Talk:Decolonization of knowledge/Archive 1

Article is missing some key points
The article says over and over that other forms of knowledge production exist besides Western science that are ignored, and treats it as self-evident that this is wrong. But it never actually specifies what those forms of knowledge production are, and never says why their marginalization is a problem. By what mechanisms do these alternate epistemologies produce knowledge? What useful knowledge they have produced that Western knowledge lacks? And quite frankly, why shouldn't we consider such nonscientific knowledge production as valid as creationism--that is, not at all? I'm not an expert in the subject, so I can't answer those questions. But the article really should if it wants to be useful to a general audience.

Additionally, the coverage of criticism is sorely lacking. The lede only says "Critics would argue however that it has failed in many ways to challenge the dominant aspects of neoliberal ideology and the dominance of free market capitalism." This would give the reader the impression that the only criticism is that it doesn't achieve its goals, rather than another substantial branch of criticism that says it's patent nonsense. See, , ,. I'm not saying these are necessarily reliable sources, just that these are good examples of the latter branch of criticism.

Also, I recognize decolonization of knowledge might actually be about something else, like trying to get more non-Europeans into science or making its ideas more accessible to non-European audiences. But if it is, the article is very unclear about that. 173.29.96.94 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you almost on every point you have mentioned above. The article must address those issues. And in fact, it does. To a certain extent. I do not subscribe to the theory that the subject matter it deals with is 'patent nonsense'. It's a matter of wonder that someone can use such a label for figures like Enrique Dussel, Anibal Quijano, Walter Mignolo, José Carlos Mariátegui, Frantz Fanon, Immanuel Wallerstein and Lewis Gordon. The sources you invoke to develop this theory are of doubtful authorities. They do not appear reliable to me. None of them. You should have come up with academic studies instead. Nonetheless, like every other concepts, it may have its criticisms. And those criticisms are welcome here. But they must be based on sound scholarship and must come from reliable sources. I had started this page and I know how difficult it was for me to find reliable sources on the topic that I could consult with. It was, however, a limitation on my part. I hope someone with better library equipments will soon come forward and address those issues more eloquently. Moreover, it should be noted that this is a field of study that is still growing. I am also doing some research on it. But that's a sad story. Btw, Thank you for your insightful comment. Mosesheron (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me be more specific about the places I feel the article needs more detail: No examples of such activities are given in the article. If this claim is going to be in the article's lead, there should be an elaboration of what those activities are and why they are a problem. It would be nice if the article also covered some specific applications of decolonization of knowledge to those subjects. In particular, I am very curious as to the application to the natural sciences, a field whose claim to universality is quite strong. Who are these people excluded? What are the systems of knowledge expertise, and worldviews they hold? What are the consequences of having excluded them? Again, what are these forms of knowledge? What are the alternative criteria? Why should we use them?
 * "It is also an intellectual project that aims to “disinfect” academic activities that are believed to have little connection with the objective pursuit of knowledge and truth"
 * "The decolonial knowledge perspective covers a wide variety of subjects including epistemology, natural sciences, science history, and other fundamental categories in social science."
 * "Decolonial scholars concur that the western system of knowledge still continues to determine as to what should be considered as scientific knowledge and continues to "exclude, marginalise and dehumanise" those with different systems of knowledge, expertise and worldviews."
 * " Boaventura de Sousa Santos says "throughout the world, not only are there very diverse forms of knowledge of matter, society, life and spirit, but also many and very diverse concepts of what counts as knowledge and criteria that may be used to validate it."

Finally, when we reach Raewyn Connel's section, we get a little more elaboration, but I get little insight from them. What indigenous knowledge was ignored by the colonialists? What consequences did this have? The idea that Islamic scholarship is an "alternative universality" is genuinely ahistorical--their work drew from the Hellenistic scholars before them, just as European scholars would later draw from Islamic ones. As this is the only example given, it's not a very good one. Southern theory appears to just be scholarship from the global South. While exclusion of such people has certainly happened, if this whole thing is just about exclusion of non-European scholars from academia, it sure is a roundabout way of talking about it.

