Talk:Indigenous science

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indigenous science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2022. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas Mid‑importance

	Indigenous peoples of the Americas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Mark Crislip (20 February 2024). "More Unneeded Adjectives". Science-Based Medicine.

Sourcing

@Pppery: Can you explain why you removed Jerry Coyne as a source? He is used as a source for the related article Listener letter on science controversy, and is far more knowledgeable about science than indigenous "science" proponents. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a primary source being used to establish a false balance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be considered reliable if they are written by people with specialized knowledge in the subject matter. And ironically, creating a false balance is exactly what indigenous science advocates are doing by claiming that their methodology is just as valid as "Western" science. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partofthemachine please review the policy on primary sources WP:USINGPRIMARY.Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained previously:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Coyne is a biologist, and many of the contentious claims made by indigenous science proponents are about biology. Partofthemachine (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gwood3710 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hylaversicolor, Ezanaa.yo.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of scholars

Hey @Gwood3710 I reverted part of your edit that had the list of scholars. I think it's pretty obvious that there are more than five scholars in this field seeing that there are over 20 references in the article many which are authored by people in this field. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes Hi, I should hope so, but you have to understand this from the perspective of someone who may know little to nothing about the topic. to show a list of 5 indigenous scholars leads the reader to believe this list is in fact this limited or that the references provided are not in fact scholars that are indigenous. It is also inappropriate to list names of individuals who either may not want themselves this publicly linked to the topic, and as to not promote them over other Indigenous scholars. Gwood3710 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwood3710 I don't really think anyone would read that list of people and think "there are only five people who do this work". There over over 20 other scholars who work in this area whose work is referenced in the article. As for the concerns of the people listed that's why we only linked to people who work in this area and already have articles about them here that mention their contributions to indigenous science. The fact that are so few here just further highlights the need to author more articles on these important scholars and their work. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, I disagree. I understand where you're coming from in regards to highlighting the fact that the list is so small and there needs to be more representation, but in order for Indigneous science to be taken seriously as its own knowledge like western science, it can't keep being represented in this manner. Further, the 20+ citations you mentioned may not all represent Indigneous scholars. I did my best to only include citations from Indigneous people, but unfortunately its not something you can always garuntee especially with other editors in the future. But I'll leave it with you if you truly believe a list of 5 individuals out of thousands belong there on this wikipedia page In this manner. Gwood3710 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A critique of this article

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/more-unneeded-adjectives/

Vicedomino (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article made it to WP:FTN. I did a quick copyedit and found some problems with the wording and sourcing, but mostly I think the article isn't too bad. It could definitely be improved. jps (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ogawa, Masakata (1995). "Science education in a multiscience perspective". Science Education. 79 (5): 583–593. Bibcode:1995SciEd..79..583O. doi:10.1002/sce.3730790507. ISSN 0036-8326. Archived from the original on 7 August 2022.

76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism section?

Shouldn't there be a section outlining some of the criticism of the concept? It is hardly an uncontroversial topic. Paleolithic Brain (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are certain criticisms that have been raised against many concepts within indigenous science. Crazymantis91 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Native American and Indigenous Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2024 and 12 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asteger (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Asteger (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology by area

Is technology by area the best way to present this information? I'm editing this page for a Native American Studies class, and I'm debating about this section, especially because it only has the American Southeast and there isn't much in it. I think technology is really important to Indigenous Science, however there are so many variations and tribes within each area of America that I'm worried this will generalize their unique technologies and cultures. Any suggestions for a better way to present the information? Asteger (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of recent additions

@Asteger: I have undone your recent additions for the time being because many of them had a very non-neutral tone. I believe this is mostly good material, using appropriate sources, but we cannot phrase an article in openly judgemental, partisan language like the one you frequently used, e.g. this entire section in the introductiona addition:

Many times, these differences in approaches, along with the violent and traumatic history of oppression caused by colonizers, have led to a culture in which European and American scientists and academics devalue or overlook the findings and knowledge of Indigenous people.... The field of Indigenous Science cannot be separated from the history of colonization, as science and research have been weaponized against Indigenous people for centuries, used to label Native people as “primitive” or to justify the massacres and land theft.... Many researchers forced themselves into Native spaces and profited off of their knowledge, rewriting Native peoples’ experiences and history.... This tumultuous history informs the field of Indigenous sciences.

Or these valueing phrases in WP's voice:

this important field
It is important to understand that

Or little flip statements like this field has been around for centuries - which may be either way too short or too long, based on individual cases, and thus such a general statement cannot be made.

The later material is mostly better placed, since it consists of specific examples, but this broader stuff needs to be rephrased before it can be included. Mostly it would be appropriate to attribute the statements to individual researchers or authors, rather than state them as universally accepted truths. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have revised the section, but am open to more commentary on what has been written. In addition, it would be helpful if you could not delete areas without issues. Asteger (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]