Jump to content

Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Is anyone indigenous to Britain?

Just wondering because nothing in this article addresses it. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

maybe the Picts were, but they're gone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there are no indigenous peoples in Britain. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, and the extensive discussion of definitions in the article and on this talk page, on why the adjective indigenous (which can apply to anyone anywhere depending on context) is different from the legal and political concept of an indigenous person. joe•roet•c 09:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples are ethnic minorities who have been marginalized as their historical territories became part of a state

Only sentance one and I think this is wrong. Surely 'Indigenous people' are the ethnic/cultural group from the population that has lived in that location for a (deliberatly vague) very long time. According to the definition in the article it is only possible to be indigenous if in a marginalized minority and this clearly does not make any sense. I regard myself as indigenous to the UK but I don't regard myself as marginalized. In most of the world (such as Europe, Asia, Africa) the indigenous people are the main population and are in no way marginalized. If you go far enough back in history it is always possible to find a pretext for 'marginalized and oppressed' (such as celt / roman / saxon / norman in England) but after a long enough period the groups merge and become indistinguishable (who claims to be a saxon oppressed by the normans?)

The article says "However, during the late twentieth century the term Indigenous people evolved into a legal category, which refers to culturally distinct groups that had been affected by the processes of colonization.". There is no citation for this and it does seem to be a significant definition. Mtpaley (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a topic that has been discussed over and over with the same result, yes brits are indigenous to Britain but they are not an indigenous people. Indigenous peoples are defined in international legislation, in the sense given in the article. It does not make sense to make an article about all peoples whoa re indigenous to a place because that includes all peoples in the world, and it also is not the way the concept is used in the literature. There are many citations to the second quote you mention in the section about definitions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
"I regard myself as indigenous to the UK but I don't regard myself as marginalized." - After the murder of a soldier in Woolwich by a Somali colonist you might want to rethink that observation. --79.179.131.192 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition and opening sentence

The opening sentence currently says: "Indigenous peoples are ethnic minorities who have been marginalized as their historical territories became part of a state." I think such definition is not strictly correct because in some states people widely considered indigenous makes up the bulk of the population (e.g. demographics of Bolivia). Dentren | Talk 13:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Minorities are not necessarily numerically a minority, but a minority in relation to the dominant group. Read the article linked: Ethnic minority to understand the sociological concept of minority. This is the same sense in which women can be a minority while being numerically a majority. Also in Boliviain fact though the numerical majority is indigenous, but they belong to different indigenous groups all of which account for a numerical minority in relation to the non-indigenous group who also has historically been dominant. You will have to challenge the definition with sources not just with a dubious tag based in your personal quarrel with the source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures, and Contemporary Issues

Some editors are expressing doubts about whether including this as a reference is "advertisement" because it is being inserted over a wide range of articles. I don't see this as justified. The book is an encyclopedia published by an academic press with articles written by subject matter experts. It entirely fulfills our requirements for a reliable source. Some editors have expressed that it is problematic that it is expensive and not widely available. This is not a valid concern as WP:RS explicitly states that a source does not need to be readily available. It has also been mentioned that it should not be used because it is a tertiary source. This is also not a valid concern because this kind of specialized tertiary source written and published by subject matter experts is entirely permissible in accordance with policy and in fact widely used across wikipedia. The fact that it is being inserted over many articles is also not necessarily a concern as long as it in fact supports the statements that it is used to support. It seems to me that this is the case. In sum we should not see problems where there are none. It is not a problem when anonymous editors help us by providing high quality references for unsourced statements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fake source

I removed the source because it does not actually contain any pertinent information. There have been a serious of single purpse IP editors adding this "source" to all sorts of pages in presumably in order to push up the title in search engines. I initially let this pass too on various Basque pages until I was alterted to the fact. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by fake source? It is edited by an academic and published by an academic press. How do you know it doesnt have any pertinent information? Have you in factt read it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
A source that is added as a source to support fact X when actually fact X appear nowhere in the source? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you know that it does not appear? The encyclopedia des seem to have a chapter on Brazil.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked up on it when someone alerted me to the issue on Basque pages and it did not contain the claimed "Basque" references. That in relation to the fact it's a single purpose IP makes my highly suspicious. I can't retrace where or how that happened, if you want to let it pass based on what I've just said (and not having seen the source), then I won't argue as I'm winding down on the English wiki anyway. Peace :) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have ordered the book through worldcat, and if it turns out its not a legit source I will remove it where ever it appears.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I now have the three volumes in front of me and they are not fake. It is in fact a high quality topical encyclopedia with articles written by topic experts. This is the kind of tertiary source that is very useful as a source on wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Good I agree - I dont have a copy of the book.... but.... M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is an award-winning publisher of reference books and textbooks. As for the author.. to quote "Academia.edu - Walden University " = Steven Danver is professor in the College of Undergraduate Studies at Walden University. He is is managing editor of Journal of the West. He earned his doctorate in history at the University of Utah, concentrating on the history of American Indian peoples and the American West. His dissertation, Liquid Assets: A History of Tribal Water Rights Strategies in the American Southwest, to be published by the University of Oklahoma Press, examines the long history of one of the most important issues of modern relevance to American Indians in the West.Moxy (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Talk: Genocide of indigenous peoples

There is an RfC at Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article about whether that article should employ the narrow definition of "indigenous peoples" adopted in this article, or a broader commonsense definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

How come?