And now we get to my final issue with the article. Everything--every single claim--is "according to X". There are no experiments, no evidence, no studies. Just some scholars' opinions on the matter. The appeal to authority only goes so far. If someone said "this is all nonsense--objective reality exists, science works, and alternative forms of knowledge production are bogus", is there a counterargument that doesn't boil down to "a bunch of sociology professors don't agree with you"? If there is, the article should really include it. If there's not, well, that's how you end up with the label of "patent nonsense". 128.255.32.65 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I said in my earlier comment that it is an emerging field of study. That means many aspects of this newly founded project have not yet been explored and articulated. Of course, I am not completely up to date on recent developments around the world. But generally that seems to be the case to me. I might be utterly wrong in my speculation. Anyway, let me respond to your points:


 * No examples of such activities are given in the article. If this claim is going to be in the article's lead, there should be an elaboration of what those activities are and why they are a problem.
 * You are right. The article should provide specific examples of some academic activities. The truth is that none of the sources I've come across have thoroughly discussed this issue. The claim in the lead of course is sourced to this article by the Conversation, but the Conversation piece refers to no specific academic activities. A recent article published in CounterPunch in April 2021 is the only source I've found that discusses decolonization of academic activity in relation to decolonization of knowledge. It discusses, for example, the politics of translation, citation politics, the politics of research topic conception, research funding, academic writing and publication, and so on. It's worth noting that the Wikipedia entry was written in March 2020 whereas the article in the Conversation appeared in 2017. The issue of decolonization of academic activity had never been covered in depth by any source before. None that I am aware of. Especially the sources that would not trigger WP:SYNTH. Counterpunch is a fairly reliable source, though some editors have questioned its reliability at times. Current consensus is that there is no problem in using it with proper attribution. I'll update the page with a summary of those alleged academic activities based on this source, or any other source I find. Update: Counterpunch has been deprecated as a source. As a result, I deleted the section I added based on this source. However, there is a large body of literature on decolonization of the academy available now that can be used here.


 * It would be nice if the article also covered some specific applications of decolonization of knowledge to those subjects. In particular, I am very curious as to the application to the natural sciences, a field whose claim to universality is quite strong.


 * That is an excellent point. I'm looking for sources that particularly highlight features of decolonization and how they apply to these disciplines. I'm not sure what I'll find. I'm not aware of any books or journal papers that tackle this at the moment. Of course, they're there, I'm sure. Do not forget that modern science faces philosophical oppositions from Western scholars as well. One author (I forgot the source) informs us that it is actually about countering scientism.


 * Who are these people excluded? What are the systems of knowledge expertise, and worldviews they hold? What are the consequences of having excluded them?
 * Yes, a bit more explanation is required. We'll need sources, of course.


 * Again, what are these forms of knowledge? What are the alternative criteria? Why should we use them?
 * Boaventura de Sousa Santos is absolutely correct. One does not need to be an expert on the topic to affirm the truth his statement conveys. It's a simple issue of commonsense. Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy (including Hindu philosophy, Jain philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, and Sikh philosophy), African philosophy, Japanese philosophy are only a few examples of the world's different knowledge traditions. I'm looking for sources that directly relate these various knowledge traditions to the knowledge decolonization initiative (Sources with no issues of WP:SYNTH). These knowledge traditions have little to no resemblance to Western canon. Although these knowldge traditions are suppressed by power dynamics, they are, in fact, very much alive today. The soul of young Europe may not realize that. Why should we use them? I cannot tell you why you should. But I do not see the reasons why they shouldn't. Perhaps decolonization of knowledge is about them, not about us.


 * Finally, when we reach Raewyn Connel's section, we get a little more elaboration, but I get little insight from them. What indigenous knowledge was ignored by the colonialists? What consequences did this have? The idea that Islamic scholarship is an "alternative universality" is genuinely ahistorical--their work drew from the Hellenistic scholars before them, just as European scholars would later draw from Islamic ones. As this is the only example given, it's not a very good one. Southern theory appears to just be scholarship from the global South. While exclusion of such people has certainly happened, if this whole thing is just about exclusion of non-European scholars from academia, it sure is a roundabout way of talking about it.


