Talk:Climate change in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead image(s)

As US is a big country and there are lots of aspects to the subject how about having 4 pics together in the lead like the ones in Climate change adaptation. Perhaps one from the south and one from Alaska, one of some high tech and one of people? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like a good idea. The graph is a bit dry to start off with. Do you have ideas as to what high tech and what people? _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Disagree in part. The article is about climate change itself, not about the Effects of climate change per se. More importantly, it is substantively misleading to start an article with pictures of hurricanes and wildfires, when climate change only intensifies these events but does not cause them; the intensification can't be reflected in dramatic, non-WP:NEUTRAL pictures. Simplistic picture galleries tend to lower the intellectual level of the article. If you're interested in simply "adding interest", I suggest supplementing the present "dry" graphic with a color map like Figure 3 on this EPA page] (archive). The color map would add interest but still be encyclopedic. I'd be willing to upload to Commons if it's not already there. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well as I am not American and not actually going to do anything other people have a greater say than me - I am just going to throw in a few ideas. Map looks good. Re causation researchers seem certain the 2021 Western North America heat wave was caused by climate change. The biggest emitter in USA is transport. So for tech an obvious pic would be a Tesla car but there is so much Tesla on Wikipedia already that we should not bias to one company. If there are enough editors to maintain this article perhaps the tech pic could be changed every month. So it could show electric vehicles from different American companies. Electric school buses and garbage trucks (hmm maybe not that). Also occasionally basic research such as fusion. And if anything happens in USA carbon dioxide removal plants and solar radiation management experiments. Background listening. Probably Americans will have better ideas for people pics than me (but see this amusing exchange) Chidgk1 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The important distinction you are missing is causation versus intensification. It is wrong to imply greenhouse gas-induced climate change "causes" any specific weather event: for example, the IPCC says "the new report also reflects major advances in the science of attribution – understanding the role of climate change in intensifying specific weather and climate events such as extreme heat waves and heavy rainfall events.". It's extremely misleading to simplistically imply national actions are the main cause of climate change in that nation. You may wish to put one or more galleries in the sections on impacts or mitigation or adaptation, but definitely not in the lede. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not looked into in deeply but maybe extreme event attribution has improved since the cutoff date for AR6 WG1 studies. Or maybe the 2021 Western North America heat wave happened to be more extreme than any extreme events before AR6 WG1. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like a picture of a wildfire would be good—in one of the sections on Impact. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking into converting the EPA map to SVG before uploading; otherwise I'll just upload the map in PNG format. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

PNG graphic is uploaded and inserted into lead. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TEK

@Larataguera: About what percent of your 6,914-byte post has to do directly with Climate change adaptation? —Distinguish from descriptions of TEK itself, which would have a good home in Traditional_ecological_knowledge#Differences_from_science. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

RCraig09, this is a good question. I'd say 100%. The sources say that bridging TEK and Western science is important for adaptation to climate change, and that this will require adapting our epistemology and validating Indigenous ways of knowing. I think it's reasonable to have a few sentences describing what that means. When this article says there are heat waves, we have a few paragraphs describing heat waves (with links to more specific articles); when the article says that policy initiatives are important for adapting to climate change, we have a few paragraphs describing those policies. Likewise, when we include sources indicating that TEK as an epistemology is important for understanding and responding to climate change, a few sentences describing that epistemology are appropriate (with further expansion in the section of the more detailed article, as you have indicated). So, just to be perfectly clear: I can't distinguish between adaptation and TEK, because bridging these epistemologies is the adaptation. Larataguera (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a creative interpretation that is worthy of mention... as background. I count twelve sentences or semicolon-separated clauses (not "a few")—not one of which provides a concrete, physical-world example of how TEK alone or bridged epistemologies have in reality adapted to climate change.^{(The paragraph I added here provides concrete examples.)} "Bridging epistemologies", as you explain it, seems to be a preliminary abstract conceptual process (a mental adaptation) that can lead to physical-world climate change adaptations, but "bridging epistemologies" is distinct from the adaptations themselves. I've added a See also template that can link to where your full essay should be, but from an encyclopedia's point of view, only a concise summary belongs here. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

RCraig09, The see also template is a good idea. Thanks. By the way, I'm sure you don't mean to, but your tone comes off a little condescending. This is not a 'creative interpretation'. It's what the peer reviewed sources say. Also, referring to about 250 words as a 'full essay' is a little unfair. Anyway, I have cut about 1/3 of that addition (2300 bytes), because I think the see also template provides adequate access to that information. Thanks for your suggestions! Larataguera (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW there's some redundancy in your addition that you can address if you think the section is getting too long. ie, TEK provides information... useful for adaptation at the community level... Specifically, TEK—...—provides wisdom for community-level adaptation. And I think your suggestion of more concrete examples would make a great addition. Larataguera (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of "full" essay as a compliment, in the sense of being thorough. At first glance, I'm concerned there is some editorial commentary introduced into the text that's not literally in the references (reminds me of WP:SYNTH), leading me to use the term "essay".

Your pruning of content is a step in the right direction, but the TEK subsection is still more than half of the entire Adaptation section for the country, presents a lot of ideas that are cumulative/repetitive and "background-ish", and contains only ~15 words about actual physical adaptations.^{(in my 22 Dec addition)} I foresee you'll improve the TEK article a lot.

"Bridging epistemologies" is challenging and a creative process, but, by itself, will not achieve any changes in the physical world—so by itself is not adaptation in the context of climate change. That's why I called this interpretation of "adaptation", creative. It's much like signing the Paris Agreement by itself does not remove a single CO2 molecule from the air. It's the physical actions that are crucial and that are still a short tail at the end of this subsection.—RCraig09 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. The Paris Agreement is about mitigation, which is a much more concrete concept. Adaptation includes more nebulous and relational concepts like 'community resilience' (especially from a TEK-based perspective). So for example, Cajete's promotion of TEK education is a concrete adaptation (implying physical students in physical classrooms with physical textbooks; people engaged in ceremony; and many other things) that is discussed in my addition. It doesn't remove CO2, but this isn't about mitigation. I do agree that the adaptation section (actually the article as a whole) is under-developed, and I hope more concrete examples of TEK and non-TEK adaptations will be added. If I have time, I'll work on it, though I do also hope to work on the TEK article.

If you find concerns about commentary, let me know and I will review or provide quotes from the sources. Larataguera (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Paris_Agreement#Adaptation_provisions is about adaptation, not merely mitigation. No, Climate change adaptation is not "nebulous". At best, "physical students in physical classrooms with physical textbooks; people engaged in ceremony" are preparations or background for Climate change adaptation, but do not themselves constitute "adaptation" except in your creative interpretation. That said, I agree that a small amount of background is appropriate (per my 22 Dec post), as an example of Wikipedia:Minority viewpoints. I'm referring to your explanation, "to be perfectly clear: I can't distinguish between adaptation and TEK, because bridging these epistemologies is the adaptation."