How come Hungarians, Bulgarians, Yugoslavians, Albanians, Greeks, and Romanians aren't considered indigenous peoples in this article? They were all colonized, subjugated, marginalized, and dispossessed by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. 97.122.181.40 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but today they are majority ethnic goups in their own nation states.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So? If indigenous people become the majority population where they live, how does that render them "not indigenous"? Either they originated in a particular place, or they didn't -- regardless of what subsequently happens to them. Being fruitful and multiplying doesn't change their origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Many of the groups listed here make up the majority of their own nation states. Just a few examples are the Tajiks in Tajikistan. The Yamato in Japan. The Amhara in Ethiopia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indigenous_peoples 97.122.181.40 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Then they should be removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Will the English or French ethnic groups be added sometime ? Both of those groups are plummeting in numbers in their homelands, while foreign ethnic groups will become the majority in the future. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


This is not an article on "indigenous people"

It seems clear to me, as a lawyer with an anthropology background, that this article is NOT about indigenous people per se, but rather addresses relatively recent efforts to protect the rights of certain indigenous people based on the perception that they are being discriminated against or persecuted.

That being the case, it seems that this article, which is really a poorly-written and sourced hodge-podge and needs a lot of work--should be renamed. Protecting the Rights of Disadvantaged Indigenous Peoples, perhaps. Another short article with the traditional, common sense definitions could be titled Indigenous Peoples.

The fact is that neither the UN nor other organizations can change the definition of a common word. The UN can define which types of indigenous people are to be protected, but that is different. Combining all these concepts in one article is confusing in the extreme, and makes no sense. Avocats (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If no one used UNs definition then perhaps you would have a point - but the fact is that there is a gigantic body of literature that discusses "indigenous peoples" in the same sense as the one used by the UN. There is no body of literature that talks about "indigenous people" in the sense of people who are indigenous to a place (since that would be all peoples, making the term useless). Hence there really is not alternative to the current definition and to the focus of the article - the literature on a topic determines what goes into the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well yes and no. The article is a mess and it is about the conception of indigenous peoples but that term is very much a constructed one that is legally and politically defined. There has been a fight over the last 30 years about the definition of the word - it seems common now but wasn't for a long time e.g. the fight over calling the working group at the UN the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, not Peoples and then calling the permanment forum the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues. Peoples have specific rights in international law, like the right to self-determiniation, which states don't want to give up as that is a sovereign prerogative and would pull countries apart in theory.

'Indigenous' itself is a constructed term - which the article mentions briefly. It was used in the 1600s originally but it's 'new' use was constructed as part of an international activist movement. I have lots of notes of this but not on this computer. I'll come back to this article when I have time and the notes. Would love help on it?

Developmentnerd (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Developmentnerd, Avocats is right. The UN has not defined the term "indigenous," it has defined "indigenous status" in the political realm. An article on disability (to take another example) should not begin with a description of what is required to get a disabled-status parking permit, or to get special accessibility accommodations in ones' workplace or school. Moreover, whoever wrote the opening (run-on) sentence here doesn't even have a command of (1) grammar (the final fragment doesn't have a clear verb), or (2) logic (the description doesn't even really meet the UN's definition; the "cultural or historical distinctiveness" clause in UN policy documents isn't a sufficient or necessary characteristic of indigeneity, as the sentence implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcarson (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The clunky lead is an unfortunate consequence of this page being a magnet for POV-pushers trying to minimise the political marginalisation of indigenous peoples and insert fringe rhetoric on "indigenous whites". This article is about "indigenous people" – a concept that is well defined and widely used not just in international legislation but in development, anthropology, history, cultural studies, linguistics... the list goes on. The UN happens to have the most concise and authoritative description of the common usage that we've found so far, but if you think you can improve upon it please do. Joe Roe (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Section Had to Go

The section entitled "Indigenous worldviews and the global community" had to be deleted.

The grammar/syntax mistakes make it unreadable. The editor's command of English is so bad as to render any attempt at meaning impossible.

As such, this would be fixable, a matter of editing by a fluent English speaker. However, the underlying concepts are simply a mishmash of racist, anti-white arguments conflated with the usual pseudo-intellectual, SJW nonsense. (And an ignorance of actual history that is, literally, breathtaking. <cough, cough>. To wit attributing an intact view of what comprised the actual views of Early Modern Europeans that is utterly anachronistic; i.e., ascribing the ideas of scientific racism centuries before the ideas had been invented.)

