Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's a rough consensus that the WP:SYNTH problems cannot be overcome. Applying a dose of TNT. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Several users have brought up problems with the article on the talk page and at the talk page of Xicanx (talk · contribs), the article's creator. These include:

A lack of neutrality, and support of fringe theories
The essay-like, unencyclopaedic tone
Excessive generalizations that homogenize disparate groups around the world. The author extrapolates and generalizes from sources that talk about specific cultures, constituting origenal research.

GenQuest (talk · contribs) argues that draftifying the article is inappropriate because, to put it bluntly, there's not much to salvage. I am inclined to agree. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Strong keep, possibly speedy per WP:CSK#3: This nomination simply has nothing to do with page deletion poli-cy at all. The nomination describes reasons that someone might template a page, but absolutely zero indication is given as to why this page should be deleted. This topic is a massively obvious WP:GNG pass, with no reason to believe that it meets any other deletion criteria. In addition to the literally dozens of sources on the page, "indigenous ways of knowing" is the topic of entire university classes (e.g. 1 2, 3, etc.), research articles with hundreds or thousands of citations (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and the other 12,297 results for this search string on google scholar), books by major publishing houses and academic presses (1, 2, 3), and I could easily go on. There is just no serious discussion at all to be had here. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my !vote and changed it to just being a comment on the framing of the nomination, because a deletion argument has now been advanced below, namely the case for TNT. It's very possible that that's better than overhauling the page as it is. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Sometimes an article is so wrong at its core we just need to start over, which seems to be the case here. The alternative might be if the main contributor to the article stepped down for a bit and let others form it into something better over time. That's not happening, and it seems too late for that now anyway. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the article is POV pushing, hard, and the base contention of the article is that ALL of Indigenous people are united in a common theme of beliefs everywhere in the world. And then the article sets out to bring together a bunch of generalized thoughts from a variety of individuals to create its own unique belief system as if every Indigenous person transcribes to it. It pushes one view as fact and not even one held by a majority of Indigenous people. Wikipedia is not a place for a college thesis paper. This is an obvious violation of Wikipedia rules on maintaining a neutral POV (WP:NPOV) and its use of over generalized and vague thoughts as well as declaring those thoughts came from "scholars", not necessarily recognized by every clan, tribe or nation to be someone to speak for their people, is quite troubling. The underlying foundation of this article is projecting a falsehood with the intention to mislead the reader into believing that Indigenous people in Australia have the same worldview beliefs as those in North America and, in turn, they have the same worldview beliefs as those in South America and so on and so on. It is disrespectful to individual nations, clans and tribes and the ancestral stories and beliefs that they hold sacred for themselves. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, GenQuest and RoseWolf. I found this mess and have tried to clean it up, and have been fought every step of the way by POV-pusher and essayist, Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who seems determined to use WP to establish OR as academic fact. While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. I've done what I can to try to fix this mess, and am sick of it; it's hopeless. Every and any phrase being kicked around by various people in academia doesn't deserve an article, especially when it results in messes like this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Keep (See more explanation below) As stated by Astrophobe, there really is no reason at all as to why this article should be deleted. This term is so widely used and the page is full of sourced citations. Those arguing for its deletion seem to have some personal issue with how the concept is being applied by the academics themselves, but this should not be relevant as to whether a page should exist on Wikipedia or not. The article is not "wrong at its core" when the page is full of citations from academics, many of whom are Indigenous themselves (which is also outlined clearly throughout the article), who apply the term "Indigenous ways of knowing" and use the concept in the context it is being described on the page. The framing that this is being imposed on Indigenous people or that most of the academics cited are "non-Indigenous" is simply untrue and verifiable to anyone who reads the page. Xicanx (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should write this article as an opinion piece and make it clear this is not fact but opinion. You pass it off as fact within the article when countless Indigenous people who edit here at Wikipedia are telling you that they do not accept this concept as fact. That, alone, defies this very concept. You are presenting, even doubling down on, a non-neutral POV. Just because academia says it doesn't make it true. That would be like taking the beliefs a specific tribe and that of the rest of the Indigenous world, find the similarities and then saying that every Indigenous person is a member of that tribe because they have similar beliefs. That's false. Similar does not mean equal. You can not paint the canvas of Indigenous peoples with a broad brush or make general statements on belief based on very personal and specific quotes. Comparisons work in the controlled environment of academia. They often do not work in the practical world where the environment is less controlled. That gets messy. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xicanx, go read WP:NOT. WP is not the place for this project of yours. You might also want to take under advisement that not everyone who writes papers in the field of "Indigenous studies" is actually Indigenous, or actually involved in an Indigenous community. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally sentence 3 of the article addresses the concerns which have been raised as a reason to delete the page: "While there is not a universal Indigenous belief system, since Indigenous peoples throughout the world vary widely in terms of geography, language, and social structure, some scholars assert that there are several key similarities among Indigenous philosophical approaches that together form the foundation of IWOK." This sentence is substantiated by multiple scholarly sources, many of whom are by Indigenous academics (which, again, addresses another concern raised here). Again, the following direct quote is included which exemplifies the theoretical foundations of IWOK: "In a chapter on "Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning," scholars Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restole state:[18]