To see how encyclopedia articles are WP:NEUTRALLY edited (rather than pushing one creative interpretation), take 60 seconds to compare the section, Climate_change#Scientific_consensus, to the detailed subsidiary article Scientific consensus on climate change. That is how encyclopedias are written and organized. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made a start (see my edit comment, esp re removing your own commentary and WP:SYNthesis), but I hope you will continue pruning this subsection to be more encyclopedic. I again suggest you post your essay in the TEK article, and reduce content here to the minimum necessary to support genuine climate change adaptation. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm basically done with the basic paring down, though more could be done. What was formerly the middle paragraph here (historical background of TEK vs Western science), could find a good home in the TEK article. Much of your writing involves your personal interpretations and embellishments, rather than presenting what the references actually state. The encyclopedia's principles against WP:SYNTHESIS etc. will apply in that article as well as this one. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If such exists, please quote below, a particular passage from a WP:RELIABLE source that explicitly supports your creative climate change "adaptation" re-definition that "bridging these (Western science and TEK) epistemologies is the adaptation". —RCraig09 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09:, There are plenty of sources expressing the position that TEK is an adaptation. For instance, McGregor states in this peer-reviewed article that TEK, is so much more than knowledge about how to live sustainably. Rather, it is living sustainably. It is not just about understanding the relationship with Mother Earth, it is the relationship itself; also, one must live and experience this knowledge in order to truly understand it, and for it to have any real benefit. Cajete states in another peer-reviewed article that, In the context of climate change, Indigenous leaders are realizing that addressing basic sustainability factors...requires our re-forming of traditional eco-knowledge and the exercise of our sovereignty at every level. The latter source is Cajete's keynote address at the International Conference on Climate Change and Indigenous Resilience, later published in the the peer reviewed journal Sustainability that you removed and discounted as "spam". In the end, I also find your distinction between "preparations for adaption" and "adaption" to be contrived. If something needs to happen as "preparation for adaptation", then that's just part of the adaptation process. Attempting to compartmentalize these activities is actually very reflective of the hyper-reductionist epistemology bemoaned by the sources you are removing.

I suspect you will have some refutation of all this. In the end, I'm not going to get into a huge discussion about this with you, and subject other editors to a repeat of the wall-of-text that you generated with Hobomok. I may restore some of the edits I've made, although I would appreciate it if other editors would weigh in. RCraig09, I'm sorry, but I feel like you are dismissing notable Indigenous scholars' input about their own knowledge systems as "background" to colonial perspectives on those knowledge systems. You are dismissing peer-reviewed content by Indigenous authors as "spam". This does not reflect sufficient understanding of the complexities of this topic for you to exert the degree of control that you are currently maintaining over content in this article related to Indigenous Peoples. I feel that these sentiments have already been voiced (in stronger terms actually) by Hobomok, and I think you should relinquish some control over this topic area. (I do appreciate your input, and have shown willingness to incorporate your suggestions, but I think you should hold back from editing this section.) Thank you. Larataguera (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

— @Larataguera: Preliminarily, understand that my edit comment reciting "WP:SPAMish" has to do with how Cajete's article was used in an encyclopedia—not on the quality of Cajete's article itself. Second, beyond the threshold issue of direct relevance (of "education" and "community building") to climate change adaptation, be aware of Wikipedia's preference for WP:SECONDARY references over WP:PRIMARY references. Third, your citation of the Cajete reference to describe what the Cajete reference says, is technically WP:ORIGINAL research—which is prohibited. All these things have to do with how an encyclopedia functions, not on the validity of any theory or viewpoint.

— More broadly, your 01:39 post refers to abstractions (TEK "is the relationship^{with Mother Earth} itself") and non-literal statements ("one must live and experience this knowledge"), as distinguished from the concrete and literal which are the stuff of encyclopedias. It is not a conflict between holistic and what you call reductive.^{("reductive" was not in the Vinyeta reference, by the way)}

— I am not "dismissing notable Indigenous scholars' input". I am expressing directly relevant portions of it in an encyclopedia having a WP:PILLAR of WP:NEUTRAL point of view—one that does not push a particular viewpoint or WP:DUE minority view. The current version of this section emphatically expresses Indigenous scholars' inputs—without being cumulative/repetitive—and includes what is relevant to concrete climate change adaptation: the final 16 words of the section.

— My distinguishing between preparation versus concrete climate change adaptation—the topic of this section—is not "contrived". It's related to how relevant a piece of content is to the section's topic. It is perhaps telling that so far, neither you nor I have found more concrete instances of post-preparatory TEK-based physical adaptation than can be expressed in the 16-word sentence that I posted on 22 Dec.

— In the broadest sense, encyclopedias follow; they do not lead. You are trying to lead. Much of what you posted to the article on 5 Jan could be used in the TEK article, of course limiting content to what was actually said in the references, without embellishment or editor commentary. You and Wikipedia would probably both benefit if you were to gain experience editing articles that aren't related to your agenda. (I don't think WP:SPA single-purpose accounts are inherently bad.)

— I appreciate your WP:CIVILITY, but it is out of line for you to ask another editor not to edit, however politely you do so. I hope this post helps to iron things out. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

— Further consider the difference between: (a) a holistic view of nature and humans' place in it (to which I obviously have no objection), versus (b) a "holistic" view of 'preparation' and 'adaptation' (which is a logical conflation of two distinct terms). Item "b" reminds me of the earlier claim that one "can't" separate cause and effect. Separately, remember the difference between the vague ("community building") and specific/concrete ("adjusting timing sequences of hunting, gathering, and fishing"). —RCraig09 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RCraig09, I understand we have had our differences on this page; however, I just want to make an observation after following this most recent back and forth. Could this issue with @Larataguera:‘s additions be an issue of your own misunderstanding of Native ways of understanding the nonhuman environment, climate change, and TEK as adaptation and preparation? I am in no way trying to be condescending here, but as Larataguera has explained, you do not have an understanding of Native ways of knowing and you approach these ways of thinking from a western scientific perspective, and attempt to investigate them from your own standpoint. TEK provides different ways of approaching these issues, and they may not make sense to you if you’re unwilling to try to understand, in your example, community building and adjusting hunting/farming timing as the same. That is, both are “concrete” and of equal importance. Again, I am not trying to be condescending, but you are editing here according to your own world views and way of approaching the world, and there are other perspectives that deserve space here, as they represent a large portion of the United States and climate change study in the United States. Indeed, the scholars that have been cited here show that much. Hobomok (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

— The bottom line: this article now clearly expresses the world view you describe in a very liberal application of Wikipedia's guidelines for presenting WP:Minority viewpoints with appropriate WP:PROMINENCE in the article: two dedicated subsections are based respectively on what "can be understood as climate change" and an expansive, non-standard definition of (climate change) "adaptation". This article, as now amended, achieves this expression with reduced cumulativeness/repetition and in a way that preserves the credibility of your agenda and the credibility of the encyclopedia.

— What you perceive as my lack of understanding (after I've spent tens of hours reading and contributing accurately represented and properly referenced content) is actually my application of Wikipedia's pillars, principles and guidelines. It might be a violation of WP:CIVILity to say you don't understand those things, so I will merely list those I've cited along the way:

— WP:PILLARS — WP:NPOV — WP:NEUTRAL — WP:RELIABLE — WP:SECONDARY — WP:PRIMARY — WP:ORIGINAL — WP:SYNTH — WP:Minority viewpoints — WP:PROMINENCE — WP:SPA — Enlightening stuff, honestly.

— I'm not against your agenda. It's Wikipedia that limits how you can pursue your agenda in an encyclopedia. Some of your desired content might be appropriate, if expressed without embellishment and placed in context, in the Climate change and indigenous peoples and TEK articles. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And again, as I have been repeating, each of your edits have been your own interpretation of how those pillars apply to this content, and the content itself. You have recently spent tens of hours reading about TEK and Indigenous American scholarship as it relates to climate change. That's excellent, but that doesn't necessarily mean you understand it--many people study the content for years before they understand it. Even then, as Larataguera quoted from Deborah McGregor, this knowledge must be lived to be understood.