 * The section is in desperate need of elaboration. But I do not agree with the statement made about the Islamic knowledge tradition. True, numerous Islamic thinkers, especially the peripatetic ones, drew from Hellenistic sources. That isn't to say that Islamic scholarship is the same as Hellenistic scholarship. Islamic knowledge tradition was first and foremost established on Muhammad's teachings and the Quran, the fundamental body of Islamic knowledge was never influenced by Hellenistic sources. Its resemblance to Christian and Judaic teachings are of course no accident. But that's a whole different story. Muhammad was no Hellenistic thinker. Islamic epistemology is founded on the Quran and the prophetic traditions, not on Hellenistic sources. Islamic philosophy, although it was influenced by Greek sources, is epistemologically different from Western philosophy. You do not have to be an expert to know this.


 * And now we get to my final issue with the article. Everything--every single claim--is "according to X". There are no experiments, no evidence, no studies. Just some scholars' opinions on the matter. The appeal to authority only goes so far. If someone said "this is all nonsense--objective reality exists, science works, and alternative forms of knowledge production are bogus", is there a counterargument that doesn't boil down to "a bunch of sociology professors don't agree with you"? If there is, the article should really include it. If there's not, well, that's how you end up with the label of "patent nonsense".
 * Please take a look at the discussion below to see why the article uses the phrase "according to x, y, or z." Finally, I'd like to convey my deep appreciation to you for taking the time to elaborate on a few critical points. This article is a friendless one. It can only improve with constructive criticism and recommendations from individuals like you. Thank you so much. Mosesheron (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant text WP:BRD
Hi there, the following text was added and reverted. Since I do see its relevance, but it being reverted under WP:SYNTH, I suggest to rewrite it so that it flashes out how it fits the article. Since I didnt write the text maybe the involved editors can propose an edited text that works for both?

"Many are following this approach through leading alternative museum/gallery tours in order to encourage us to question the knowledge we may be obtaining from such institutions. Such tours encourage us to question our surroundings: Whose perspectives are we following? Is everything as it is written? Who may be excluded from the plaques and exhibits?

Such tours include the LGBTQ+ tour of the Polar museum, this Cambridge series intends to "explore the spectrum of identities that exist across time, place and culture," "from same-sex behaviour among penguins to eroticism in the ancient world". Even going on to identify how indigenous communities had gender fluid roles in some Arctic populations. This approach follows the argue that these tours "make them relevant", normalising historically accurate yet censored behaviours.

Alice Procter is another example, of an influential figure in this movement. Her 'Uncomfortable Art tours' have become popular, known for showing museum collections through lenses focusing on how imperialism and colonialism underpin the collections of some of London's major cultural institutions.

Justifying her actions through saying "It felt like there was a conversation that wasn't being had around the colonial history in this country." She even went as far to state, in response to criticism surrounding her work:"If people respond that way, then it means that I'm touching a nerve. And if I'm touching a nerve, it means that it's relevant and important."" Nsae Comp (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking on strict terms, it is not even a case of WP:SYNTH. Because WP:SYNTH would require either a combination of “material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources or combination of “different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.” The text in question merely cherry-picks few unrelated sentences from the Times piece and messes them with article's narrative without creating a distinct position of its own upon establishing a correlation between stated “museum tours” and decolonization of knowledge as a concept in the context of the NYT piece alone. Rather the text independently develops a narrative of its own and purports to correlate it with the NYT article which is simply irrelevant here because it constitutes original research. I do not know how it can be rewritten to fit it within the article. There is no denial to the fact that decolonization of museums has a definitive role to play in knowledge decolonization project. The NYT piece however, does not explicitly (or even implicitly, strictly speaking) talk about museum decolonization, let alone establishing its linkage to knowledge decolonization project. In my humble opinion, we are unable to incorporate them into the article within the confines of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Maybe you have an explanation for that. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for reading and further elaborating. I didnt want to be annoying, I just read the edit and thought to give it a second/discussion chance, particularly because it dealt with underrepresentation. I see nothing to object to what you said now.  Nsae Comp (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. It does deal with underrepresentation. And despite my strict interpretation, I have to say the NYT article have some background stories to offer on museum decolonization. It would be nice to incorporate some of these stories in the Decolonisation of museums section of Museum article where our colleague I see has done some great work. Maybe we will even have a separate article on decolonization of Museums someday. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * These contributions should definitely strengthen the article and thank you for elaborating. Underrepresentation is a key theme I believe running throughout the article and I also think perhaps we need to end the article on more of a conclusive points. I think further incorporation of the NYT article backstories is a nice touch. I would also agree, I could add some of this to the decolonization of museums section and I would love it if some day we could write a decolonization of Museums article. Also thank you for saying I have done some great work. It is a topic find very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaachfoster (talk • contribs)

