Talk:Nacirema

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Release into the Public Domain

The original paper has apparently entered the public domain [1]. Wikisource could use a copy. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done --Jcmaco | Talk 15:58, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything on the referenced page that indicates that it is PD. How was this conclusion arrived at? ;Bear 06:40, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

It doesn't say it now, but it definitely said it then. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Needed

this page should have a spoiler warning... in the respect that a friend of mine did not finish reading the original piece but found out the meaning here. SiriusAlphaCMa 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this definatly needs a spoiler warning. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Also, I've found that "Asu" (as in USA) is also excepted and used in the same way. Could we perhaps add something on that? -obstructio 1832 (CST) 10.27.06

I just added the Spoiler tags as requested. --208.127.64.127 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satire of what/whom?

The text currently says the article is a satire on anthropology. I believe it is more of a satire on American culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always interpreted it as being a satire on how Americans view other cultures, especially primitive ones, i.e. its intention was to make the reader realize how biased our point-of-view is by showing them our culture from a different point-of-view. 76.121.211.59 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But also a satire specifically about how anthropologists wrote about other cultures.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

need for reversion

A recent update at 13:18, 10 March 2011 by IP 198.200.181.207 removed the satire claim, but also made the first sentence an incomplete sentence. This needs either revision or reversion. --Seltzerfish (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hoaxes in science

Not sure this applies; the 1956 article was not really intended to fool anybody for long, and didn't fool anybody for long, except the extremely gullible who didn't think about what they were reading. Some of the subsequent publications do not seem to have even the very shallowly and superficially deceptive elements of the 1956 article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap a floating sentence with no period?

"This is when strange becomes familiar"

Really? Tell me this is a typo, wikipedia. --70.124.82.177 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1957 use

The year following the anthropological article, the B movie Hot Rod Rumble has a closing credit "A Nacirema Production."Kdammers (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nacirema. 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/20151112023903/http://www.ethnography.com/2015/10/battle-ritual-among-the-nacirema/ to http://www.ethnography.com/2015/10/battle-ritual-among-the-nacirema/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?

The current lead paragraph calls it a "neologism". It's 2022, 71 years ago seems pretty long ago for it to apply. Maybe that's just me. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Neologism" might give the idea that it's an attempt at coining a technical term. In fact, it's a fanciful proper name; I don't see why it's any more of a neologism than fictional geographical names which appear in Tolkien etc ("Mirkwood" and so on). AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Original use"

Not sure the original use can be in the 1950s, I'm currently reading an anarchist newspaper from 1913 that uses the term (actually "Acirema") in the same way as described in the article. The paper was edited by Samuel Hammersmark at the time. The article is titled Tales of a Traveler and attributed to "Everyman". The full run of the paper is at https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/101648246 and the article occurs in the July 1913 issue. 174.21.187.120 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and looks like it occurs here in October 1913: https://hgarchives.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/everyman-issue-on-joseph-fels-sept-oct-1913.pdf 174.21.187.120 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the concept of reversing the word "America(n)", but about an anthropological satire of the 1950s, and subsequent developments based on it. What you found may be interesting, but if there's no evidence that it had any influence on 1950s anthropologists, then it may not be directly relevant to this article. AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]