At any rate, instead of listening and working with other editors, as stated multiple times, you've edited other users' work with a very heavy hand based on your own interpretation of the pillars and the Indigenous scholarship. Two other editors have disagreed with you at multiple points along the way, and then you claim that these two editors have an "agenda." I would really appreciate if another editor could take a look at all of this and weigh-in. I will end my replies/comments here so as to avoid giving any other interested editor too much to read. -Hobomok (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09:, I don't think my editing reflects the presence of an agenda. My edits reflect my area of expertise. I think you're wrong that Wikipedia would benefit if I edited outside my area of expertise. I do not edit where I have "tens of hours" of experience. I edit where I have tens of years or a lifetime of experience. I think it is reasonable for me to refrain from editing topics that I do not understand and to urge other editors to do the same. Larataguera (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Faithfully conveying what's recited in a reference does not take years, months, or days. It does require WP:NEUTRALity. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have restored some content. This version is not much longer than what RCraig09 had (<1000 bytes). I don't think concerns about synthesis are reasonable, because these are all just statements from the sources, with no conclusions being drawn. The sources are all peer reviewed. I'm not sure this is as much a minority viewpoint as RCraig09 thinks it is, but it isn't so much material anyway. Larataguera (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Larataguera: Neither your "explanation of restored content" nor your edit comments dealt seriously the with the specific Wikipedia policy-based reasons specifically recited in my own edit comments. And by now it should be clear that peer review of a source does not mean that corresponding edits comply with other Wikipedia pillars, policies or guidelines. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your initial sentence ("Many organizations (including the IPCC) are saying ...") is your personal interpretation and is classic WP:SYNTHESIS! I have spent hours and hours trying to help you understand how to edit an encyclopedia responsibly, as I thought there was hope in your case. Looking at your restoration, you are making it impossible to WP:assume good faith. The only responsible way for you to proceed would be to click on "Restore this version" on this version and specifically justify each individual change you want to make—as I have done for you throughout. "You don't understand a world view" is not a justification. Touting self-described "expertise" is not a justification. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok: Your agenda is to "work to remedy" how "Indigenous (specifically Native American) knowledge, research, sciences, and histories, are disregarded or tossed aside in the name of “objective science”". It sounds like a noble goal, but for you to admit (21:43, 10 Jan) "this knowledge must be lived to be understood" proves your approach here is the antithesis of a WP:NEUTRAL point of view. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@RCraig09: First, You’re quoting my user page out of context; I did not say that was my “agenda.” I wrote many things on that user page. Among them, I am stating there that I am frustrated with the way Indigenous ways of knowing and philosophies are discounted here. This is almost directly in response to the way that you have acted on this page (as if you are the final arbiter of truth here, and this page must be filtered through your interpretation of the world and Wikipedia’s rules, when this hasn’t happened with ANY other editor on ANY other page that I have edited. That seems strange). I’d like to open a wider discussion about the way this knowledge is treated on Wikipedia as a whole at some point.

Second, again, you’re taking what I said out of context (as usual). I said YOUR statement that you’ve RECENTLY spent “tens of hours” reading this material doesn’t necessarily mean that you understand this material. Further, Indigenous scholars like Deborah McGregor, whom I’m quoting here (https://journals.msvu.ca/index.php/atlantis/article/view/1057), say that this knowledge must be lived to be fully understood. This is not my own interpretation of TEK. This is what the peer-reviewed, scholarly sources say. Other cited scholars (those ones you’ve spent tens of hours reading—Vinyeta, Lynn, Whyte, etc.) would tell you the same thing if you asked them.

Finally, this entire interaction has been YOU stonewalling two separate editors on multiple occasions because of your “expertise” and “knowledge” of Wikipedia’s rules, when in reality, much of it seems to be your strict interpretation of those rules to fit how you’d prefer this page to read. You worked with Larataguera until you disagreed with them, and now suddenly you don’t like their “agenda,” so according to you, their work needs to be changed to fit what you believe should be included here.

Asking you this sincerely: Could it possibly be, considering you’ve had issues with two separate editors who have tried to work with you, that YOU might be the one with an issue here and YOU might benefit from taking a step back and listening to others rather than being condescending and demanding they edit according to your interpretations and worldview? Something to think about. Again, CAN ANOTHER EDITOR BESIDES RCRAIG09 PLEASE WEIGH-IN ON THESE ISSUES? Hobomok (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not say you said it is your agenda; your User Page and actions show it is your agenda. I did not say McGregor's statement was your own interpretation; but your claiming the supposed reliability of such a statement means that your approach relies on it. Finally, the "two separate editors" are essentially WP:SPA (single purpose accounts) acting toward a common goal, as proven by your harangue on his talk page. Sincerely: every day, Wikipedia editors like myself "step back": in reasoned, stepwise edits I've repeatedly referenced numerous specific Wikipedia pillars, principles and guidelines; I can't recall a single time either of you have done so, but instead recite self-described "expertise" and agreeing that one must "live knowledge" to understand it.^{(What an exclusive club!)} Honestly, who needs to "step back"? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So the work that I've done over at The Great Gatsby (wherein I've contributed the 4th most out of any other editor) is part of this single-purpose account agenda you're accusing me of? Makes sense. That accusation has no legs, and it's ridiculous.

Regarding McGregor's statement: it comes from a peer-reviewed article written by a Native TEK practitioner and a noted environmental scholar. I cannot understand where your expertise comes in and gives you the ability and the right to question the claims made in a peer-reviewed article by a relevant, reputable expert. That's been your mode of operating throughout this exchange, though (linked example questioning Kyle Powys Whyte's peer-reviewed work and its place on the page because he is not a scientist, and he uses words like "discuss" regarding how Indigenous peoples see climate change over centuries).

I ask you to step back here because throughout this exchange I, and Larataguera, have been more than willing to listen and work alongside you, but anytime I've asked for dispute resolution you've balked at the request, because "it takes up peoples' time" and according to you, you're right anyway so it's pointless, or, my favorite: "Man Camp", a term used in the oil and gas, industry, in popular literature many times over, and in peer-reviewed scholarship shouldn't be used on the page because you've "never heard of it in [your] entire life.". I am absolutely willing to listen to your disagreements with edits, to copy-edit prose alongside you, and to reach a happy medium.

However, you do not do the same for others. The "Man Camp" disagreement is a great example. So is when you just went in and started deleting large swaths of the article (including content that stood prior to this whole fiasco) while we were discussing at the TALK page at the very beginning of these issues. This is the antagonistic and combative behavior I've been pointing to from the beginning--it's not collaborative, it's not generative, and it's not good practice.--Hobomok (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your accounts are essentially single purpose; gosh no, not 100.00% "single" purpose, so you win the gotcha prize in this instance (Larataguera specifically wrote he didn't want to edit articles outside his self-described "expertise"). But both of you rely on and promote a knowledge system that reliable source(s) admit "one must live to fully understand"; what can an encyclopedia do with that other than treat it as a minority view? I've done that! Much of your desired content is IN! I've recently asked for commenters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, but I deferred formal dispute resolution because WP:SPA USER:Abhurley's massive 9 Dec post was so egregiously non-WP:NEUTRAL, and my edit comments, which are a part of Wikipedia "conversations", were specific. After I spent hours and hours on this talk page, you said I "haven't engaged", presumably in "conversation"; in fact we've had beaucoup conversation though only one side specifically discussed Wikipedia pillars, policies and guidelines that we editors use to "step back". With your undeclared agenda, world view, and editorial approach, it's no surprise you are "consistently frustrated". Meanwhile, in the Petty Distraction department... you still deflect to my minor edit—replacing "man camp" terminology because of our general-population audience—when all three of your general readership sources (High Country News, Houston Chronicle, NY Times) have to explain the term before using it—your own references undercutting your claim that it's "commonly used"! You again continue the, um, falsehood, that I replaced "man camp" only because I hadn't heard of it myself (diff proving otherwise). —RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C3law. Peer reviewers: C3law.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TEK (part 2)