Relations between nations are just that - relations between nations. The Romans had diplomatic relations (as the Greek Diadochi kindgoms before) with states in Arabia, Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Prattling on about Hobbes (or something) is less than useful.

PainMan

Quite apart from your political musings, I agree that this section was note useful or informative.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article about the UNs definition anyway?

I can understand using one definition for one article but why does it have to come at the expense of other definitions. I would have no problem if another article for the more commonly understood definition exists but it doesnt. With that said this seems to be political POV in favor of the UN and purging of non-UN categoried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.110.61 (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not about the UN definition, but we need a source-based definition to guide the inclusion of entries on the list. The UN's is used because it is nice and concise - the UN, unlike most bodies, being in the business of providing solid definitions of terms that are used in policy. But that definition is in line with how scholars and other NGOs use the term indigenous people. This has been discussed on this talk page and on the main indigenous people article. If you have an example of another definition that is being "purged" I'd be interested in hearing it. Generally the only alternative that is presented is the everyday definition of "indigenous", which is a no-goer because in that sense everybody is indigenous to somewhere. – Joe (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples

Dear Wiki community, I have been changing many entries on Indigenous Peoples and most have been reverted. I have been told by the user Joe Roe that this is not how sources write it. It is commonly accepted and recognized in Indigenous Studies that using capital letters for Indigenous and Indigenous Peoples underlines the political dimension of that identity like any others and it is a sign of respect as well. I am annoyed that these changes are reverted. I think we need a debate on this question.

Svaud097 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Svaud097, the primary focus of this article is on the original inhabitants of geographical locations, not on the political dimension of indigeneity. This is firstly for the benefit of the readers, as a reader is more likely to be looking for information on indigenous peoples than the term as used in a given academic context, and secondly, the use of the term to describe the original inhabitants of an area precedes a resulting political position.
I was about to revert your edit, but, seeing as you've opened it up to discussion, we'll let other users have input. As I see it, the first couple of sentences now seem unclear and convoluted. You have put:

Indigenous Peoples, also known as First Peoples, aboriginal peoples, native peoples, or autochthonous peoples, is a panindigenous political identity. There are also ethnic groups who are the original inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently.

The main issue is that the second sentence now makes no reference to these "ethnic groups" as being indegenous, so the lead is ineffective. You have also shifted the emphasis of the meaning of the words "indigenous peoples" to a political position, rather than the people themselves. That can hardly be defended.
Personally, I believe it should be reverted. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 22:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Svaud097: I'm sorry that you were annoyed by my revert. I realise they can seem harsh, but it wasn't intended as a rejection of your point of view on this. Reverting disputed changes and then discussing them on the talk page is our normal way of handling disputes here on Wikipedia – we call it WP:BRD.
I'm inclined to agree with Wasechun tashunka re. your changes to the lead. IP as a self-applied political identity is just one subset of how the term is used, and this article also covers it in the broader sense. I don't think it benefits our readers to narrow the article's focus to one facet of the subject, or unduly weight it over others.
In terms of whether to capitalise or not: we don't leave decisions on what is "politically and intellectually" correct up to editors' judgement. We go by what is the most common usage in English-language sources. Based on Google Scholar and Google Books searches, it looks to me like the vast majority of sources treat IP as a common name (uncapitalised in running text) rather than a proper name. If the usage has changed significantly in recent literature, please provide some sources, but note we wouldn't usually go with the usage in a single field (i.e. indigenous studies) – we use the most common form in the English language overall.
Also on a more general note our manual of style tends to favour uncapitalised forms, e.g. we use sentence case in headings. I think using capitalisation to emphasise a point about the political recognition of IPs would be undesirable; it would hamper readability and make this article inconsistent with others on Wikipedia. These issues are better explained in the text. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Indigenous White People in Europe

