| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiki culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Rephrased "They each house a spirit," as it did not make sense to me on first reading.
tikitastic.com is a commercial site, selling tiki junk, despite the anon's description of it as a blog, so I removed it - DavidWBrooks 11:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am going to add a lot of information about the actual man, Tiki, who inspired the legends. → JarlaxleArtemis 22:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Modern anthropologists have almost completely debunked the theory that Polynesians migrated from East to West. It is well accepted in the scientific community that Polynesians came from SouthEast Asia and migrated, settled, and colonized the south pacific some 1,500-2,000 years ago. Both genetic mitochondrial DNA evidence and cultural and language similarities all seem to support the theory that Polynesians came migrated from SouthEast Asia, not South America.
If they did come from South America, there is certainly no compelling evidence to suggest that, minus a theory of pure conjecture and hearsay such as the one described on this page. I think someone should point that out. --24.31.120.217 02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This theory, however, is not widely held in modern anthropology.
‡ Jarlaxle 03:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)Genetic research has found that modern-day Polynesians, however, are more closely related to Southeast Asians than to American Indians.
I'm not the expert to do it, but think this REALLY needs some solid material about Hei Tiki if it's a page about Tiki, and not about obscure inicdents of western interaction with polynesia (if no one else has the expertise, possibly move the interesting and well written stuff about Hyerdahl's theory and Tiki bars, um, 'culture' to other pages?). Pretty please :-).
My two cents worth....
Wouldn't this topic be better served if it was more or better separated into TIKI and TIKI CULTURE (US or otherwise)? The historical references and discussion could be managed from an archeological standpoint and the Culture aspect could be managed as the culture changes.
The article says Don the Beachcomber opened his restaurant in 1934, and Trader Vic's opened in 1937. The next paragraph starts with "Around this time, the soldiers were returning home from World War II..." which is a bit awkward considering that Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked until 1941 and the war didn't end until 1945. I don't know if this refers to active duty sailors returning home on leave during the war, or if someone is off by a decade or so. Rbean 03:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the material on Thor Heyerdahl into the Thor Heyerdahl article, as it did not seem to have anything muchin common with themed restaurants in the United States. Kahuroa 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that tiki culture is a phenomenon unique to the U.S. is incorrect. For example, there are numerous tiki bars/restaurants in Spain, and several exotica bands in Germany. And I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Heck - the article even links to Critiki, the Worldwide Guide to Tiki Bars & Polynesian Restaurants, which lists numerous establishments outside the US. It would be more proper to say that tiki culture originated in the U.S. No? Rocinante9x 14:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(PS - Any way to get rid of most of the above comments, now that the material has been properly split out?)
The image Image:Don Beach Front Cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10,628 bytes, without using the words ersatz, kitschorcamp. Not so easy to do. --Wetman (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment "The opening of the Don The Beachcomber in Huntington Beach in 2009 marks the first appearance of the tiki brand eatery on the mainland United States in over 30 years." is not true. Though I'm not sure which establishment can honestly make this claim, I do know that (for instance) Psycho Suzi's, a very popular spot in Minneapolis, has been around since 2003. See: [1] and supporting a supporting article here: [2] Perhaps that sentence should be removed? Ggr ggr (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)ggr_ggr[reply]
References
The first few paragraphs are much too chatty, the line I just removed "A story persists that Hughes struck and killed a pedestrian one night while driving home from Don the Beachcombers, after consuming too many Zombies." (without sources! Hello courtcase!) being an excellent example.86.179.62.244 (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous versions of this article used the term "tiki" and "tiki kitsch" interchangeably. (For example, calling book on tiki culture "a book about tiki kitsch," even though the book itself includes no mention of the word "kitsch.")
Just wanted to point out that "kitsch" is a subjective evaluation and that "tiki" and "kitsch," while perhaps related, are simply not synonymous.
Ergo this snippet, which was removed, which may be useful in any future discussion:
'Tiki may or may not be, or be considered, "kitsch"[1][2], "tiki" and "kitsch" being related but not synonymous.[3]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Song1789 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
Could someone add a source for Pacifica as a goddess? I'm wondering which came first (or at all): Pacifica as a goddess or the statue/concept. Galactiger (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I'm curious to know whether it fits more as a Western interpretation of Polynesian, etc., culture or if it's based on real religion/mythology. Galactiger (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unhappy with the Cultural appropriation section. It's got two source citations, but these are research papers and fall under WP:PRIMARY. Besides which, one of the sources (Exeter) is clearly marked "Draft", although it claims that an earlier version had been published. I've attributed the conclusions to their authors (they were unattributed when added), but I'd be much happier if we had an independent secondary source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such fringe far-left propaganda should not even be mentioned. It is irrelevant. I never see far-right propaganda inserted into articles, and neither should Wikipedia pander to radical leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.28.252 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opening the entry under Post WW2, the author refers to Americans returning after having won the war. Assuming good faith, let's say the author is not claiming that America alone deserves all the credit. I changed the wording accordingly.24.244.23.107 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