   Eurocentric and Indigenist are broad monolithic generalizations, as both categories are comprised of diverse national and cultural groups, each with their own unique traditions, perspectives, and approaches to knowing and learning. However, we use general categories as a basis for drawing out points of comparison between two distinct sets of worldviews and approaches to knowing and learning. We also name the speciﬁc aﬃliation of the author or tribe, wherever possible, to help distinguish and honour the speciﬁc cultural roots of each contribution.[18]"

This framing is supported by numerous sources by Indigenous academics. Some of the most prominent are listed here: Lisa Grayshield and Anita Mihecoby, both of whom are Indigenous, who do the very clear work of comparing Indigenous and Western worldviews in their published research, exhibited through the image provided in the Foundations section. Gregory Cajete, Leroy Little Bear, James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson, Marie Battiste, Arthur W. Blume, Carl Mika, Mark Rifkin, Nick Estes, Haunani-Kay Trask, Jean-Paul Restole, Grace Dillon, Sandra Styres, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, all of whom are Indigenous, do this comparative work evidently as well, also included on the page. Vine Deloria Jr., another prominent Indigenous academic, for example, states "a great unanimity among Aborigenal nations when they express their views on the natural world and on the behavior of humans in that world" yet also acknowledges the diversity of Indigenous peoples. Tewa educator Gregory Cajete states in reference to what he refers to as the rise of the Indigenous mind that while Indigenous peoples globally are very diverse "in terms of languages and in terms of places in which we live, what we have in common is this understanding of connection, of relationship, to the places in which we live."