White People are also Indigenous to Western and Northern Europe. I demand a passage relating to Germanic White People be placed on this Page immediately. Germanic White People deserve to be recognized as having a Homeland, and should not be denied their Geographical and Racial Roots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.57.68 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ. Being an indigenous people does not mean to have a homeland. All peoples have homelands and identities, but they do not all fall under the international definitions of the ILO, and UNESCO's convention for indigenous peoples.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The UN have specifically reformulated the word indigenous to exclude Europeans, and this article is written as if the partisan political activities of the UN get to redefine a word in usage for centuries, which clearly violates NPOV Rivalin (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No they have not. Saami are European Indigenous people under the established UNESCO definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In recent times the word indigenous is frequently misused. What it means, is "having originated in; growing, living, or occurring naturally in a given region or environment." It is therefore incorrect to speak of "indigenous peoples of the Americas", for example, as there is no scientific evidence that any human beings -- ancient or modern -- evolved from a more primal species here in the Americas.
It is correct, however, to refer to "aboriginal peoples of the Americas," as aboriginal means "being the first of its kind in a region". There are aboriginal Americans, but none of them are indigenous Americans, as their ancestors all migrated to the Americas from somewhere else.
This article not only fails to make this distinction clear; it further confuses it, beginning with the very first sentence in which indigenous, aboriginal, and native are used as if they are all synonymous. The function of an encyclopedic article should be to make careful distinctions and clear up confusion. As it stands, the article is both inaccurate, and creates confusion, rather than dispelling it.
I agree with the first commenter, who suggested that the article be more appropriately renamed something like: Protecting the Rights of Disadvantaged Indigenous, Aboriginal, and Native Peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As has been discussed umpteen times on this talk page, the title of this article is not indigenous, it's indigenous people. We are going by the established usage of that term in relevant and reliable sources (not just the UN/UNESCO – they just happen to give us an explicit and widely accepted definition to work from). This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, so it's not our place to prescribe a "correct" or all-inclusive definition of the word indigenous. There are plenty of other articles on the history of white people in Europe. Joe Roe (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Neanderthals were in Europe long before whities came—or homo sapien sapiens in Europe turned into white people. Go by the UN definitions: they are totally neutral and inerrant. Only people with indigenous ancestry of Turtle Island and Australia get to be called indigenous: it is to risk being racist to think otherwise.199.7.157.110 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the status of particular people in Europe as "indigenous" has its socio-political and historical roots, and should be noted as such. However, recent DNA studies on European genetics reveal that all modern Europeans have indigenous European DNA (l2a & l2b haplogroup) and therefore the use of the term "indigenous" to apply to any European people is problematic, aside from its social, political and historical reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.236.12 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Debate over terminology

There has been much debate over what are the politically correct term(s) for indigenous people. We should include de something about the various viewpoints on this as well as how the proper terminology has changed for indigenous people with some terms later being viewed as racist, outdated/archaic, etc. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Māori

I have changed the spelling from Māori to Maori because Maori, without the macron, is the usual spelling in reliable English sources worldwide. Within NZ the use of the macron is now more common so there is a strong case for using the macron in NZ related articles. This is not a NZ related article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Greenland

"The autonomous Danish territory of Greenland is also home to a majority population of indigenous Inuit (about 85%)."

The Inuit are not the indigenous people of Greenland, the Vikings were already there when the Inuit arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosine5000 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Find a source for that and maybe you or someone else can contribute to the article. Beach drifter (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is sort of an interesting point. Sources do state that the Norse arrived on Greenland around 980 CE, and the Thule, the ancestors of modern Inuit peoples, arrived about 3 centuries later. This is well sourced on the Greenlandic Inuit page, per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116382/ which states "The Norse occupied the western settlement (Fig. 1 and SI Appendix, Fig. S1) until the middle of the 14th century (ca. 650 y B.P.) and the eastern settlement until ca. 550 y B.P. (6), whereas the Thule, ancestors of the modern Greenlandic Inuit who arrived two to three centuries after the Norse (7), remain in Greenland to the present day." (Emphasis added). Both the Norse and the Thule were preceded by unrelated Paleo-Eskimo peoples such as the Saqqaq and the Dorset. However, whether or not Greenlandic Inuit are considered indigenous comes down to how sources describe them. I do see one citation which describes them as indigenous, but it is the IWGIA which appears to be an advocacy organization and not a scholarly source, so I am not sure on whether or not it qualifies as an RS. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Edited. Removed word indigenous in discussing Inuit in relation to Greenland. Also added mention of Dorset and Norse. --Zaurus (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations for definition 'Indigenous peoples'

A have just added two citations to the opening paragraph but wonder if work on clarifying definitions and adding some more references is better placed in the second section. I will have a look again when next I am editing. Pakoire (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, put all of the details and citations in the second section (citations not needed in lead, so long as elsewhere in the article, as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY). I'm currently (slowly) working on some standards for Australian Indigenous peoples, in between related tasks. It is considered disrespectful to use lower case for Indigenous when referring to people. Also, where known, precedence is given to the subject's preference of group name, else use most specific term known; there is a general but not absolute preference for "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" over "Indigenous people/Australians". 09:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A toxic Europhobic nonsense in a source by Euronews

1: In Europe, the majority of ethnic groups are indigenous to the region...
2: Notable minority of indigenous populations in Europe which are recognized include the Nenets, Samoyedic and Komi peoples of northern Russia...
This Euronews article is nonsense. It clashes with the former paragraph which rightfully designates all European peoples as indigenous as per the very definition of the term. And then it calls the hunter-gatherers "notable minorities which are recognized"? Recognized as what exactly? More indigenous? I don't get it.
The article does not even say it like that! It says the opposite or nothing at all (again, gibberish: what "culture" do hunter-gatherers have? Pure toxic tripe.):
From Scandinavia's Saamis to Greenland’s Inuits, Europe's indigenous peoples represent vibrant communities with multi-millennial histories. Yet they are still struggling for recognition.
I guess, my critique ultimately makes little sense as Wikipedia is built on using secondary sources without questioning them.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitions editing

I have reformed some of the definition areas in the article to streamline and make more specific the information. I felt the other meanings of the word indigenous were not relevant but could be included as a link. I started by working on the lack of citations and the un-referenced 'original research' flag, which I have also done some editing around. Pakoire (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"and live or lived in an interconnected relationship with the natural environment there"

Why is this considered a necessary part of defining "indigenous" in the lede? None of the sources in the definition section require it.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Aboriginal, rather than indigenous

First peoples, First Nations, Aboriginal peoples, or Native people, no problem.

