Talk:Traditional ecological knowledge

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LilyThue. Peer reviewers: Vivmm13, Shaunbp, Cjaldana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arami04, Finley808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Environment and Society Article Peer Review

Looking at the history of this page via the editing screen for the article it appears that you have added a few sections and some links. The article could be greatly expanded from its current form. There are many journal articles available on this subject via the journal data base at the Mount Allison University library webpage. Having to write a paper on the subject a couple years ago allowed me to discover this. Merging traditional ecological knowledge with traditional environmental knowledge may be justified due to the nature of both terms. My experience with these two terms during my studies is that they tend to be interchangeable in their usage. I have heard some discuss the two as separate noting that traditional ecological knowledge is used to describe aboriginal based knowledge while traditional environmental knowledge is used to discuss more contemporary environmental knowledge.

There has also been consideration of this type of knowledge in a place specific context in regards to agriculture. For example, a farmer living on a farm that has seen many generations has most likely received the accumulated knowledge of his past family members who worked that same land. This knowledge may include what types of livestock and plants are best suited for the local environment, what time of year is best suited for harvesting, what time of year is best suited for breeding, and what time of year is best suited for slaughter and processing of livestock, for example. This has also highlighted the fact that such forms of knowledge are at risk of extinction in the arena of agriculture due to the decline of small family farms in favor of large government subsidised production centers. In turn, this risk is also present for the aboriginal forms of this type of knowledge are the modern world assimilates their culture in some cases or all together replaces it.

The last item you could possibly discuss is the fact that this form of knowledge is increasingly being utilized in the planning process for many large development projects in the Canadian North. Yes, it is still viewed as controversial in light of western based knowledge systems but their knowledge is being increasingly recognised as useful in identifying particular environmental areas that should not be developed for the sake of species living therein such as caribou feeding, mating, and migration areas.

With that being said there are lots of opportunities for you to expand the content of this article. I look forward to reading any additions you may add before the end of this semester. I hope these ideas for expansion are helpful. Shawn McEachern (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Environment & Society Critial Review: Planned Editing on Traditional Ecological Knowledge

While reading through this article, it gave me a good insight and definition of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. This article is very brief and simplified. This article also states Traditional Ecological well from my opinion but lacks thorough information. My goal for this article is to add information on Traditional Ecological Knowledge to give readers a more outlook on what it is. I will incorporate the use of Ecosystem Management Theory because Traditional Ecological Knowledge is heavily emphasized and provides a more broad view to managing resources. More specifically I will provide a case study on Gwaii Haanas, where both science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge is implemented to managing the terrestrial areas. This should give readers a better understanding of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and how it is utilized. Although TEK may be controversial due to the lack of scientific data and facts, I will try to include the reasons why it is and how does it benefits researchers.

I will also try to include the faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge to provide different typologies in how it is utilized and understood. These typologies are good indicators in how Traditional Ecological Knowledge is used from different perspectives such as the type of knowledge, the process of knowledge, and the identity of knowledge.

Lastly, I realized that it suggested that this article should merge with traditional environmental knowledge, I will try to implement that into this article so when readers come on Wikipedia looking for information on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, they will not get confused in the differences between Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Traditional Environmental Knowledge.(Cmmetallic (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

UPDATE: I have now implemented some edits to this article. I added some sections to expand on this article and briefly added some information in the first added section. I also added Ecosystem Management as a section as I thought it was important to mention because TEK and science are utilized in resource management. I also provided a case study on Gwaii Haanas which incorporates both TEK and science to managing Gwaii Haanas. I corrected some spelling errors and tried to merged "Traditional Evironmental Knowledge" with "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" but had problems and couldn't figure out, so I briefly implemented Traditional Environmental Knowledge in the Introduction and linked the article in the "See Also" section. I also added some external links, providing information on Gwaii Hannas and the uses of TEK. Feedback would be great. Cmmetallic (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Environment and Society: Peer Review

This article provides a brief but informative exploration of TEK, with plenty of room left for further analysis and expansion. TEK is a complicated idea to try to explain objectively, simply because of its natural subjectivity. The controversy associated with TEK and its value and function in modern society is briefly touched on here, but I feel as though a more detailed look at the conflict surrounding TEK is necessary in order to fully understand its significance.

I have identified the following section specifically as information which could potentially be explored in its own category rather than as part of the introduction:

"The use of TEK in management and science is controversial since methods of acquiring and accumulating TEK, although often including forms of empirical research and experimentation, differ from those used to create and validate Western scientific knowledge [3][4].

