Talk:Climate change in the United States

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rename

I would propose that the article be named "Effects of climate change in the United States". Climate change, as we can (hopefully) all agree is a global thing. What the article actually goes into detail on is the effects of climate change as it relates to the United States such as the recent heat wave. There is a small blurb about the causes in the United States which would fit the title perfectly, but over 80% of the rest of the page is just effects of climate change in the United States and Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is already a page of its own.

Side note, the reason I am not WP:BOLDing this and making an RMA is because I know that Climate Change topics in general provoke a lot of criticism and accusations of malintent so I wanted to pitch it here first to see if there is general consensus on this before moving forward. Jcmcc (Talk) 02:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose this rename because:

1) All the other country articles (including at least one rated "good") are named "Climate change in countryname"

2) This article is about changes in the Climate of the United States Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. The table of contents conclusively demonstrates that the article is in no way limited to "effects". Much of the article is about the changing U.S. climate itself, with various related sub-topics. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to agree. Limiting it to effects discredits sections such as economic and public effects as well as, the impact on people. Minnesota!2022 (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to the opposition on the name change. "Climate Change in the United States" is succinct and leaves space for the sections on policy and culture. Collegestudent6 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts on Indigenous people, Part II

It seems that another viewpoint could be helpful in this discussion. I think you both have valid points. Some of the sources (eg, this) removed by RCraig09 don't have anything to do with climate change (meaning that searching for the term 'climate' gets no hits). Some of the sources do have to do with climate change (eg, Zoe Todd and Heather Davis), and these should be included. I'm going to replace some of the sources that represent valid perspectives removed by RCraig09 and that are reliable sources (peer reviewed journals). Hopefully this will also resolve some of Hobomok's concerns. Larataguera (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Larataguera: Thank you. Be aware that reliable sourcing and neutral point of view aren't the only issues; remember basic relevance. Critically, this section is about the impacts (effects) of climate change as understood by science; see my text following the four charts inserted above. The causes of climate change are a completely different issue—even if Hobomok and activists try to link them for political reasons. 17:46, 18 Dec . . . Of course it's fine to quote Whyte etc in context about the impacts, as you have done in your first edit a few minutes ago. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think one thing that we should all be aware of is that there is a tendency to reduce 'climate change' to 'global climate change caused by burning hydrocarbons'. Actually, climate in the US has been changed by other factors such as deforestation, desertification, major infrastructure such as dams, etc for much longer than GHG emissions have been changing global climate. So, 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. So we can't reduce the American Indigenous experience of climate change in the United States to GHG emissions. I think this observation may be at the core of some of the confusion/conflict between RCraig09 and Hobomok . . . Larataguera (talk)
Importantly, it's extremely misleading to say that "Climate change in the United States" implies this expansive definition of "climate change". The term "climate change", as used in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources and on Wikipedia has meant global warming-induced climate change—not just a decontextualized definition like "any change in the climate". See the Climate change and Climate variability and change articles themselves, which to my knowledge have never hinted about locally-induced changes to local "climate". Such a vague definition confuses readers about the global crisis. P.S. deforestation increases greenhouse gases as a global phenomenon, and desertification is a result of climate change, and dams substantially affect ~only local "climate". — 18:35, 18 Dec. . . "Climate change" is a term and not a descriptive phrase, and should not be decomposed to mean "any change in climate"—any more than "hot dog" should be expanded to mean "any dog that is hot". —RCraig09 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation hatnote at the top of the Climate change article reflects the particular definitions that are used on Wikipedia articles. —RCraig09 (talk)
Yes, I agree it's potentially confusing. I think I've made the distinction clear though. Larataguera (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the content that was removed about Traditional ecological knowledge is relevant for this article, but probably shouldn't be under this section on 'impacts'. It might be included in a new sub-section under 'adaptation'. There are several relevant sources that discuss TEK in the context of climate change. I hope to add this later. Larataguera (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that TEK has a place in adaptation, hopefully sourced to reports of specific scientifically demonstrated techniques and not merely to 'promotional' sources. Your edits to date wisely place the assertions in context of who the sources are, and that the content is how they view climate change's impacts. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your edit re "man camps"North Dakota involved in resource extraction (true even before climate change), and that are not a true impact of climate change that is the subject of this article, so I deleted that sentence. Whyte's content re increased outsider access because of melting iceArctic to resources doesn't have such problems. PS Your mention of "large predominately male workforces" comes across as sensationalistic and non-neutral editor commentary not directly connected to the "access" issue, and that "large..." language didn't seem to be in the Whyte reference. PPS After you "fully" cite a source once, if you need to use it again you can use an abbreviated citation with a "/" before the ">"... like <ref name="Smith"/> —RCraig09 (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the sentence about man camps. The increased access for resource extraction is relevant to this section in the context of how it affects people. It's true that the MMIW crisis existed before climate change, but Whyte's whole point is that climate change intensifies existing crises. I have tried to be clearer about that in the replaced phrasing. I'm still hoping to get to the inclusion of TEK, (with good sources of course) but it might take a few days. Larataguera (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, TEK is relevant. I hope you can find independent, reliable reference(s) that specifically describe particular scientifically demonstrated TEK approaches that can help to relieve greenhouse gas increase that causes climate change. Helping environmentally, by itself, is not enough.