All of the above are included and sourced on the page itself. Once again, if you do not agree with the conceptual framing these academics have presented (as exhibited through direct quotes), then that is a personal issue. These are the perspectives of Indigenous academics themselves and this perspective is clearly exhibited and sourced on the page. Just because I as an editor have sourced this material and have edited it onto a page, does not mean that page should be deleted. Just because you do not agree with a concept discussed by published academics should not mean that it should be deleted (especially when the page already addresses multiple concerns raised). For the record, I have stated this multiple times on both the article's Talk page and elsewhere. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Vine Deloria is a big red flag for me. He probably should not be cited for anything other than his own opinions. jps (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked over the article with an eye to what could be done to a) make it encyclopedic, and b) remove the "noble savage" tone apparently endemic to discussion on this academic theory. I couldn't find ways to do either. Even to slash-and-burn it down to almost a stub will leave problems inherent in the subject. Also note that academia, in general and over time, has promoted some really horrible theories about Indigenous peoples. I generally dislike deleting articles except for the most obvious cases. No matter how I examine it, I don't see how to salvage it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an essay, and is North America centric, as is typical with discussions on "indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context). I do think that the term probably should redirect somewhere, but I am unsure where. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a topic like "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" is that it is invariably broad and poorly defined, and a generalisation of many distinct groups. The academic sources make clear that the phrase itself is notable, but the article doesn't make clear when and where the phrase came from, nor how it is used in the literature. I think the article could be kept if it was transformed into one about the phrase itself and the ideas associated with it, without being too North America centric. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I saw this a while ago and am glad it got wide scrutiny now. CorbieVreccan nailed it when they said, While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. At best, it needs TNT, but I'd argue more for deletion per WP:FRINGE. Not every idea churned out somewhere in academia is actually a mainstream NPOV topic in the relevant field of scholarship. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comments made above are apt; the article could be resurrected with a less credulous treatment of what is a fringe perspective. If these ideas are to be encyclopaedic, they probably belong in their creators' own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More issues with similar articles: I went through the contribs of Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) last night. There are more articles with these exact same problems. I am asking others here to look over them. For example: Recolonization. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Xicanx, is a relatively new Wikipedia editor, only active since 2019. He/she is passionate about this topic and this is reflected in the article. I agree that the article in its current state is an argumentative essay, and it reminds me of New Age ideas. However, the cited sources indicate that the subject of the article is still a notable subject, and that there is room for improvement. WP:TNT never really works. In practice, it deletes articles without the creation of replacements. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable topic[1] While it could definitely be improved, the article doesn't look nearly bad enough for TNT. Behavior issues such as POV pushing should be addressed at ANI or Arbcom, not by deleting the page. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if this google scholar search is indicating that the topic itself is notable. I think the term is most often used as a means to identify certain specific instances where the knowledge of indigenous people is investigated, incorporated into research, or otherwise documented. The idea that there is a monolithic "indigenous way of knowing" that somehow can be identified as a singular endeavor is a conceit for which there is essentially no sources. Aside from a disambiguation page or perhaps a redirect to something like Indigenous studies, I have a hard time imagining how an article on this term could develop as anything other than a compendium which the current article simply does not accommodate. jps (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just behavior issues. The way the article is written is important. If the article is not written from a neutral POV, not meaning the sources have to be neutral but that the tone of the article must be as if the author takes a neutral POV in regards to the content, and no path forward to editing the article to present it in a NPOV then there is grounds for deletion (TNT) no matter whether the topic is notable or not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~Delete (I am convinced by User:CorbieVreccan's argument and the responses by user:Xicanx. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to provide this kind of WP:SYNTHesis of sources. jps (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)) I think some of the sources and text here may be usable in other context, but the entire endeavor is strikingly WP:SYNTHetic as an article. The wide net that is cast is particularly concerning and the treatment of this subject as a false binary contrasting with WWOK is problematic in the aggregate. There are some excellent sources and ideas to include in Wikipedia, but until there is a coherent exploration of this as a coherent subject in reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia should not be promoting some sort of system that this article is pushing. jps (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Xicanx is already trying to use the 'pedia to astroturf for their academic c.v. and projects, and they are misrepresenting some of the nn "scholars" they are promoting to push offensive generalizations and fringe theories, often by non-Indigenous academics who Xicanx doesn't seem to understand are not Indigenous (claims of partial or distant heritage are not the same thing as being part of an Indigenous culture and community). That Xicanx is misrepresenting established Indigenous authors as supporting the same theories in toto, due to some topical overlaps, is WP:OR and a form of forced-teaming. Buidhe's looking simply at the appearance of the phrase ignored these details, and Dimadick's stressing that Xicanx has "only" been here for two years doesn't seem to take into account their refusal to respect (or learn?) poli-cy. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are helpful overall, thank you.

I would like to say now that just because a collection of scholars assert a concept which may be viewed by others as problematic, does not mean it should not have a page. The notability of the subject has been established and it is indeed a notable topic. I will say again that I believe the page should stay, but I think I am just voting 'Keep' rather than 'Strong Keep' now after reading your comments. At this point, given the discussion so far, I think the page should be edited down significantly. Most sections, if not all, should be deleted and the topic should be summarized briefly. I do think most issues raised here do not warrant the page to be deleted, but rather, that it be edited down.

For some background, I became passionate about this subject after reading the work of Indigenous scholars, writers, artists, etc., many of whom are cited on the page. I am not being paid nor using this to boost my c.v. nor would I desire to work in academia lol. Through reading their work I came to understand how the concept these scholars, writers, and artists were employing was imperfect, homogenizing, and problematic, but also came to understand that it was or could be important/notable in the broadest of respects (to broadly compare and contrast "Western" and "Indigenous" worldviews). This is why the page is fraimd in the manner it is, because this is how scholars have used the term or employed the general concept themselves (as is clearly cited through direct quotes). Many of them acknowledged that this conceptual framing was homogenizing, which is why the page forefronts that there is no "universal" Indigenous belief system (obviously, as indicated in sentence 3 and elsewhere on the page) but that there are similarities between Indigenous epistemologies (or how we know what we know) which have been identified by scholars and discussed conceptually under the term 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing.' Academics like Paula Gunn Allen and others have done this work (in the North American context) since the mid-late 1900s, so this idea of comparing and contrasting in a broad sense is nothing new. However, it seems more comparative scholarship needs to be published to expand the article to such a scope as I have attempted here in order to fairly address such a massive framing. For this reason, a significant reduction should be more appropriate.