There is a debate whether holders of TEK (i.e., Indigenous populations) retain an intellectual property right over traditional knowledge and whether use of this knowledge requires prior permission and license [5]. This is especially complicated because TEK is most frequently preserved as oral tradition and as such may lack objectively confirmed documentation. Ironically, those same methods that might resolve the issue of documentation compromise the very nature of traditional knowledge."

The debate about the usefulness of TEK in a modern scientific setting and the challenges associated with such use is extremely important and, arguably, vital in order to obtain a full understanding of the nature of TEK.

The Gwaii Hanaas case study included provides a comprehensive example of TEK and its use in modern society. I felt as though the inclusion of this case in the article also communicated the growing recognition of TEK as a vital contributor in today's environmental action.

Overall I felt as though this article was an effective starting point with which new readers could begin their education on the subject. There is great potential for further expansion, although maintaining an objective perspective might be an interesting challenge to face when reporting the opinions and responses of people involved. Nevertheless, I feel that this would be an important subject to explore.

Samantha Hogan (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential Sources for Expansion

This is a great start, but is lacking in content. I believe it is important to include more on relations and issues between tribes and governments, as many times policy prevents native populations from practicing traditional agriculture and land management practices. Here are some potential sources for expansion:

https://nature.berkeley.edu/karuk-collaborative/?p=214

https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0230374-enhancing-tribal-health-and-food-security-in-the-klamath-basin-of-oregon-and-california-by-building-a-sustainable-regional-food-system.html

http://www.klamathwaterquality.com/documents/Norgaard_%20Health%20Effects%20of%20Altered%20Diet.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lweiland (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Environmental Justice and Environmental Injustice/EPA

I am hoping to make a couple of edits to this page by expanding on notions of environmental justice and injustice. I am interested specifically at looking into how we can build a connection between the EPA, water resources, and TEK. This would be done by further expanding on how TEK interacts with food systems and water systems. I have one article on the EPA snd environmental justice, http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585654.pdf, which I believe could be helpful. Another interesting thing I would be interested in doing is including a subtopic on the Trump Administration and the potential changes to the EPA. If anyone has any ideas of see any other connections that can be made, feel free. BCM163 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Environmental Justice and Food Stamps and Healthcare

I intend to contribute some material to this page by talking about food stamps and healthcare in relation to the Trump administration and how that will affect traditional ecological knowledge. Although we cannot write about mere speculations here, we plan to expand more about the controversies and what has already happened. I am planning on doing further research on this topic but a source to get started with learning more is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2993655/. Please feel free to let me know if there are any more information you would like to see covered! Additionally, here is a list of resources I plan to use and I will continue to add on if I find more:

Inglis, Julian T. "Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases". IDRC. January 1993. Web. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/berkeley/reader.action?docID=10120553. Accessed February 28, 2017. This book gives a general outlook at what Traditional Ecological Knowledge means and also touches on specific examples to explain it. I will use this source to help me understand further about the meaning of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and gain some insight about its importance. It covers a wide range of aspects of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Tang, Ruifei and Gavin, Michael C. "A Classification of Threats to Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Conservation Responses". Conservation & Society. January- March 2016. Vol. 14. Issue 1. Page 57- 70. Web. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cffa80af-9735-4bde-9820-ceb36afd0e68%40sessionmgr4007&vid=3&hid=4113. Accessed February 28, 2017. This article talks about threats to Traditional Ecological Knowledge and actions taken against it. This source will help me understand the obstacles of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and how people have found ways to combat against it.

Goode, Ron W. "Tribal- Traditional Ecological Knowledge". News from Native California. Spring 2015. Vol. 28. Issue 3. Page 23-28. Web. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=db71cec0-605c-40e4-92cb-82ea5c3b6b84@sessionmgr4009&vid=2&hid=4113. Accessed February 28, 2017. This article gives a personal experience of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. It touches on general information about controversy topics. It also shows the importance of feeling a connection to the land and the animals and plants living on it. Dl12345 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

YungHam (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Hey this is Hamza Khawaja from your ESPM class, and I'm reviewing your article. The following are improvements that I think you can make on your article:

• In the 5th paragraph, I recommend having a source citation for that paragraph because introducing a new perspective to TEK's meaning without having any evidence to support it is simply an assumption. This should have citations like the 1-6 in the preceding paragraph, which were done very well.
• You say that "TEK can also be referred to as traditional environmental knowledge...", which insinuates that the overall topic of your Wikipedia article is TEK, which it is NOT. The article is about Tradition ECOLOGICAL Knowledge, which can't have another meaning. This can either be modified or taken out to fix this mistake.
• Grammar Error: In the 3rd line of the 5th paragraph, the sentence starting with "However Traditional Ecological Knowledge" should be modified slightly. There should be a comma after the word "however".
• Spelling/Capitalization Error: Many of your titles are not correctly capitalized. For example, "Factual observations" should instead be: "Factual Observations" and "Management systems" should be "Management Systems" and the large title "Face of Traditional ecological knowledge" should be "Faces of Traditional Ecological Knowledge".
• Tone: I generally like the tone of the article, and do believe that it is rather neutral.