Concerning the non-neutrally-named, provocatively-named 'man camps', my edit comment wasn't specific enough to explain that what Whyte said about ice melting applies only to the Arctic, is tenuously related to 'man camps' mentioned with respect to North Dakota, which he says "attract" sex trafficking. It's an indirect and speculative link from climate change to sex trafficking, but I've left it in the article because it's expressed in the context of Whyte's saying it. I made the language track what the reference actually states; we should all strive to be true to the references without introducing our own commentary or interpretations. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your objection to the term 'man camp'. This is what they are called in the industry or here. I understand your vigilance about NPOV, but I think you are quick to claim that I'm editorializing when I am using the terms in the sources that are widely accepted by all parties. I know you don't intend this, but your attempt to keep biased tone out of the article is actually introducing a bias—not uniformly so, but in this specific instance you are softening a widely accepted term that even the oil industry uses to describe its own operation. It is difficult to be aware of our own biases, but I will try if you will. Larataguera (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Man camp" is not so widely used that I have ever heard of it in my entire life. More objectively, twenty years after Wikipedia's founding there is no Man camp Wikipedia article, and no entry in dictionary.com, in the same manner as labor camp or summer camp are in both. Recited with reference to sex trafficking, the non-neutral effect of using the term is clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Man camps is a term that is widely used in the oil and gas industry (as larataguera (talk · contribs) has shown, (but here’s another example and another, and another), and in popular literature (some from sources already used on this page like High Country News and NYT) see here or here or here, and in scholarship outside of Whyte’s work/whyte’s field: example and example. I can provide many objective secondary popular and scholarly sources in relation to studies done around man camps and sex trafficking if you would like.
Just because someone has never heard of a word or because it doesn’t have a Wikipedia page doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and it isn’t used widely.—Hobomok (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing the "Just because" phrase above. Mere "use", or asserted "wide use" with examples, are not enough. Undeniably the term is not neutral. Linking it with sex trafficking demonizes "men", especially those who work on oil projects. Whyte's ": Decolonizing..." reference itself places the term in quotes, which he would not likely have done were the term in fact known even to him. His quotes emphasize it, for reasons easy to surmise. Almost certainly, "man camp" is objectively misdescriptive since they're probably not 100% occupied by males (in this century, at least). Conversely, "laborers' camp" is a neutral descriptive term, not a loaded term, and thus does not "introduce bias". An encyclopedia shouldn't accept loaded "man camp" terminology over "laborers' camps" any more than we should refer to the value-laden Climate crisis characterization instead of the neutral and scientifically descriptive Climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I originally chimed in here to help sort out a conflict, not to start another one. So I'm willing to leave this here for now. I hope to get around to the above mentioned TEK contributions later. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Larataguera:. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Larataguera: I've added a paragraph to the Adaptation section. I think it could use additional specific examples of adaptation. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RCraig09:, thanks for starting on that. I'll add some more later. Probably be a week or so before I can get through everything else on my plate right now. Larataguera (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add onto this point made, the sources seem to be biased and the claims are not neutral. To state "Thus, the impacts of global climate change are viewed as being not separate from but rather an intensification of the impacts of settler colonialism." This claim is biased and also taken from the paper 'Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene' by Kyle Whyte stating that this a key theme. Not factual evidence. Salmaismail222 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started to work on including more information about TEK as an adaptation to climate change, and began by reviewing the article on TEK, which has a section on climate change. That whole section included a very long list of climate change impacts to Indigenous people in the US. That is a global article, and while impacts of climate change are certainly relevant to TEK, I don't think a list of climate change impacts to American Indigenous people belongs in that article. So I started moving some of that information over here to the impacts section. More to do, but I'm done for now. Larataguera (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that much of the commentary in the TEK article's "Climate change" section, had/has little to do with TEK as such, or, at best, takes a long time setting up how the impacts of climate change have necessitated new applications of TEK. When I researched TEK in a climate change context, practically everything I found related to adaptation, the results of which I put into the Adaptation section of the present article. On a general note, we should all be striving to present what references actually say—even literally to the extent that copyright allows—without introducing our own commentary and explanation; this is particularly true when it comes to predictions/forecasts and generalizations. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