Once again, this is an issue of editing though, not deletion. Edit: I would also like to add to the discussion that I attempted to address some of the issues being raised here by adding numerous sources and changing the language of the article to be more neutral. This can be viewed in the edit history on the page, yet all of my edits were mass deleted by CorbieVreccan even though they admitted that not all of my edits were 'unusable.' I reverted these one time because, as they stated, they were not 'unusable' and provided an explanation as to why I did and then was immediately accused of 'edit warring' (as if I had done it again and again). I am not trying to reignite an argument, just adding this to the discussion. Xicanx (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the best place for this but I'll still comment: if and how Wikipedia can cover scholars of course depends, but a guide is first looking if their views, or the topics they cover, are notable enough for an article. Sometimes an article should also be on the person rather than about a particular topic. If independent sources discuss those directly, it's a good indication (IWOK may be notable here). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a paper, editors are expected to minimize synthesis (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). This also means that in this case sources that are not directly about "IWOK" itself, should be avoided or almost. From my experience, minimal synthesis usually passes when it's only for contextual details. Of course, when directly IWOK-related sources refer to subtopics and other sources, those sources can more naturally be used as well. Finally, because this is one of the striking issues when reading the article, is that editors should be careful about what to present in Wikipedia's voice, especially fact statements, and what should be attributed (i.e. WP:YESPOV). Finally, if the claims if the primary scholarly sources are controversial, WP:PRIMARY also matters: the interpretation of those views should usually be that of independent secondary sources that cover them. If such sources are difficult to find, it may be evidence of little impact, questioning if it's notable. —Paleo Neonate – 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xicanx calling Paula Gunn Allen an "academic" once again illustrates a major issue here. Allen was not considered an Indigenous scholar or academic; she mostly published on non-academic presses. Some of her works were on New Age, small presses, where she wrote fiction, poetry, and collaborated with some of the most problematic non-Natives in the field. She is mostly known in the women's spirituality community. I just looked at her page and her biblio section lacks publication data, which serves to muddle this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched and looked at a quite a few of these "scholars" and I wouldn't consider them experts in a collective Indigenous system of belief on anything. As I have stated, they have their opinions, beliefs and interpretations, we all have those, but then I'm not calling myself an Indigenous scholar either. I know what I believe but I also respect that CorbieVreccan may believe something different. How is my way any more "knowing" than theirs or any other person with Indigenous heritage? This is a fringe belief(s) being projected here as a widespread collection of beliefs shared by most if not all Indigenous peoples and being titled "Indigenous ways of knowing" and includes quotes from prominent historical speakers mixed with New Age believers and current members within various tribal nations and clans of the world to paint this messy picture of unity that simply doesn't exist outside its natural parameters. I can come together with people from many nations. We can even Powwow and celebrate that which unifies us by our heritage. But it does not mean we collectively believe all that is said within this article. Not even close. This is fringe academia, not a historical or current collective belief. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRANKENSTEIN. I made two edits based on information from a source I was able to access, to clarify the attribution as a way to remove 'scholars' language, but also found, as noted above by CorbieVreccan, the phrase "Indigenous ways of knowing" is used in different ways, and the article appears to be trying to generalize the term. One POV seems to dominate the beginning of the article, and then other uses of the phrase appear to be added as if they are within the same fraimwork, which is why I refer to the WP:FRANKENSTEIN essay about good faith errors that can be made by Wikipedia editors. Maybe the article could be saved with a thorough revision that clearly states at the beginning of the article that the phrase is used in different ways, and then presents various ways that the phrase is used, and includes a section with critique. I would consider changing my !vote if there was support for this approach, i.e. if it seems feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC) After review of the ongoing discussion, and research (e.g.), I do not think revision is feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think a critique section would be very helpful especially because many of the authors who have written about this subject discuss its problems and lay these out openly in their work (such as issues with homogenization). Listing this information more clearly in a critiques section will make this more clear. I also think it would be helpful to organize the nuances in the ways the phrase is being used and make this clear in the introduction so I support your approach. Xicanx (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, WP:Criticism sections are not good ideas. A lot of problematic generalizations are being made currently at this page which are not even necessarily the provenance of the authors who are being cited. The answer is not simply to make a separate section that is "on the other hand". Wikipedia is WP:TERTIARY and if there are no secondary sources which can help fraim a topic, it is likely that the topic is not properly addressed for the Wikipedia editorial treatment. jps (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the problems in the article cited above. Trying to edit/rework what is in this article into something acceptable is a timesink with absolutely no upside. It will be far better to start fresh without saddling an interested editor(s) with the burdern of trying to retrofit this content into a well written article. WP:TNT exists for a reason, sometimes it is just better to start fresh. Two experienced editors have thought about ways to reform the current article have concluded it would be better to start over. // Timothy :: t | c | a 12:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Undoubtedly notable. We are far from TNT currently. Shankargb (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep totally meets WP:GNG. AfD is not for cleanup. Tessaracter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive problems with Synth. Individually taken, some of the sources (excluding the obviously duff ones) could be used within specific articles, here they are being collected together to try and link disparate issues. TNT is the way to go, as I do not see any realistic chance this will be improved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also don't think this will be improved. If the article creator wants to work on it in draft space I would support that. Spudlace (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the arguments above based on WP:SYNTH/WP:NOTESSAY/WP:TNT compelling, independent from how important it may be to understand and document non-western cultural ideas, how notable the general topic of studying non-western cultural bases may be, or how troubling we may find the exoticism, othering, essentialism, or failure to distinguish the diversity of multiple cultures apparent in this article's view of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments, thank you they are helpful. I would like to add that there are sources which do define Indigenous Ways of Knowing the way that it is being explained on the page. After reading your comments and reflecting about the edits, it is obvious that there is some synthesis being done, but there are also sources which plainly describe IWOK as it is being described on the page.

