Talk:Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the title of a paper calling for the return of the United States to Indigenous sovereignty has become a slogan for pro-Palestinian protestors?

Source: Combination of Indigenous sovereignty was never ceded, and the continued presence of settlers is essentially illegitimate. [1] and [2] which explains how "Decolonization is Not a Metaphor". The paper itself as a primary source also supports the first part of the hook.

Reviewed:

Created by Chess (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thus far, I have been unable to verify that the paper "calls for the return of the United States to indigenous sovereignty." Neither of the two sources you cite above appear to support the statement, they just say the paper calls for a stricter interpretation of the meaning of the word "decolonization", which is a very different thing. Gatoclass (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: That's a very good point. What about "views the United States as fundamentally illegitimate?" Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you would need a source for that statement. Gatoclass (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: This is very verbose, but what about that the title of a paper describing the continued presence of non-indigenous in the United States as being illegitimate has become a slogan for pro-Palestinian protestors? The claim that settler presence in the United States is supported by the source, the only thing I've done is explained "settler" as being "non-Indigenous" because the average person would be more likely to understand that. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a quote from a source confirming the hook statement would be required at minimum. But these suggestions thus far all look a little tortured to me. How about keeping it simple and straightforward, something like:

ALT4: ... that the title of a 2012 academic paper, "Decolonization is Not a Metaphor", has been adopted as a slogan by pro-Palestinian protestors? Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Sure, that works. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked a little more closely at the article, I'm not sure your interpretation of the paper is accurate. Certainly, it's a difficult text to come to grips with - at least for me, as it contains a lot of academic jargon that tends to obscure the authors' meaning to a non-professional in the field. But for example, you state: "Tuck argues that ... because the existence of settlers on stolen land is illegitimate [it] must be redressed by decolonization". Did he really say that? Because I would have thought that if he had, the paper would be more notorious than merely influential. On the other hand, if he is only saying that that's what decolonization must mean, he is simply defining a term rather than arguing in favour of it, and there is a world of difference between the two.

However, since most of the article is sourced directly to the paper itself, without clarifying quotes, it's hard to know whether your interpretation is accurate. I'm not even entirely sure if the paper itself doesn't count as a primary source here, which might also be problematic.

So, is there any chance you could provide some actual quotes from the paper, or better still perhaps, reliable secondary sources that have written about it, in order to clarify the point? Because I think it's obviously an important distinction to get right. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: The article is far from perfect and I welcome suggestions to improve it as I'm less experienced than I should be with writing from scratch.

I looked into this when you raised it the first time. The closest thing in the text I can find right now is We don’t intend to discourage those who have dedicated careers and lives to teaching themselves and others to be critically conscious of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, and settler colonialism. We are asking them/you to consider how the pursuit of critical consciousness, the pursuit of social justice through a critical enlightenment, can also be settler moves to innocence - diversions, distractions, which relieve the settler of feelings of guilt or responsibility, and conceal the need to give up land or power or privilege. (emphasis mine)

So, the authors explicitly acknowledge a need for settlers to give up land. Likewise, page 10 of the paper criticizes decolonial scholars that enable "settler moves to innocence". I will likely have to make the article more directly explain what Tuck and Yang said, with better inline citations.

Also, Eve Tuck is a woman with she/her pronouns (at least on her website). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: This is a bit of a drive-by comment (I haven't looked closely at the wiki article itself), but as someone from this academic discipline who has often seen this article cited/discussed in the field, I'd say it's completely accurate to say that "Tuck argues that ... because the existence of settlers on stolen land is illegitimate [it] must be redressed by decolonization", that the article "views the United States as fundamentally illegitimate", and that "the return of the United States to indigenous sovereignty" is what "decolonization" ought to mean. The impact of the article is more like "let's stop saying we're decolonizing when we're just close-reading a novel" than it is "let's decolonize the US for real immediately!" but I haven't seen any exaggerations or misinterpretation of its argument here. I do think ALT4 is the clearest and best hook, though. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we can't base content-related decisions on the testimony of wikipedia editors, we need reliable sources to verify content. So again, either clear quotes from the article that the authors are actually endorsing decolonization of the US, or critiques from reliable secondary sources supporting such an interpretation (although other interpretations would also have to be included if they exist to provide balance). Gatoclass (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Gatoclass on this; plus I have some other concerns. What we have here is a summary of the paper, but not anything that meaningfully demonstrates why this topic is encyclopedic. A one sentence line saying the paper is influential isn't going to cut it. We need details on how it is influential and who is claiming it is influential. Additionally, we need to see different critical responses to this paper through quotes in published reviews, both positive and negative to meet our WP:POV policies. The current text relies too heavily on the paper itself which is inappropriate as the paper is the subject and is therefore a primary document in this case. Additionally, it isn't clear that the summation of the paper is entirely accurate and is not an original analysis of the paper which would run afoul of WP:SYNTH. What we need here is more reliance on critical analysis and reviews of the paper, and text which more closely aligns with the meaning in the sources without being so close as to be considered plagiarism. The use of clarifying quotes from the paper could also assist in this (ie let the paper speak for itself in key places). It's a difficult line to walk. Additionally, the current text of the article lacks any meaningful critical engagement with the text; to the point that I would consider this incomplete (ie fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE).

In short, we need a decrease in reliance on the paper itself as a cited reference and an increase in reliance on secondary sources about the paper with more critical engagement highlighted. A significant amount of work is needed before this can pass a DYK review. Aside from this, I think Alt4 is a good hook that is usable. It is verified to the cited reference and is interesting. I think these issues are solvable. Ping me when the article has been improved and needs a second look.4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. In just doing a cursory look in google scholar, SAGE and JSTOR, there are many articles that cite and summarize Tuck and Yang's paper which could be used to source the summary. There are also multiple publications which respond to the work, both affirming and questioning the limits of its praxis. This type of critical commentary is exactly what is needed in this article. I suggest the nominator rewrite the summary based on these types of secondary sources, and create a critical reaction section. 4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]