YungHam (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Edit

This is Wiki$ from your ESPM class. I am impressed with this article. I particularly like how you have it structured clearly and in a sensible way. I like how you have 13 sources which is good because it means your article is not as bias and represents a variety of viewpoints. Under Factual observations I would provide examples of the empirical observations of animals and their behavior. Under each face I would provide an example of the definition of that face. Under Management Systems avoid referring to “these people” rather who are those people. Use their definition Under Culture and Identity I feel like the 3rd sentence needs to be cited with “” and a citation. Overall, great structure and nice job! Wiki$ (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - GSI

Great article. I like the overall organization, the diversity of sections and how comprehensive they are. Suggestions:

-You might think about breaking up the Climate Change section up by having the case study on the Alaskan Natives as a subsection.

-The title of the "Controversies" has some extra text at the end that should be deleted.

-No need to use the same citation after every sentence. Just one at the end of all the ideas you are referring to from that study should be sufficient (unless they are out of order in the article).

Other than that, I think the article is pretty comprehensive. Nice work! GAA8423 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The page was tagged for neutrality issues. I am trying to resolve these issues, so more information and suggestions would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lweiland (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just removed this tag, hopefully having addressed the NPOV problems by removing value-laden language and issues with WP:ASF and WP:UNDUE. jps (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Article Review (Human Dimensions)

This article seems to be well thought out and has a lot of good content. It is written in a logical manner that flows well. The use of images is nice as it breaks up the long blocks of text a bit. The “See also” section is nice as it is helpful in linking to similar WikiPages that readers could go read to get a holistic view of related topics. This article seems to not be completely neutral. The tone of the writing seems slightly biased on behalf of the interests of indigenous groups mentioned in the article rather than just benignly giving the information. The article also only connects the concepts of TEK to examples in the United States whereas there are probably examples from all around the world that could be pulled from to create a more comprehensive view of the topic. Also, long paragraphs could maybe be broken up into smaller ones. The page should also be edited for grammatical errors and redundancy. What is written so far on TEK is good, but the page could use more development overall. Peamarsh (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Climate change

I have moved some content from the climate change section to Climate change in the United States. I don't think it's really appropriate to just list impacts of climate change in this article, and especially long lists of impacts to specific North American Indigenous people. I hope to clean the section up a bit more if I can get time, but I think it is better if the section is 1. more global; and 2. relates these impacts more clearly to the subject of the article. Larataguera (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by WikiProject Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shreya.C123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AB.cal, JG2027.

— Assignment last updated by JG2027 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Revisions: Global Poverty and Practice Assignment

This article is entirely focused on the Traditional Ecological Knowledge of North America only. I want to make more edits to include how TEK can come from any Indigenous culture rather than just from North American ones. To make it align with my personal background and interests, I will be adding a South Asia section and focus this part on agroforestry. Additionally, a section on how TEK can be used to complement and correct current climate solutions is needed, to highlight how it is not a concept of the past but rather it can be part of the future as well. Shreya.C123 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed image

The image in question is based off of a paper from 2005 that seems pretty dated. I don't think we should be including images of text in any case, but the user who reverted me claimed that this is not a false dichotomy. Oh no? It looks a lot like it is establishing categorical types which to my knowledge are almost entirely debunked within STS. YMMV. But 2005 is pretty old stuff. Also, I think "Western science" hits as a dated jargon. There is nothing particularly "Western" about the current proliferation of scientific work coming out of China, in my estimation. Again, YMMV.