How is that synthesis? From the source: it is important that climate change impacts and adaptation strategies be examined through an understanding of Western science and place-based TEK. Internationally, organizations are progressively recognizing this need...The foremost climate change authority, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is among these organizations. Larataguera (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC) You say that I have not shown how my edits are consistent with policy, but you have not shown how policy is violated. Synthesis requires A+B, therefore C reasoning. What is A, B, and C in the above example? Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS says "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Your verbiage, especially in your initial 5 Jan addition, is loose. Your adding the term "Many" (and expanding the source to be "scientists, scholars, and organizations" on 5 Jan) are your own embellishments that promote a particular knowledge system as a whole. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not denying TEK has particular applications (expressed in the final sentence of the section I posted 22 Dec), but the section is about climate change adaptation. The growing recognition of TEK in general is not relevant, and (especially with your added puffery) is especially inappropriate as the topic sentence of a section's lead paragraph. Yet again, try the TEK article, Traditional ecological knowledge # Differences from science. In that other article, it might be better to have quoted the IPCC passage to which Vinyeta refers: "this knowledge is an invaluable basis for developing adaptation and natural resource management strategies in response to environmental and other forms of change." —RCraig09 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You said the first sentence in its current from is a classic example of synthesis. Which two parts of the source are being combined to imply which conclusion? What are A, B, and C? We can change 'many' to 'some' or 'international', but I don't think there is synthesis here, and if you can't show how there is, I request you retract your accusation of bad faith. Your other accusations of policy violations are similarly unfounded. Larataguera (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To state the obvious: A,B="scientists, scholars, and organizations" (5 Jan) or merely "organizations" (now) — C="Many...".

This is the essence of what WP:SYNTH prohibits: "a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". You now try to deflect to technicalities of WP:SYNTHESIS but ignore that your WP:PUFFERY violates WP:RELEVANCE and WP:PROMO (WP:NOTADVOCACY).

I'm still puzzling about why you replaced my 9 Jan recitation, which cites the same source and presents content without synthesis, embellishment, or puffery: "A 2013 USDA Technical Report stated that Indigenous peoples' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) has the potential to play a vital role in indigenous climate change assessment and adaptation efforts, and that contributions from both Western science and TEK knowledge systems are imperative." I compromised on WP:RELEVANCE. I said it was impossible to WP:AGF assume good faith after your large, mostly unexplained^{(your self-described "expertise" doesn't count)} reversions, including replacing my WP:NEUTRALly presented content with WP:PUFFERY. Your attempt to deflect doesn't help. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the compromise version RCraig09 linked to from the climate change Wikiproject is quite good (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=1064705095#Traditional_Ecological_Knowledge_(TEK)). I've not read all of this discussion, as it's a bit too much

• The current version quotes a single scientist, which is usually not desired. Paraphrasing is usually preferred.
• I agree it's a bit of a synthesis issue, especially with the word "many". Quite common, and not the most problematic for of synthesis.
• I don't think this is the right article to indicate the power imbalance. It's known by most people interested in the topic, and it probably first better in an article about TEK itself.

Femke (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see Femkemilene's point about quoting a single scientist on such a broad topic. I'll take that part out. I already took out the word 'many' a few days ago, so I'm not sure that's still an issue. I still think the power imbalance is relevant. Nearly every source on this subject says that the power dynamic must be acknowledged for TEK to be successfully incorporated into climate change adaptation. It also doesn't make any sense to me that we wouldn't include that information because 'it's known by most people interested in the topic." This article contains dozens and dozens of statements that are known by most people interested in the topic. That's beside the point. Thanks Femkemilene for your perspective! Larataguera (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matt Patronski. Peer reviewers: Ytoledo1, Kiarra120.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clauzepeda1993. Peer reviewers: Betty1989.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofiahsantamaria.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2020 and 10 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SahamAli, Kcl55. Peer reviewers: Shreyaprao, Lunathecat555, Jnk03.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheaJHolmes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward

To crystallize and resolve the above Wall of Text (approaching 20,000 words), the pillars, policies and guidelines that I have explained and relied on include:

 

Wikipedia pillars, policies and guidelines:

1. This is an encyclopedia—providing summaries of knowledge—WP:NOTAFORUM and not a WP:SOAPBOX.
2. A WP:PILLAR of Wikipedia is WP:NEUTRAL point of view. As a pillar, it's not negotiable, even to achieve a "middle ground".
3. Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP).
4. To be WP:NEUTRAL, favor politically independent sources over politically interested sources^{(unless their political interest is the very subject of the content and is presented as such)}
5. Articles summarize what WP:RELIABLE sources state, not how Wikipedia editors WP:SYNTHesize their content or interpret according to their own understanding.
6. Omit subject matter that does not clearly have a high, or possibly medium, level of WP:RELEVANCE to the topic^{(climate change, or adaptation, etc.)}
7. Use terms^{("Climate change", "adaptation", etc.)} according to WP:COMMONNAME terminology; deviations must be presented and identified as such.
8. WP:Minority viewpoints^{(including non-standard definitions)} can be presented—if identified as minority viewpoints and given WP:DUE weight. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
9. Articles summarize what WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT sources state ("Mars is red" or "Galileo said Mars is red") rather than promoting the source ("Galileo talked about Mars")
10. Understand that SPAM (e.g., "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced.") relates to Wikipedia content, not necessarily to external references themselves.
11. Encyclopedias follow; they do not lead. If you are trying to make Wikipedia work to remedy something, you must work through its administrative pages, not here in the WP:ARTICLESPACE.

No, the pillars, policies and guidelines on which I have relied are not merely "according to my own world views"^{(charged by Hobomok 16:35, 10 Jan)} or "ultimately those of personal preference"^{(charged by Hobomok 16:56, 28 Jan 2022)} —RCraig09 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Just going to note, here, that the above user's link to my changed personal page in their final point, wherein I discuss the way Indigenous scholarship, knowledges, experience, etc. have been represented and reacted to on Wikipedia was, and is, mainly a response to that user's reaction to Indigenous scholarship, knowledges, experience, etc. on this page. There's no need to rehash what was said (it's all above) or re-engage with above user's contentious behavior and condescending tone regarding these ideas and their representation.--Hobomok (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of disinterested editors is clear (see #RFCrecap in the Discussion section above). Further noting:

• My enumerated, WP-policy-based reasons (20:36 on 23 Jan) critiquing the 10+ Jan version, received no refutation.
• Procedurally, Larataguera, not following WP:BRD, should never have summarily reverted the 9 Jan version--which itself stepwise-reverted his 5 Jan promotional version, since the 9 Jan version was generated with detailed, WP policy-based edit comments. (Larataguera provided no reasons other than his self-described "expertise" and vague ad hominem critique of the limitations of my supposed "world view".)