POV problem
Unfortunately this article suffers from several rather serious problems, some of which were highlighted by an IP last year. The main problem is that the article is almost a textbook of WP:POV. It starts off right away in the lede, apparently taking for granted that (a) there is a "hegemonic Western knowledge system", (b) that there is a need for " justice for hitherto disregarded epistemologies", and (c) that "neoliberal ideology" and "free market capitalism" are dominant. All of the above three claims are opinions. They are opinions one may very well hold and put forward, but opinions nonetheless. It continues right after the lede, with unsupported claims such as "The western knowledge system that had been developed in Europe during renaissance and Enlightenment was deployed to legitimise Europe’s colonial endeavour that eventually became a part of colonial rule and forms of civilization that the colonizers carried with them." Again, this is an opinion even if sourced. Unsourced as it is, it's merely original research. The article then proceeds to present the claims of a number of proponents (Aníbal Quijano seems to be very frequently cited); most of these claims also come across as opinions. For a Wikipedia article about an academic subject, we'd expect a much better article. To be perfectly honest, this reads more like an essay advancing a conspiracy theory (not least because of the frequent insinuations that modern scientific methods are wrong or insufficient) than an overview of an academic subject. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad you became interested. Anyway, the comment made by that IP last year was about the overall deficiencies of the article i.e., the lack of a thorough context and other “key missing points” etc,  and not about the WP:POV issue in particular. I am happy that you have specifically pointed out few rather serious issues such as (a), (b) and (c). I have tried to address them all. And no, the sentence you quote is not unsupported. It needed an inline citation which I have added after you made this comment. Jaco S. Dreyer for example goes on to say:

''“The ‘Western knowledge system’ developed in Europe during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was used to support the colonial administration and to provide legitimacy to the colonial endeavour (Seth 2009). Other cultures and knowledges were seen as inferior to the European knowledge system with its particular constellation of epistemological, ontological, methodological and axiological presuppositions. This Western science system, with its claim of universality, became part of the colonial rule and research was used as part of the colonisation of non-Europeans. This knowledge system was furthermore presented as a significant part of the ‘civilisation’ that the colonial powers brought to their colonies.” ''

