Talk:Indigenous American philosophy

Revamp

This page was in a sorry state. Originally, it simply included a list of philosophers and scholars, and did not include a single reference.

I have scrapped the unreferenced list and replaced it with some new sections, including Epistemology, Science, and Metaphysics. The only real source I have at the moment is a collection of essays from 2003 from scholar Anne Waters. It's not much, but it's a lot better than nothing. There is not a lot of scholarship in this field, so this should at least be a good start.

• Waters, Anne, ed. (2003). American Indian Thought: Philosophical Essays. Wiley-Blackwell.

Thanks, --Tkbrett (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Tkbrett: , a group of philosophy students at Maynooth University assessed this page similar to you last week and have begun working on content in their sandboxes. Over the next couple of weeks they'll be adding content to the new sections that you created. I'll direct them to this talk page. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect such a quick response! This is good to hear. The scope of this topic is wider than I could hope to cover, so it's good to have help. Thanks --Tkbrett (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: I've added the content from the student editors. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: Awesome, thank you!

I made a few changes, mostly regarding the formatting:

• I fixed the references to fit with existing shortened footnote with parentheses template
• I merged the Epistemology and Science sections since they were essentially going over the same sort of material
• I moved the Metaphysics section up
• I fixed some small typos
• I added a dubious tag to the claim that the Western tradition is rooted in a wholly Platonic understanding of truth. I didn't remove it outright since a citation is later given, but I thought we ought to further provide reasoning for this claim since it strikes me as a bit of an inaccurate generalization
• I removed part of a sentence that incorrectly describes the Western traditions views on time. Specifically, it said,

“ Similarly, time does not belong to an absolute and bounded category in NAP, it is not a self-existing thing independent of human acknowledgement, like the typical Western cannon views it. (my emphasis) ”

Anyway, those were the only things I adjusted. I'm happy with the way the article is proceeding given how it looked only a couple months ago. Again, thank you very much! Tkbrett (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the deletion of the Epistemology and science section

The Epistemology and Science section was removed in January of this year because one of the editors (ජපස) believed it to be "original research". I read over the entirety of the section, this is simply false, the section referenced 9 different unique academic works. All the claims made were supported by the referenced academic works. If the editor in question had an issue with one of those sources they should have brought it to the attention of the Wikipedia community so that the article could be further improved, not just outright delete close to half the entire article without consulting anyone on the talk page for an allegation of "original research" that is false. In order to improve this article I believe we should restore the Epistemology and Science section with minor edits. Conner Cafero (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me--restore it so! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)