Therefore, I've replaced the current section with the 9 Jan version, as a new starting point from which we can proceed in accordance with WP pillars, policies and guidelines. I do not mean to prohibit encyclopedically valid content from being added, including "Indigenous source" content based on terms defined differently from WP:COMMONNAME definitions—if the alt definitions are placed in source context; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And remember the levels of relevance described in WP:RELEVANCE. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Impacts on indigenous peoples section

I have some concerns about this section. As we’ve discussed above, there seems to be wide support for using the Davis/Todd and Whyte sources, however I don’t think we are clearly summarizing what the sources say. This is always a challenge when the sources say a lot that needs to be squeezed into a few paragraphs of a broad- concept article. Additionally, a pitfall here is that if our writing is not clear to the general reader, we can unintentionally give an impression of climate denialism. I’ll give a bit of background to illustrate where readers might be coming from. One form of soft climate denialism is downplaying the role of fossil fuels in climate change. For reference, a concise breakdown of sources of GHG emissions is here – fossil fuels are responsible for more than 70% of emissions.

There are many common arguments raising the possibility that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels every year might not be an urgent problem. Instead of acknowledging the primary role of fossil fuel burning in climate change, fossil fuel advocates prefer to over-emphasize relatively minor causes of emissions such as land use changes. [1] David/Todd and Whyte are not questioning the scientific consensus on the contribution of fossil fuels and industrial processes to climate change, and they’re not climate denialists in any sense, but this sentence may unintentionally come across as denialist:

American Indigenous people have for centuries been negatively impacted by "processes of environmental transformation ...(that) can be understood as climate change"

A claim that climate change has occurred “for centuries” can sound as if it’s saying climate change isn’t really caused by the activities of the industrial era, which took off in the 1800s.

I’m going to make a bold change to the first few sentences to try to make the passage less likely to be misinterpreted. I’m also naming Wildcat explicitly as he is credited in Whyte’s paper. Additionally, my edit will remove the sentence on “Clearing forests for farmland, resources, and housing have destroyed a large portion of natural carbon sinks” as this concept is not in the Indigenous sources as far as I can see, and also places undue weight on deforestation rather than on oil and gas extraction. It would be appropriate to put this claim in a context that talks about the climate benefits of reforestation, forest preservation, and/or returning land to Indigenous control. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

The narrow question is: which one of the following two Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) sections is most appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the topic of Climate change:

1. The 9 Jan 2022 version (which has been reverted), versus
2. The current (16 Jan) version, Climate change in the United States#Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

The following issues are raised:

• WP:NEUTRAL Point of View
• WP:NOTAFORUM
• WP:Minority viewpoints (esp. re breadth interpreting the term, "climate change adaptation")
• Direct WP:RELEVANCE to climate change adaptation (distinguish from WP:UNDUE weight re background topics such as relative virtues of TEK in general, power politics of getting TEK accepted, etc.)
• WP:WIKIVOICE and general WP:PROMOTIONal tone

The debate is not about editors' "world views", personal "expertise", underlying righteousness of a cause, etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change:

  I took a quick look and overall I prefer your version, but I'm wary of being the only person wading into what seems like a hot dispute. Holy cow, that is a wall of text indeed. Can I suggest starting a Request for comment? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Copied from above:

  I think the compromise version RCraig09 linked to from the climate change Wikiproject is quite good (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=1064705095#Traditional_Ecological_Knowledge_(TEK)). I've not read all of this discussion, as it's a bit too much

  • The current version quotes a single scientist, which is usually not desired. Paraphrasing is usually preferred.
  • I agree it's a bit of a synthesis issue, especially with the word "many". Quite common, and not the most problematic for of synthesis.
  • I don't think this is the right article to indicate the power imbalance. It's known by most people interested in the topic, and it probably first better in an article about TEK itself.

  Femke (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think the current version is much more appropriate, in my opinion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I strongly favor the 9 Jan version, mainly because the present nearly-unexplained reversion is based on an improper promotion of TEK in general in the face of Colonialist attacks, based on a radically broadened concept of WP:RELEVANCE and a radically expanded definition of Climate change adaptation to include preliminary/preparatory steps like education, community-building, and the like.

— Example: The opening sentence of the current text recites TEK's importance "for understanding climate change and forming adaptation strategies". However, Vinyeta/USDA introduces (bottom, page 6) the supposed support for this content by referring to "place-based TEK". This non-WP:NEUTRAL content remains an example of WP:PUFFERY, demonstrated by the fact that the only concrete examples of physical climate change adaptation are local adaptations, in the final sentence of the section—a sentence that I added.

— The current text (esp. the first two paragraphs, which I did not post) accumulates essentially repetitive praises of TEK in general. It is clearly WP:PROMOtional in nature (see my discussion below) since this article is about climate change and not TEK. Compare: the 9 Jan version's non-cumulative near-verbatim opening sentence that concisely paraphrases Vinyeta/USDA's description of TEK's importance.

— The middle paragraph (historical dismissal of TEK in general; power politics) is at best distantly WP:RELEVANT to climate change adaptation as commonly understood (not under the radically expanded definition). This article is about climate change.

— Curiously, the final paragraph of the current version omits the sourced definition of TEK that I included in the 9 Jan version. The very definition of TEK is certainly more relevant than bemoaning (not my term) the tough history TEK has had, in gaining acceptance.

— An earlier section, "Impacts on indigenous peoples", is based on a radically expanded definition of "Climate change", to include not only the commonly-understood meaning of greenhouse gas-caused global warming, but to local damage to the local environment. At least that section admits the expanded definition, "processes of environmental transformation ...(that) can be understood as climate change"; however, the present section on climate change adaptation has no corresponding admission re the expanded definition of "climate change adaptation".

— Paradoxically, the 9 Jan version that I favor, actually achieves the goal of promoting TEK, but with more credibility. — RCraig09 (talk 20:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See #RFCRecap. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've read through both alternative versions carefully, and skimmed through the sources given. Both versions use the same sources, which are of good quality. The 2013 source by Vinyetat et al might be a bit on the old side, depending on what it's used for. I haven't read any of the discussion on this Talk page.