Long and short is I don't think we need this image and I think it does more harm than good to keep it.

jps (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I support removing this picture. It's from one nearly 20-year-old paper, and it's undue to give so much emphasis on what is effectively a quote from one paper. It also essentializes science (and traditional knowledge) in questionable ways. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Retain. It should be obvious that neither TEK nor Western science (WS), both centuries old, change much in twenty years. Further, the approving FWS source was "Last updated: October 28, 2021" (maybe later). The fact that a reliable source (which includes a textual chart!), and this very article, have explicitly distinguished TEK and WS, demonstrates that this is not a false dichotomy. To assert "it's reductionist" shows editorial bias in the face of a reliable source. The chart, which has been here for almost three years without objection, captures much more encyclopedic content about TEK than a picture of a group of people (which picture could be called reductionist), though it's OK with me if the group picture remains also. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is saying that TEK or "Western science" (though, note that use of the term "Western" is fast becoming deprecated in the relevant epistemic communities) changed. The point is that reducing this tension to something like the conflict thesis is pretty much not the standard approach in the relevant epistemic fields any more. The framing of these discussions is what has changed.

  Understand that just because some chart has been in an article for any length of time without objection does not say anything about whether the chart is reasonably included in our project. Wikipedia is massive and, for sure I had not noticed this chart in this space until today. Absent some means to actually alert people to every addition, change, or editorial approach on Wikipedia, simply relying on the longevity of an asset as a rationale for keeping it around seems fallacious.

  jps (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You @ජපස: @Jps: are right: in general, length of time content has been in an article doesn't prove it meets inclusion criteria. I only meant that the chart's presence for years, and dominant position since June 2024, suggest that this article's "68 watchers" have seen it and not objected.

I don't see how broad reference to supposed trends in "epistemic communities" trumps what reliable source(s) say, how they say it (in charts), or what they call things ("Western" or otherwise). It seems that some editors of this article are nudging Wikipedia principles aside and substituting attitudes derived from TEK itself ("it's reductionist"); that editorial bias was part of the reason for my 20:41, 23 Oct post. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The general principle of excising content when there is some question as to its utility, I think, is good. This chart does not seem to be referenced by recent discussions of TEK in the literature. It would be one thing if there were lots of repeat publications, but as I see it right now it looks like even those groups which did republish it are no longer using it. jps (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Since archive is down and i've removed the in text ref here's the new URL: Comparing Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science. I removed Barnhardt and Kawagley 2005 also. Really need a very solid recent source(s) for the two parts of the sentence. What is 'controversial' and what is 'different'. fiveby(zero) 16:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

removed: Freeman, M.M.R. (1992). "The nature and utility of traditional ecological knowledge". Northern Perspectives. 20 (1): 9–12. found here. It looks like maybe an important paper (coined TEK?) cited 274 times by authors even more heavily cited. But says things like

The traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) approach recognizes that a supercomputer of extraordinary sophistication does exist, and that it can work for all practical purposes with incomplete data sets. Indeed, it is able to creatively fill in many of the knowledge blanks, an absolutely essential characteristic in those cases where knowledge is not just unknown but, in fact, may be unknowable.

so removing and come back to it later. fiveby(zero) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I don't understand what you're saying, or how it affects inclusion or exclusion of the chart. Can you please explain? —RCraig09 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

So the comment above was just a note about removing another source which may want to revisit later. The chart, originally cited to this Fish&Wildlife site, and credited to Barnhardt and Kawagley 2005 is actually from: Stephens, Sidney (2000). Handbook for Culturally Responsive Science Curriculum. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. p. 11. fiveby(zero) 18:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

UN, EPA, and global readers

Was going to just remove the EPA section, it's just one agency, contains a lot of non-TEK sources, and reads like a press release. But i'm a little perplexed as to what to put back. Most all sources say "indigenous people" (and that's a lot of people) but the who, where, and how is Canada and Western U.S.; fisheries, timber, grazing, fire ecology; and the tribes/First Nations. Can't find a source yet which says that, it is just what i am seeing. What would go back then would be a long list of agencies, Fish & Wildlife, Forest Service, and whatever those Canadians have, etc. For the U.N. all there is now is: "expresses a positive view of traditional ecological knowledge." There are more sources here but quick look shows they mostly lead from climate change.

I'd like to find a source with a more international perspective, where we can know outside North America this is: yes a good way to look at it, or no here it's just knowledge and the way things are done. fiveby(zero) 15:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your evaluation is fair. We may not have much to put back, to be honest. TEK is a specific jargon term and it is a bit different from indigenous science, for example. jps (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think TEK and indigenous science are a whole lot different, based on you convincing me otherwise and WP:OR looking deeper. I guess another way to look at the problem of international perspective is to look at Houde 2007. If this were still 2007 Houde has done all the work for us (a Canada focus but i don't think the review of the literature was constrained to Canada). Anyone competent here would cite Houde; and looking at that finds: Apetre, Cristina (2021). "Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science". Global Environmental Change. I'll look for similar, first clean up the citations, tedious reading tho some of these authors aren't very careful with what they say. fiveby(zero) 16:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)