But indigenous means "having originated in, and being produced, growing, living, or occuring naturally in a particular region or environment". The only place on the planet to which human beings can properly be said to be indigenous, is sub-Saharan Africa. Everywhere else, humans are immigrants, regardless that the immigration may have occured long in the past.

No one evolved in North or South America, Europe, Asia, or Australia, so to refer to the aboriginal inhabitants of those places as indigenous is a misnomer. At some point in time people came to all these places from somewhere else.

This article shoud be retitled "Aboriginal peoples", or "First Nations peoples", or one of the others, but not indigenous peoples.

My response to this comment is to ask a question to the person who made the proposal (can it please be signed?) - do you disagree with the definition of 'Indigenous peoples' as described in the article? What references do you have to support your proposal that 'Aboriginal' is a better term? Pakoire (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jews as an indigenous people in Israel and the Levant

A couple of weeks ago I removed the paragraph about the Jewish people (under Western Asia). I was mistakenly blocked for an unrelated reason and my edit was reversed on a technical ground. Still, I don't think Jewish people fit the international definition of an indigenous people (as stated in the article), just like Germans, Turks, the Irish, etc. do not. In addition, the sources cited do not support the claim either. Could someone remove that section? --Huffendal (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

After taking a second look, Armenians should be removed too, since they are not stateless. To be frank, this seems like a real hodgepodge article for an important topic. --Huffendal (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree the inclusion of Jews seems odd, at least at a first glance. Using WZO along to back up statements is also problematic as WZO is a political organisation. I suggest that any inclusion of Jews or Palestines in the article to be deal in a comprehensive context explaining differring opinions and controversy. Dentren | Talk 00:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not see much support for claiming the Jews as indigenous to Palestine, especially considering that they referred to themselves as colonists.Mcdruid (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is statelessness a prerequisite of being indigenous? The article itself defines indigenous peoples as "ethnic groups who are native to a particular place". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.186.186 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Palestinians are indigenous

It is well established that the Palestinians are indigenous, and that the objections to them being labelled so are just political. It is confirmed by DNA that they are very closely related to the pre-Judaic Canaanites (https://www.quora.com/How-long-have-Palestinians-occupied-Palestine/answer/Drew-McCormick), and they have identified themselves as an independent people since, at least, the tenth century (https://muslimheritage.com/al-muqaddasi-the-geographer-from-palestine/#ftn6) and have been regarded as a people for longer than that. Mcdruid (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation

The word "indigenous" is sometimes found capitalised in this article. It suggests that all indigenous people anywhere in the world belong to a single ethnic group called the "Indigenous", which is not true. There are no connections between American Indians and Australian Aborigines. Thus, I have removed the capital letters in the lead. Someone will have to do over the rest of the article. 122.60.69.135 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Definition in opening sentence

The definition in the opening sentence is way too broad and contradicts the FAQ on this talk page. Naturally it includes groups that would never be classed as indigenous, e.g. Greeks, Icelanders. I have changed it to be closer to the Martínez-Cobo UN definition which I think is closer to what is usually meant, but happy to see other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.64.40 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think the opening section is confusing in general and the UN and Linda Tuhiwai Smith definition be made clearer as indigenous peoples being defined in relation to the specific colonisation that occurred from Europe across the globe. Many of the comments on this talk page I feel relate to a lack of clarity in the article. Pakoire (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Few of the definitions summarised in the definitions section single out European colonisation as the defining feature, and it seems to me doing so would exclude many indigenous people who currently, or have historically, been colonised by non-European settler states: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India, the Ainu people, etc. – Joe (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Earlier use of the term indigenous

It seems an earlier use of the term indigenous in relation to peoples can be found in Cures Without Care (London 1632, pg 26):

"Those who neighbor nearest to these waters, are an indigenous poore people, not able to step out of the roade of their laborious calling, being plaine husbandmen and cottagers, and therefore it cannot be expected that they should accomodate them in their many usefull concernments wherein they are most grosseley defective."

This appears to be a reference to the native born inhabitants near the Knaresborough mineral springs in England.

I have avoided making edits to the definition in the entry that states "the term indigenous first came into use by Europeans who used it to differentiate the Indigenous peoples of the Americas" however since pointing to this earlier reference would directly conflict with the FAQ and the use of the term elsewhere in the entry.