My main comment on all of this is: Why is this section in an article on Climate change in the United States? Both versions are overwhelmingly focused on matters of how knowledge is constructed, not on the actual knowledge. This focus is way off-topic for the article that this section is in. For the love of God, stop telling me why this or that knowledge system is great, and tell me something that the knowledge system says about climate change in the United States. I suggest 1) interweave facts derived from TEK throughout the article, and 2) delete the section. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I understand completely. I added four sentences (22 Dec diff), which I thought would be adequate since its final sentence describes specific concrete acts of actual climate change adaptation. It was my compromise with two editors promoting TEK as a knowledge system, to include a bit more in the 9 Jan version. That's why I oppose much of the current digressive, irrelevant, promotional version. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot:, thanks for weighing in. The concern I have with your suggestion is that this approach would treat TEK entirely as an archive or body of knowledge to be extracted from for "concrete acts" of climate change adaptation. There is another important sense in which TEK is an epistemology or 'way of knowing'; and TEK holders have explicitly stated that it should not be represented simply as an archive to be extracted from. (Johnson et al develops this idea at great length; Vinyeta also devotes several pages). These are not the only sources that say these things (for example this or this or this. The sources cited in this article go to considerable length to describe TEK as an epistemology in the context of climate change adaptation, and I think a complete presentation of these sources should include that content. Otherwise, we are simply cherry-picking the parts of the sources that confirm Wikipedia's systemic bias about what TEK is, and we would be leaving out the parts that established editors either don't agree with or don't understand, even though that perspective is very well established in dozens of peer-reviewed sources. Larataguera (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not denying TEK has been under-appreciated in general, the purple elephants in this room include: ● this article is about climate change, not the historical backgrounds and relative virtues of epistemologies, ● the essential content is already present in more encyclopedic, less promotional form in the 9 January version, undercutting claims of supposed systemic bias here, ● the Traditional ecological knowledge article is undeniably a more appropriate place for the described epistemology-related background and details, ● the TEK-supportive references themselves reflect the limited applicability of TEK mainly to local and community adaptation as already expressed in the 16-word closing sentence of my 22 Dec post: Compare "food substitutions, and adjusting timing sequences of hunting, gathering, and fishing" (concrete adaptations in my 22 Dec post) to background info in Naulau et al. ("ITK is part of nested knowledge systems (information–practices–worldviews) of indigenous peoples. This knowledge includes local natural resource management, sociocultural governance structures, social norms, spiritual beliefs, and historical and contemporary experiences of colonial dispossession and marginalization.") —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The article could certainly include types of knowledge that aren't "concrete facts". It can include facts about opinions, facts about beliefs, facts about traditional practices, success stories about Indigenous-led projects, etc. For instance, I'm a bit surprised to see very little about wildfire management in this article. Perhaps it could say something about reviving Native American traditions of cultural burning (unfortunately cultural burning currently redirects to an article that is exclusively focused on Australia and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have articles about cultural burning practices elsewhere). If the sources you've cited are focusing on the epistemology of TEK rather than what TEK actually has to say about climate change in the United States, then you may need to find more relevant sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: I (obviously) agree re cultural burning, but in this discussion I think it's crucial to distinguish which Wikipedia article is the most appropriate place for "facts about... opinions, ...beliefs, ...traditional practices" (here vs. TEK article, Climate justice, etc.). Keep in mind, we should not duplicate the background that's already liberally recited (WP:Minority viewpoints) here in Climate change in the United States#Impacts on indigenous peoples. Please clarify the scope of your statement, so that promoters won't take your words as license to post "a complete presentation of these sources" in this article about climate change. Thanks for participating. —RCraig09 (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot:, What TEK offers is a broad re-framing of the climate crisis. And Indigenous authors in the USA have produced dozens of peer-reviewed sources placing this broad re-framing in the context of climate change adaptation. It wouldn't work to chop up these broad issues (of power and epistemology) and compartmentalise it all by presenting tidbits about TEK throughout the article (and anyway, those additions would no doubt be contested individually).

We're really only talking about ~150 words anyway (+75 or so added by RCraig09). Given the quantity of research relating TEK to climate change adaptation, it just doesn't seem like so much to me...Larataguera (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Larataguera: Re What TEK offers is a broad re-framing of the climate crisis, I'm interested in hearing more about this. From a U.S. TEK perspective, what is the climate crisis? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: See Climate change in the United States#Impacts on indigenous peoples, in which sourcing is placed in context. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: As explained to RCraig09 previously (i.e., they are aware of all of this) in the context of Potawatomi scholar Kyle Powys Whyte's peer-reviewed work:

“Colonialism refers to a form of domination in which at least one society seeks to exploit some set of benefits believed to be found in the territory of one or more other societies, from farm land to precious minerals to labor. Exploitation can occur through military invasion, slavery, and settlement. Colonialism often paved the way for the expansion of capitalism, or an economic ideology based on wage-labor that prioritizes growth in monetary profits for the owners of assets as the underlying focus, incentive, and purpose of major human social endeavors.

Together, colonialism and capitalism then laid key parts of the groundwork for industri- alization and militarization—or carbon-intensive economics—which produce the drivers of anthropogenic climate change, from massive deforestation for commodity agriculture to petrochemical technologies that burn fossil fuels for energy. The colonial invasion that began centuries ago caused anthropogenic environmental changes that rapidly disrupted many Indigenous peoples, including deforestation, pollution, modification of hydrological cycles, and the amplification of soil-use and terraforming for particular types of farming, grazing, transportation, and residential, commercial and government infrastructure. Colonially-induced environmental changes altered the ecological conditions that supported Indigenous peoples’ cultures, health, economies, and political self-determination. While Indigenous peoples, as any society, have long histories of adapting to change, colonialism caused changes at such a rapid pace that many Indigenous peoples became vulnerable to harms, from health problems related to new diets to erosion of their cultures to the destruction of Indigenous diplomacy, to which they were not as susceptible prior to colonization. Indigenous peoples often understand their vulnerability to climate change as an intensification of colonially-induced environmental changes… Indigenous scholars discuss climate vulnerability as an intensification or intensified episode of colonialism.” (154; 156).

Whyte explains further that “Anthropogenic climate change makes Indigenous territories more accessible and Indigenous peoples more vulnerable to harm, just as did laws, policies, boarding schools, and the like in previous episodes of colonization. A rising number of scholars, such as Cameron, Stuhl, Haalbloom and Natcher, are adamant that the analysis of Indigenous climate vulnerability cannot occur in the absence of the history and present practices of colonialism and capitalism in Indigenous homelands” (157).

There are a lot of other notable Indigenous scholars (Zoe Todd, Daniel Wildcat, Leanne Simpson), cited in the Wall-of-Text above, who explain similar historical realities in peer-reviewed, academic research. RCraig09, however, chose to ignore those citations and use a source from mic.com in addition to Whyte's, labeling these claims as those of "activists" rather than "scholars." This is part of the issue with wording in these sections, which (intentional or not) discount Indigenous studies scholars discussed in the Wall-of-Text above. Regardless of whether or not activists echo these claims, they are, first and foremost, made by scholars, which then may or may not inform those activists. Such wording needs to be precise about where the claims originate, and the currency they have as peer-reviewed rather than coming from activist circles.--Hobomok (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, a note re: discussion about TEK and cultural burning: I believe the page you're looking for r/t a redirect from cultural burning might be Native American use of fire in ecosystems. That page has been fleshed out pretty clearly, I think, with solid peer-reviewed work. Of note, though, is the large section therein on "Impacts of European Settlement", and one of the main sources there is Vinyeta's most recent article,"Under the guise of science: how the US Forest Service deployed settler colonial and racist logics to advance an unsubstantiated fire suppression agenda". Were discussion of cultural burning as TEK placed on this page, I would argue that there would have to be a sentence or two about effects of colonization on cultural burning, because it is discussed so much in the relevant literature (Vinyeta's most recent piece being only one example--see references on linked page for further examples), and because fire suppression would, as many of the relevant sources show, lead to increased wildfire risk alongside climate change. --Hobomok (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Clayoquot Briefly(!) I assume you can distinguish between WP:NEUTRAL presentation of content within Wikipedia, versus the merits of references outside Wikipedia. Earlier, FYI, I cited the Mic article's paraphrasing of an Indigenous Climate Action-related author, to supplement the source to Whyte who is a self-described "Potawatomi scholar-activist" who explicitly promotes (p. 771) a contorted definition of the common term (global) "climate change" to include local damage to environments—even before the Industrial Revolution that causes climate change! In an encyclopedia, such fundamental disconnects must be pointed out (WP:Minority viewpoints). —RCraig09 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• The above Wall-of-Words resulted from my application of Wikipedia's pillars, policies and guidelines, against attempts to use Wikipedia to promote TEK. (I don't argue against TEK's definite value, as expressed in the 9 Jan version.) Some quotes showing promotional intent, immersion in a belief system, and—I'll assume good faith WP:AGF—misunderstanding:

 