Most importantly, article’s narrative was needed to be situated within a broader context, which I couldn't do earlier because of lack of citations. It has now been placed within the framework of decolonial scholarship mostly developed by Latin American and African scholars. The article is based on the scholarship they advanced. And if it frequently cites secondary sources on Qihano that is because he is arguably the most important figure in decolonial studies. The article is deliberately written as an opinion piece. I do not know why you are objecting toward it. Are you suggesting we should state the claims made by these scholars as facts? Your concerns in (a), (b) and (c) however say otherwise. And of course we do expect a better article but that would require collaborative efforts of many. To this day I remain the sole contibutor. I started this article with little knowldge I had in the hope that it would get benefitted from the contributions of others. That didnt happen. Hope it will change in the future. Thanks for your valuable criticisms. Do you have other specific suggestions/criticisms to make? Mosesheron (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for more responses from you. Anyway, considering that you are not doing so (maybe you are a little busy or something), do you think the neutrality tag should be removed? Maintenance tag for context I think is fine for now. Over time, we can gradually add a thorough context and other “missing points” to the article. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, happy to discuss it more but very busy days at the moment. The problem in a nutshell is this: you say it is written as an opinion piece and it reads as an opinion piece. As an academic, I have no problem with opinion pieces (quite the contrary) but it's not really (read: not at all) how a Wikipedia article should be written. By definition, an opinion piece (a piece presenting a point of view) will always be POV (literally "point of view"). Jeppiz (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What I meant by an “opinion piece” is that whenever a major claim is made it has been attributed to the individual scholar responsible for making such claim. Because people find many things objectionable when they are factually presented. For example, you found the statement objectionable when the article previously read that “decolonization of knowledge is mainly an intellectual project that challenges the hegemonic Western knowledge system”. Your main criticism was that the article was “apparently taking for granted that there is a hegemonic Western knowledge system”. Now it reads: “decolonization of knowledge is mainly an intellectual project that challenges what the decolonial scholars refer to as the hegemonic Western knowledge system.” Can we say now that the article takes it for granted that there is such a thing called hegemonic Western knowledge system? Maybe not. Because the claim in question is properly attributed to decolonial scholars here. This is what I meant when I said I “deliberately wrote this as an opinion piece”. Although this was surely an exaggeration because the article is not written as so called “opinion piece” in its entirety. I do not know how that appears problematic to you. Waiting for your guidance. Mosesheron (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed something rather interesting in your first comment. You have stated that the article makes “frequent insinuations that modern scientific methods are wrong or insufficient.” Where does the article say “modern scientific methods are wrong or insufficient”? Could you please elaborate on this point? Mosesheron (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is in desperate need of a third party opinion. Would you be interested in providing one? I am requesting you for two reasons: (1) you assessed the article in the past and (2) no else seems to be interested. I hope this does not cause you any inconvenience. Mosesheron (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to serve as a third party. I edit primarily in Hellenistic philosophy. Teishin (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this situation a bit, it reminds me of how Wikipedia deals with the wide variance of opinions in Hellenistic philosophy about epistemology. We simply try to accurately describe them without affirming that the views are true, and we point out the ancient arguments against those views. Perhaps it might be helpful to consider another article on a similar subject as a template. This one comes to mind virtue epistemology. Teishin (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

, I am really under water with my own research at the moment (revisions, reviews, AE duties and supervision) and won't have much time for this article for at least a few weeks. I've temporarily removed my tag; I don't want it to remain in place just because I'm busy. I still think there are some issues with the article, and hope to return to it when my schedule frees up a little. Jeppiz (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the issue was still being discussed, it would be better not to "temporarily" remove the tag until we reached a consensus. This will discourage other editors from engaging in the ongoing discussion. Mosesheron (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review this. That is exactly what I was trying to say, i.e., we should “accurately describe” the views held by different scholars without “affirming that the views are true”. The article you suggested seems to have employed the same method. I acknowledge this article deviated from this method in some places, especially in the lead, as pointed out, where certain claims were presented in a way as though they were facts. I have tried to address that problem. What are your thoughts on the current state of the article? Mosesheron (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The lede reads oddly to me. It would not seem so important to say that it is "mainly an intellectual project". Besides, it's not clear what that even means. It also seems that decolonization of knowledge is not just something that is "in" decolonial studies, but that it is a project, one that is being advanced by some decolonial scholars. That debates about the subject have been taking place does not seem important enough for the lede, if only because it is too vague. It may help to add some explanation of what is meant by "hegemonic Western knowledge system" and what other knowledge systems they seek to legitimize. Teishin (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The lede needs to be improved. Actually the article is incomplete in many respects, some of which you have correctly identified. If you think you can address these issues yourself, you know very well you do not need permission from other editors. Mosesheron (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's of course true that I don't need permission to change the article, but I'm responding here due to a request for a third-party opinion. Generally, that works best if the person providing the opinion sticks to trying to mediate and trying to focus the discussion on editing standards rather than engaging directly in editing and potentially becoming just another party in the dispute. Besides, in this case I'm barely familiar with the topic. Wikipedia would be better off if I improved its content about ancient epistemology, a topic I actually know something about. Teishin (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I get your point. Thank you for your response. Mosesheron (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I compared the present article to its state a year ago. The earlier article did indeed have some sloppiness in just stating opinions without attribution. That seems to have been largely fixed, although I may have missed a thing or two. Teishin (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)