themselves and to implement "culturist" policies designed to perpetuate their unique (or otherwise valuable) characteristics.

An example of a culturalist perspective would be that Western cultures believe in free speech, feminism, and the separation of church and state. Islam, on the other hand, does not. The opposite of culturalism is cultural imperialism.

--Gilgongo (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, can somebody who knows more than me about culturalism explain what is meant by "the art and science" of culturalism? As far as I can tell, there is no art OR science (worthy of the term) in this - it's just a political philosophy, isn't it? --Gilgongo (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)