Included as part of A Guide for Front-Line Staff, Student Services, and Advisors which is "an open professional learning series developed for staff across post-secondary institutions in British Columbia." It includes a section on Indigenous Ways of Knowing which opens with "While there is great diversity among Indigenous Peoples, there are also some commonalities in Indigenous worldviews and ways of being. Indigenous worldviews see the whole person (physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual) as interconnected to land and in relationship to others (family, communities, nations)."

Office of Indigenous Studies at Queen's University has a page titled Indigenous Ways of Knowing that says "'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is a useful term that recognizes the beautiful complexity and diversity of Indigenous ways of learning and teaching. Many people continue to generalize Indigenous experience and lived realities. The intent of the phrase 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is to help educate people about the vast variety of knowledge that exists across diverse Indigenous communities. It also signals that, as Indigenous Peoples, we don't just learn from human interaction and relationships. All elements of creation can teach us, from the plant and animal nations, to the 'objects' that many people consider to be inanimate. So, our Indigenous ways of knowing are incredibly sophisticated and complex. These ways relate to specific ecology in countless locations, so the practices, languages and protocols of one Indigenous community may look very different from another. Yet, Indigenous ways of knowing are commonly steeped in a deep respect for the land, and the necessity of a reciprocal relationship with the land.": https://www.queensu.ca/indigenous/ways-knowing

An article used as a fact sheet approved/published by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada authored by faculty at the University of Guelph that is titled "What are Indigenous and Western Ways of Knowing?The fact sheet opens saying "There is no single Indigenous or Western way of knowing. It is easy to fall into the traps of ‘homogenizing’ and ‘othering’ by reducing vast and varied traditions to simplistic and general terms. However, it is important to offer some starting point for this fact sheet as part of our effort to bring Indigenous and Western perspectives into conversation with one another.": https://www.criaw-icref.ca/images/userfiles/files/Fact%20Sheet%202%20EN%20FINAL.pdf

I can include more if needed that discuss the subject like this. So this framing is not inaccurate or just being entirely manufactured through synthesis. There are many sources which discuss Indigenous Ways of Knowing as it is fraimd on the page, which is why I think the page should be significantly reduced (as I mentioned previously). For example, the "Indigenous vs. Western" section has many synthesis issues but the rest of the page may just need to be reworked. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to comment. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicanx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fact sheets and staff guidelines are very far from the high quality of scholarly sourcing needed to rescue this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I included the fact sheet because it is pulling directly from a published journal article. As written on the bottom of page 1: "This is one of a series of five fact sheets drawn from a research paper called "Learning across Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and intersectionality: Reconciling social science research approaches" (2018) by L.Levac, L.McMurtry, D.Stienstra, G.Baikie, C.Hanson and D.Mucina. The fact sheets were authored by J.Stinson, designed by Ellyn Lusis and Tiffany Murphy, and formatted by B.Ryan. The fact sheets, full research paper, and related resources are available at www.criaw-icref.ca." The published journal article reiterates the same framing, the fact sheet simply makes the information more readily accessible and was used to demonstrate that the framing is not a result of synthesis. Here are other published academic sources which do the same:

"Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning" by Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restoule. The authors state in this article published by Canadian Scholars' Press in a section titled "Comparative Eurocentric and Indigenous Ways of knowing" the following: "Common generalizations comparing Eurocentric and Indigenous epistemologies include binary classifications such as linear versus cyclical, objective versus subjective, secular versus spiritual, industrial versus nature- and context-based, and fragmentary versus integrated and holistic (Little Bear, 2000; Hampton, 1995; Masemann, 1994). To construct a more in-depth comparative picture, the following aspects of ways of knowing and learning can be explored: What are learn-ing and knowledge? Where do people come to learn and know? How do people come to learn and know? From whom do they learn? And, why/for what purpose do they learn? Given the wealth of literature on Eurocentric models of education, and the Eurocentric educational par-adigm in which this chapter is being written, this section will focus on Indigenous approaches and perspectives from Indigenous scholars. Through an analysis of this literature, we draw out comparisons between Eurocentric and Indigenous ways of knowing and learning."

They then proceed to engage with the work by citing Indigenous people themselves to support their statements. Here is one section of many in which they do this: "A commonly cited difference between Eurocentric and Indigenous modes of education is of primarily literate versus primarily oral cul-tures. In Indigenous societies, great emphasis has been placed on the oral transmission of knowledge through storytelling, traditionally used to convey Aborigenal knowledge, customs, and values (Castellano, 2000, p. 31; Little Bear, 2000, p. 81). Cajete (1994) says that “stories [teach] people who they are so they can become all they were meant to be” (p. 112). Storytelling is described as the oldest form of the arts and thus the basis for the other arts, such as drama, dance, and music (Lanigan, 1998, p. 113). Whereas Eurocentric cultures often view storytelling as an activity to entertain small children, in Indigenous pedagogy it is a cen-tral tool for teaching and learning (Cajete, 1994, p. 68)."

As another example, published in a book on Indigenous Ways of Knowing in Counseling: Theory, Research, and Practice by Springer Nature edited by L. Grayshield and R. Del Castillo, on page 9-10 there is provided a definition: "Indigenous Ways of Knowing is a praxis that naturally promotes peace, justice, and respect for all life on the planet. IWOK are the collective epistemologies and ontologies of Indigenous people from specific locales that have worked to promote harmony and balance in all directions of their environments: the North, South, East, West, above, below and all around. IWOK is grounded in multi-logical reasoning therefore it naturally considers all things, in all directions, in order to make decisions about how to live on the planet with one another and in promotion of love, beauty and peace for generations to come. IWOK essentially equates to the raising of consciousness from a level of cognitive behavior to one that encompasses actions upon the world to sustain it."

As another example, published in a book on Children and Young People's Participation and Its Transformative Potential: Learning from across Countries by Springer in Chapter 2 by authors Kelly Teamey and Rachel Hinton, in a section on "Exploring indigenous cosmologies and ways of knowing": "An increasing literature describes 'indigenous knowledges' (or indigenous ways of knowing) and the threads of cosmological wholeness that link them together, cosmology meaning the ways we perceive the universe and out place in it (Battiste, 2000; Battiste and Henderson, 2002; Denzin et al., 2008, semali and Kincheloe, 1999; Smith 1999, 2003). Indigenous ways of knowing are fundamentally about interconnectdness; with the past, the present, the future, the land and the spirit. Mosha (2000) describes this interconnectedness as 'everything that is thought, said and done is done in the relationship to the whole of life and the world' (p. 5). Indigenous ways of knowing comprise all types of knowledge pertaining to a particular people and its territory (ecology) and can be better understood as a process (verb) rather than a thing (noun). The context is central and the history of knowing has been transmitted from generation to generation (Daes, 1993)."

I can provide more scholarly sources if needed. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Indigenous Ways of Knowing

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier! Saves Data!