Talk:Indigenous science

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

As I've explained previously:

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

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

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

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

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

List of scholars

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

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

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

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

A critique of this article

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

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

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

Potential references

76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)