That said the way the term is defined in the entry as people affected by colonization implies that there are no indigenous people prior to colonization which is rather different than the FAQ. Jordan Mendelson (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

Recently an editor capitalized Indigenous in an article I watch, so I did a search that returned links such as this one. If this is the trend, particularly among Indigenous activists, it would indicate the need to edit a number of articles, as well as the move/rename of articles with the word in the title.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A more authoritative source: "Racial and Ethnic Identity". APA Style Guide. Retrieved November 1, 2021.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Definition

I reverted the addition of Irish travelers to the definition section, but have questions regarding doing so. Although the distinction made in the FAQ above would appear to support this reversion, the distinction seems arbitrary, relying on a single definition in international law. However, as one of Celtic ancestry, I see little difference between the settlement of the US by the English and the "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain". The problem is that the Saxons were indigenous in one place, but colonizers in another. Other peoples were nomadic, and are not deemed indigenous anywhere.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What's the question? – Joe (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Not a question but a topic for discussion. If this is not sufficient, then does the current definition excluded peoples that should be mentioned, but are not because they were not "colonized" by a "nation-state"?

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"I see little difference between the settlement of the US by the English and the "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain"." - on the contrary, I absolutely do, as does pretty much every pro-indigenous activist and ally out there. Comparing the modern day replacement and genocide of the worlds indigenous peoples to the Anglo-Saxon migration is grossly offensive and obscenely inaccurate - the Anglo-Saxons did not "replace" the Celts of post-Roman Britain, they absorbed them and became a ruling class, which itself was replaced after 1066. Comparing those events to colonialism of the early modern period is outrageous. Furthermore, Celts also emigrated en-masse to the Americas, where they joined the ruling white elite (it's a myth that the Irish were ever considered "people of colour") - on the contrary, the English are very much indigenous to England - which is wholly immaterial to this debate, as the definition of indigenous peoples does not include the groups you are referring to. What you have shared their is a mere opinion piece. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:C0DF:5E98:E9D:E835 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

European Indigeneity

My recent edit to the opening paragraph of the Europe section does the following:

  • Edits the opening sentence:
    • to more closely mirror Ethnic groups in Europe.
    • to use language that does not portray Europeans as _generally_ indigenous to the continent, especially because this idea is contradicted by the second sentence.
  • Removes the final paragraph of the first paragraph regarding the "white race" for several reasons:
    • It is unsourced, of debateable agreement in academia, controversial, and arguably not neutral.
    • Race is mentioned nowhere else in this article that focuses mostly on ethnicity.
    • The concept of whiteness is anachronistic when discussing origin of peoples in Europe.
    • Peoples of Europe originate from many different ethnic groups and migrations, e.g.: the Basque are thought to predate Indo-European migration to Europe; similarly, Hungarians (a Finno-Ugric people along with Finns) arrived in Europe after IE migration.

--💬KaerbaqianRen 08:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Required Gathering Sources for List of indigenous peoples

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of indigenous peoples regarding the absence hundreds of sources in this article. If possible, contribute to discussion and provide input.

List of indigenous peoples is a massive list of which the majority of entries are are without citation. The article is in need of a team of editors to procedurally review each entry and identify reliable sources--or lack thereof.

There is also an ongoing discussion regarding the terms of inclusion in this list, which you are welcome to get involved in.

01:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬

West Asia

Armenians: As an Indo-European speaking people, they came to the region by occupying the lands of the Urartians and assimilated and destroyed those before them so how could they be the ancient people of Eastern Anatolia?

Kurds:The oldest sources about the Kurds, who are an Iranian speaking people, go back to the 7th century, so how could they be the ancient people of Mesopotamia?

Yezidis: a religious group and how can they be the ancient people of Mesopotamia after their emergence after Islam?

Pontic Greeks: How is it that a people formed by the Ancient Greek Colonists by assimilation of Colchis and its derivative natives in the region is claimed to be the indigenous people of Asian Turkey?

The page is completely biased and needs to be rearranged. Burtigin (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

West Asia -> Anatolian Greeks

The Anatolian Greek part is deleted since the reference 87 is not correct as it has no information as to the first settlement of Greeks in Anatolia. At the referenced page of the book, the author says As early as 1900 b.c.e, indigenous peoples met Minoan traders at the Miletus site.... This does not mean these "indigenous people" were Greeks both due to the fact that nowhere else in the book is stated that there were Greeks there to meet Minoan people in that time and that in the following pages is uttered the listing Persians, Greeks, and indigenous peoples... that openly distinguishes Greeks from indigenous people that were found at the Miletus site. There is no evidence to assert the contrary. The time was too early for Greeks to be at Miletus... Also, Greeks were not an indigenous people of Asio Minor becasue many recorded civilizations existed before the arrival of them, even in Greece. Mismatch with the definition.