• From Hobomok 16:27, 12 Dec 2021: "You do understand how moving and siloing much of the relevant information you removed to other pages does everyone a disservice, because it hides that information in a place where people may never see it, right?"
• From Hobomok 20:56, 12 Dec: "those sources show that when it comes to Indigenous peoples in the United States and climate change, you cannot separate the cause and the effect/impact." (subjective non-WP:NPOV; "cannot" separate cause and effect?)
• From Hobomok 13 Dec 2021: "I have been consistently frustrated with the way Indigenous (specifically Native American) knowledge, research, sciences, and histories, are disregarded or tossed aside in the name of “objective science” here. This is something Wikipedia must work to remedy."
• From Larataguera 17:21, 18 Dec 2021: "while global climate change wasn't instrumental in the experience of American Indigenous people until relatively recently, Indigenous people have experienced climate change in the United States for quite some time, and that is the topic of this article." (explicit re-definition of Climate change)
• From Larataguera 6 Jan 2022 "Adaptation includes more nebulous and relational concepts like 'community resilience' (especially from a TEK-based perspective). So for example, Cajete's promotion of TEK education is a concrete adaptation (implying physical students in physical classrooms with physical textbooks; people engaged in ceremony; and many other things)." (expanded definition of adaptation)
• From Larataguera 01:39, 10 Jan 2022: "I feel like you are dismissing notable Indigenous scholars' input about their own knowledge systems" (emphasis in original; acknowledging sources aren't disinterested)
• From Larataguera 01:39, 10 Jan 2022: "I think you should hold back from editing this section."
• From Hobomok 16:35, 10 Jan 2022: "...you are editing here according to your own world views and way of approaching the world..."
• From Hobomok 21:43, 10 Jan 2022: "Even then, as Larataguera quoted from Deborah McGregor, this knowledge must be lived to be understood." (effectively excluding almost all Wikipedia editors)
• From Larataguera 03:34 11 Jan 2022: "My edits reflect my area of expertise. ... I edit where I have tens of years or a lifetime of experience."

— I've repeatedly explained and applied — WP:PILLARS — WP:NPOV — WP:NEUTRAL — WP:RELIABLE — WP:SECONDARY — WP:PRIMARY — WP:ORIGINAL — WP:SYNTH — WP:Minority viewpoints — WP:PROMINENCE — WP:SPA ... to no avail. Their only attempt to deal with WP guidelines that I remember, is Larataguera's failed argument defending a classic case of WP:SYNTHetic WP:PUFFERY (beginning the section "TEK (part 2)").

— They appear to use TEK's "holistic" understanding of humans' place in nature, to attempt to radically redefine climate change and climate change adaptation as commonly understood. The redefinition is not "holistic"; it's simply slippery definitions.

— Procedurally, under WP:BRD Larataguera's 5 Jan addition was Bold; my stepwise WP-policy-based changes to arrive at the 9 Jan version were the "Reversions", after which we should have only "Discussed". Instead, Larataguera merely reverted on 10 January with minimal explanation and no Wikipedia policy-based justification. Accordingly, the section should be returned to its 9 January version.—RCraig09 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'm reviewing the sources and will comment when I have a better grasp of the topics. I'm having a busy week so it might take me a while. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: thanks for your interest. To answer your question, it's hard to summarize the climate crisis from the kaleidoscope of perspectives that are "US TEK", but this study has found that TEK holders in the US view climate change across a longer time scale and are unlikely to separate climate change from the socio-political context of settler colonialism. Hobomok has done a good job of summarizing some of the other sources (there are more) in that regard. Indeed, pre-industrial settler-colonial land use in the US did expose Indigenous people to changes in climate that fit the IPCC definition of climate change (also here specifically mentions climate change due to land use). So Indigenous people have no reason to perceive causality of climate change solely in terms of GHG emissions.

There are also several papers in political ecology that discuss climate change as an epistemological crisis in the sense that our adaptation response is limited by how the problem is defined. For example, see Goldman, Turner, et al. (2018): Purely utilitarian interpretation of TEK, delimits the scope of the climate change 'problem' in ways that fundamentally shape how adaptation is enacted...In this way, instrumental co-production [of knowledge] risks perpetuating reductionist explanations and oversimplifications that much of STS and political ecology scholarship has sought to counter. Although this paper doesn't specifically treat the US, it does provide a broad literature overview that is applicable to the US; and this paper is particularly clear in my opinion, so I include it here. US Indigenous authors such as Cajete, Whyte, and Kimmerer; and US political ecologists have published similar concerns about how Western science interacts with Indigenous knowledge systems in the context of climate change adaptation.

It may be that my attempt to convey this re-framing of the climate crisis by a very broad swath of sources from political ecologists and Indigenous scholars may not be particularly elegant. If my original edits to the article had been met with a generative, collaborative response, I’m sure they could be improved. Unfortunately, this has not been the nature of the response. Larataguera (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

— Consider: "Indigenous people have no reason to perceive causality of climate change solely in terms of GHG emissions." (emphasis added) and your admitted "re-framing of the climate crisis". Can you seriously not see that this and similar assertions are poster boys of WP:Minority viewpoints, in this case a viewpoint that's grossly different from the common definition of the term "Climate change" that is the very basis of this encyclopedia article?

— No, "land use" e.g. from Thomas Jefferson's time^{obviously having negligible impact on GHG-caused climate change today} is not what IPCC 2011(!) means to "fit the definition" of climate change, and if you read the very next paragraph, the UNFCC's definition is explicitly limited to human altering of the global atmosphere. This encyclopedia website uses terms according to their common usage, not one cherry-picked from IPCC 2011 that's immediately contradicted by one from the UNFCC. Like it or not, common usage essentially determines article names on this website: see WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. Here, "climate change" does not mean ~"any change in climate" any more than "hot dog" means "any dog that's hot". Here, two editors can't decompose terms and "re-frame" definitions on their own.^{(updated ~16:29)}

— Citing mountains of papers that describe and justify what Indigenous people perceive does not make corresponding content satisfy this website's' foundational pillar of WP:NEUTRALity—a pillar to which you both have not mentioned, even after all these words.

— (Goldman Turner link yields "AccessDenied") If "bridging epistemologies" is so valuable, there should be more results than the one single sentence I added that is now dangling at the very end of the section. That type of content would be valuable in an encyclopedia.

— PS: I've amended the text and a citation to describe the complained-of Mic WP:SECONDARY source to also include the ICA probable WP:PRIMARY source. —07:20, 28 Jan supplemented —RCraig09 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

“Two editors” are not “decomposing terms” or trying to “reframe definitions on their own.” Calm down. Nobody except you has brought up Thomas Jefferson since the Edge Effects article (https://edgeeffects.net/kleptocene/) a now uninvolved editor cited a month ago.

The “two editors” you misrepresent and condescend to constantly are simply adding peer-reviewed research to relevant sections so that those sections best represent the relevant scholarship, in context. Your issues with numerous peer-reviewed articles from notable academics, framed as issues with Wikipedia’s pillars, are ultimately those of personal preference around prose, presentation, and content of those peer-reviewed articles.

Also, I’d like to add that those “two editors” have been trying to add this information a collaborative, amicable, and diplomatic manner. Your tone and manner of engagement, on the other hand, are not, and they continue to be unhelpful. This is the most unwelcoming, negative interaction I’ve come across over the course of four years on Wikipedia. —Hobomok (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to WP:NEUTRALly apply Wikipedia pillars, policies and guidelines, and quoting another editor's specific words, were never intended as condescending. Briefly: I'm not disagreeing with the content of your peer reviewed sources, but with their application in an encyclopedia. I stand by my 16:29 post. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC Recap: after four weeks:

• All editors who have substantial experience editing climate change-related articles either favor the 9 Jan version or disfavor the 10+ Jan version of the TEK Adaptation section.
• Another editor with climate change-related editing experience, User:Clayoquot, expressed a clear preference for presenting the knowledge itself rather than on how knowledge is constructed.
• The only disinterested editor favoring the 10+ Jan version—who has been partially blocked for disruptive editing in an area in which WP:Competence is required—has negligible experience in climate change-related articles and gave no reason for his opinion here.
• The above gray quotebox (#EditorPromotion) shows Larataguera and Hobomok are not disinterested.