Survey

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
— 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 timeobviously 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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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.[1] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Milkncooki (article contribs).

Incorrect Linkage

In the introduction paragraph, Paragraph 1 the word 'Climate Action' takes you to an incorrect link, leading you to the Climate change Mitigation wiki page. I have removed the incorrect link and tried linking it to the corresponding page but there are no links leading to 'Climate action'. Salmaismail222 (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section 'See also' there are multiple links corresponding to the correct page but when clicking on 'Hurricane Katrina and global warming' you are referred to a wiki page titled "Tropical cyclones and climate change". Salmaismail222 (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the International cooperation section of the article there are some outdated and some missing sources. I would advise you add some new climate policies that are being incorporated internationally. Milkncooki (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Underrepresented Viewpoint

Under "Climate change by state or territory, " more elaboration should be added. Understanding how climate change policies work in different states and territories is extremely crucial and significant to understanding the basis of Climate change in the United States. The viewpoint seems underrepresented within the article. Salmaismail222 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Under "Impacts on animals and wildlife" the section should have more emphasis on the impacts on animals and wildlife, adding more details and reliable sources that are more relevant; the sources are linked to 2015 and although it may seem somewhat relevant as Climate change continues to grow and shift there should be more relevant sources and analysis linked as the topic is underrepresented. Salmaismail222 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Economic impact" There seems to only be one line explaining the impacts the economy has undergone from climate change. This is very relevant since the economy is the basis of the United States and should be elaborated further on. Salmaismail222 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under "International cooperation" it would make sense to add climate change policies not only that the United states are enforcing but also what other countries are putting in place for their own climate regulations and see if the U.S. could learn anything from these policies. Milkncooki (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also within the "International Cooperation" section of your article, you could utilize how new electric cars and renewable energy sources are becoming more available leading people across the world to producing less carbon emissions throughout the world. Milkncooki (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there won't be any Teslas left for you Americans as new PM Albanese will ship them all down under. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trade embodied emissions

"the EU, the U.S., and Japan are the largest net recipients of trade-embodied carbon dioxide emissions." In other words countries export pollution (and climate change) though the importing of goods.

https://news.mit.edu/2014/calculating-chinas-carbon-emissions-from-trade

I would like to add this to the entry but don't know where?

Please suggest or help Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 25 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oliviahowe07 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Oliviahowe07 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States"