Detailed:

There is an mismatch between the definition of indigenous people and relatedly listing Greek people in Asia Minor as one of them.

When we have a simple glance at the the origin and the first settlement of Pontic Greek people in Asia Minor, it is not possible to call them a indigenous people as on related Wikipedia article “Pontic Greeks” is stated “Greeks lived in Pontus since "the time of the Argonauts, Herodotus and Xenophon and the Ten Thousand", which proves that the Greeks had not arrived at Anatolia until 1500 BC, which is quite an late time when the date of the arrival, which can easily be dated back to Bronze Age and Iron Age, of other Indo-European tribes like Hittites, Luwians, Pala people and Hattians is taken into consideration (see Anatolian peoples - Wikipedia). What’s more, the article “Anatolian Greeks” states in the first place that “Greek populations who lived in Anatolia from 1200s BCE (at the latest).”. Even the westernmost parts of Anatolia, namely Ioania, was the home of powerful empires long before the influx of some Greek tribes: From the 18th century BC the region was a part of the Hittite Empire with possible name Arzawa, which was destroyed by invaders during the 12th century BC together with the collapse of the Empire. Ionia was settled by the Greeks probably during the 11th century BC. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionia#History). When “The Proto-Greeks probably arrived at the area now called Greece, in the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula, at the end of the 3rd millennium BC between 2200 and 1900 BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks#Origins), by which many Indo-European tribes had well occupied Asia Minor territories, how could it be possible for anyone to assume the Greeks an indigenous people of Asia Minor? Furthermore, many articles on Wikipedia like List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (List of ancient peoples of Anatolia - Wikipedia) puts Greek well lower lines in the list. Taking the clear defition of “Indigenous People”, which is also named First people again on Wikipedia, into account, it comes no possible to assess Greeks an indigenous people in Asia Minor, also possibly in Greece, as well: [Indigenous people] … are culturally distinct ethnic groups whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples) BitikciKebbenek (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You deleted the Anatolian Greek part on the belief that reference 87 is incorrect. However, multiple sources (references 74, 81, and 82) define Anatolian Greeks as either indigenous or originating from Anatolia. You deleted all of these sources. Here's quotes from those sources:
  • Reference 74: "The Declaration could prove to be an important safeguard for the indigenous peoples of Iraq and Turkey, the victims for centuries of massacres, assaults on their religious and cultural sites, theft and deterioration of their lands and cultural objects, and forced assimilation. These peoples, among them the Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis of Turkey and Turkish-occupied Cyprus, and the Armenians, Assyrians, Yezidis, and Mandaeans of Iraq, have lost more than two-thirds of their peak populations, most of their cultural and religious sites, and thousands of priceless artifacts and specimens of visual art."
  • Reference 81 (Pontian Greeks): "The Pontians are a population that originate from the historical area of Pontus in Anatolia, originally located around the southern and eastern coasts of the Black Sea."
  • Reference 82 (Pontian Greeks): "These people originate from the eastern half of the southern shores of the Black Sea."
References 85 and 86, which you also deleted, state that there has been a Greek presence in Anatolia since the 1000s BCE or earlier. Reference 87 only states that Greek traders met with early Anatolian peoples around 1900 BCE or later.
I'm not trying to claim that the Greeks were the first ever people to live in Turkey. However, the Anatolian Greeks lived in Turkey millennia before the arrival of the Turkish people. Multiple sources, all of which you removed, prove this fact. The UN definition of an indigenous people does not require that the people be the first ever to live there. Here's the UN definition from earlier in this article: "Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them."
It's obvious that the Greek presence in Anatolia predates the Turkish presence. This makes Anatolian Greeks indigenous as per the UN definition, so I will restore the material. (I'm sorry for any typos, my computer is being a little wacky). Thanks, -Kravk (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As there is no evidence that the Minoans were Greek people, how is it possible to claim "that Greek traders met with early Anatolian peoples around 1900 BCE or later."? BitikciKebbenek (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous people and environment

This whole section reads more like original research rather than in an encyclopedic article. It also doesn't take into account the impact all peoples (indigenous and non-Indigenous) have had on the ecology as shown in the works of Paul Schultz Martin, Jared Diamond, and even Yuval Noah Harari. Exclusion of this means it fails to meet WP:NPOV criteria. Zaurus (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-ID

I've reverted the large addition of text on self-ID as it's only one of a list of criteria in the UN statement, and it's undue weight to feature it in isolation that way. If all the criteria are to be discussed, that would be fine to include, balanced with the other factors, but it really would have to be contextualized. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Indigenous Peoples by the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Currently there is no content on the definition of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think it is a very important element to discuss the definition or lack thereof of the term Indigenous Peoples, and how self-identification is a key element demanded by Indigenous leaders themselves in the development of the Declaration. There is no mention that this philosophy of self-identification is supported by the World Bank, the ILO and UN Human Rights committees. The source below states that Indigenous peoples were persecuted because of their identity, and they were coerced to renounce it, forced assimilation, ethnocide, cultural genocide (boarding schools, residential schools, kidnapping of children) , forced acceptance of citizenship of colonizing state, and such mechanisms under duress, to survive they had to attempt integration and assimilation.
This is what I propose as new content under the Definitions section:
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in article 33 established self-identification as a mechanism for determination of indigenous identity.[1]