The consensus of disinterested editors is clear. Discussion continued in "#Moving forward", below. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Hi everyone. I'm doing my best to read the best general sources for the perspectives of Indigenous people on climate change in the U.S. Is there consensus on two or three high-quality sources that we could use? (Please forgive me if this list has been made before, but I'm finding the conversation difficult to parse because a lot of it is still about editor conduct. If we could focus on content rather than on the history of who said what and who reverted who I would find it easier.)

• To start, Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene by Kyle Whyte looks like an excellent general source for the perspectives of Indigenous people on climate change in the U.S. Does everyone agree, or is this particular source contentious?
• The article currently and prominently cites On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene by Heather Davis and Zoe Todd. Todd is an Indigenous scholar, whereas Heather Davis, the first-listed author, is not.[2] It meets the basic criteria for being a WP:RS, but given that the first-listed author is a white Canadian whose PhD is in Communications, is this one of the best available sources?

BTW, if we agree that we want to use this source, we don't necessarily have to use the quote that's currently taken from it. Finding the best way to summarize the source is a different issue. The current quote is taken out of context, which makes it sound like climate denialism.

• Hobomok mentioned Red Alert, a 2009 book by Daniel Wildcat. What do people think of this source? Is it a better or worse source than On the Importance of a Date by Davis/Todd?
• Are there any other top-quality general sources to consider about Indigenous perspectives on climate change in the U.S.? How about sources that explore Indigenous thinking on how to limit climate change and how to adapt to it?

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: The issues revolve around article content much more than whether sources are the very best ones. I have not questioned whether Whyte etc make an accurate presentation of the Indigenous perspective. More pertinently, it is good that the "Impacts" section now explains that Indigenous scholars and activists use an inflated definition of Climate change (pre-industrial, local environmental damage) that is qualitatively different from the WP:COMMONNAME that Wikipedia follows (global, caused by greenhouse gases globally). It is bad that User:Larataguera uses an inflated definition of Climate change adaptation and an inflated interpretation of WP:RELEVANCE to justify including background material promoting that knowledge system rather than describing CC adaptation itself. The narrow issue is: compare the present Adaptation sub-section with its 9 Jan 2022 version. See my policy summary in the "#Moving forward" section, to follow. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Clayoquot:. Thank you for taking the time to look at and engage with these sources and ideas. I'm going to ignore another editor's attempts to move past discussion of these sources and instead respond directly to your questions:

1. I can't think of any reason why Whyte's studies could be seen as contentious (outside of previous discussion with one editor). Whyte is highly respected across academic fields, is a chaired professor at a major "public ivy" institution, and is currently a member of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee.

2. I believe the source in question is an equal-authored piece--Davis's name only appears before Todd's because of alphabetical order. Further, the paper has been cited many times over by notable academics (such as Whyte), and is considered a landmark piece in Indigenous climate studies. While Davis has a degree in communications, she has written and taught about ecology, plastics pollution, and other environmental issues, and she has held visiting positions in environmental fields. Regarding her positionality writing about Indigenous issues, if Todd trusts her enough to co-author with her, I think we can trust Todd's judgement.

3. I think Wildcat's piece belongs alongside the other two listed. He outlines the way climate change is viewed by Native peoples in a manner related to Todd, Davis, and Whyte on pages 2-5. On those pages he describes climate change as a colonial "fourth removal" of Indigenous peoples, following the U.S. Indian Removal period of the 19th Century, the removal of children from their homes during the boarding school period, and psycho-cultural removal of Native peoples from their traditional societies. The colonial fourth removal, according to Wildcat, occurs in many ways. For example, when Native nonhuman kin are removed from their traditional areas and Native societies are forced to change due to climate change, and when Native people have to move from their homelands due to climate change. Again, I think Wildcat's discussion here is distinctly related to climate change in the United States, and it belongs here. It's also a respected text within its field, and it's cited and taught widely. Wildcat's clear writing on climate in relation to Whyte and Todd would finally flesh said section out in a robust, clear, and appropriate manner. Not sure much would need to be added after that in terms of outlining.

4. Finally, in terms of Indigenous thinking and climate change adaptation, Wildcat is a really good source. Also of note is Whyte's "Our Ancestors' Dystopia Now: Indigenous Conservation and the Anthropocene", which I think the original editor who added all of this information and then disappeared had cited. Finally, Igloolik Isuma Productions' film Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change (brief summary available here) and Sheila Watt-Cloutier's book (from a respected University Press), The Right to Be Cold offer Inuit perspectives and ideas for remedying climate change from an Indigenous perspective.

I can offer more sources if necessary, but I do not want to create another wall-of-text, so please ask if I can help any further. --Hobomok (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Hobomok, this is helpful. I've finished reading #1 by Whyte and am reading Davis/Todd now. The Right to Be Cold has been on my to-read list for a while so I hope to get to it soon. Larataguera do you have any thoughts on the best sources for the perspectives of Indigenous people on climate change in the U.S.? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Clayoquot for reviewing these sources. I think the papers listed above are good. The paper by Johnson, Howitt, et al also offers useful insight on how Indigenous knowledge and Western science can be woven together for climate change adaptation. I think this perspective is useful here, because it explicitly explores protocols for successful collaboration of these two knowledge systems in response to climate change; and finding that collaboration is where we are challenged in this conversation/dispute.

There has been so much scholarship on this topic that it's hard to narrow it down, but I think we could do well enough with the sources you and Hobomok have identified here. Larataguera (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Clayoquot signals that new content is on the way. Based on discussion to date, it's possible the content will be based on an expansion of the WP:COMMONNAME definitions of Climate change and Climate change adaptation:

1. Preliminary or preparatory actions like "science education" and "community building";^{10+ Jan version} and abstract concepts like "bridging epistemologies"^{Larataguera 23:58 on 5 Jan}

2. Personal, subjective actions like "people engaged in ceremony"^{Larataguera 12:37 6 Jan} or "emotive and affective relationships with the cosmos, the Divine, and with oneself"^{Goldman 2018 at p.9}

Such content should be described in the context of the alt definitions of Climate change and Climate change adaptation; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As Clayquot initially expressed, I favor content describing the knowledge itself—which is currently limited to a single sentence dangling at the end of the section. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not sure what you mean by User:Clayoquot signals that new content is on the way. I'm planning to tweak some of the existing text, with discussion - I wasn't planning on writing much more myself. I would be happy to see some new content on what TEK says about climate change in the United States, but I think it would need to be written by someone who has read more about it than I have or expect to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: Sorry, it was just that I inferred from the time you've spent already, that you'd be making commensurate additions. Your editing experience and familiarity with WP's pillars, policies and guidelines would be as valuable as raw knowledge. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think knowing the subject matter and devoting the time to write about it are more important. If others are willing to do the writing, I'm happy to advise on how to interpret the core content policies. I understand the frustration on all sides about how we got here, but let's not pre-judge what people might propose. I'd like to look at new content on its own merits. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)