References

  1. ^ Gilbert, Jérémie (2007). "Indigenous Rights in the Making: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 14 (2/3): 207–230. ISSN 1385-4879.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magonz (talk • contribs)
Already addressed above[1] before you started a new section for this.[2] Again, that is only one of many factors. Would need to be contextualized, not cherry-picked. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

Change Indigenous peoples to Indigenous Peoples Sources: UNDRIP (Indigenous Peoples is capitalized throughout that document) https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/indigenous-peoples-terminology-guidelines-for-usage (Indigenous Peoples in capitalized throughout)

The entirety of the name should be capitalized to demonstrate the same level of respect we show other groups, whilst celebrating the unique and diverse nature of this collection of Peoples.

Thank you all for your hard work, asking for edits is a new thing for me, so I hope that I conveyed my request in an appropriate and succinct manner. Stacker39 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not quite correct. Although the capitalization is correct within that source, it uses "Indigenous Peoples" to refer to a specific group of identifiable people, and as such both words in the title are capitalized as it is a proper noun. In this article, there is no specific group being identified, and 'Indigenous' is instead being used to refer to the peoples being discussed throughout the article. As the two words cannot be taken together as a proper noun in this case, lowercase is appropriate for 'peoples'. The excerpt contained in reference 1 discusses this as well. Tollens (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
“indigenous” doesn't need to be capitalized unless it's used in context as a proper noun. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I have replied below in the new section you started. Tollens (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

“indigenous” doesn't need to be capitalized unless it's used in context as a proper noun, according to this article's own source.[1] DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree - what are you looking to change? It appears that you previously edited a direct quote, which should not be done for fairly obvious reasons. Tollens (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, that's a mistake, I didn't see it was a direct quote. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bia.gov/guide/editorial-guide

Should an ethnicity be included in this article if it is "indigenous to" but "the majority in" a province/state/oblast/etc. of a sovereign country?

Of course this article should not include any ethnicity being the majority in a sovereign country as a result of the consensus having been reached. However, what if an ethnicity is a minority in the sovereign country/countries where it mainly lives in but is the majority in the province(s)/etc. where it mainly lives in? An example is Tamil, which is a minority in India but the majority in Tamil Nadu, India. John Smith Ri (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This article can include any ethnic group that is commonly discussed in coverage of the topic "indigenous peoples" in reliable sources. We cover the various attempts to classify who is and isn't in the article, but it isn't our job to try and apply them ourselves. – Joe (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Excesive Images

I removed a few images as there were too many on this page. I tried to remove ones that didn't seem to directly relate or come from areas specifically mentioned next to their location. Njpactfl (User:Njpactfl\talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njpactfl (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yh3907 (article contribs).

I take issue with the following sentence

"In its modern context, the term Indigenous was first used by Europeans, who used it to differentiate the Indigenous peoples of the Americas from the European settlers of the Americas, as well as from the sub-Saharan Africans the settlers enslaved and brought to the Americas by force."

It wasn't just "the settlers" doing this. In fact, most of them (the vast, vast majority) wouldn't have been doing so.

It was just as often wealthy European merchants. The parts of Africa the slaves were being kidnapped from 'belonged' to several European nations at the time, and European merchants (who lived in those parts of Africa, as 'settlers' themselves) engaged in the slave trade right on the shoreline, at or near the ports, in many cases "selling" kidnapped people to other European merchants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:452B:5200:C2D:FA0A:9C4:6427 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bad lede

Are Indigenous people "the earliest known inhabitants of an area"? This would exclude the Sami, and even some Native Americans. It would also exclude many Indigenous Australians.

Nearly every people to whom the word "Indigenous" is applied is of mixed ancestry—not just European and non-European, but cf Indigenous Taiwanese, South East Asia, or Indigenous Australians, who are of mixed ancestry of many waves of immigration, literally thousands of years apart. Someone whose ancestors all came to Australia hundreds of years after it was first inhabited might still be cited as Indigenous in many sources.

More importantly, what does "the earliest known inhabitants" even mean? Obviously, the earliest known inhabitants are dead. We're talking about their descendants. But descendants can have partial ancestry. Very, very few Native Americans are descended from the first band of people to cross the Bering Straight.

Overall, the definition seems to be trying to shoehorn reality into two distinct groups (1) the "first" (2) people who arrived in the modern period.

There are many competing definitions, but the one thread that runs through all of them is that the people have been in an area for a long time (not necessarily the first).

I propose that the definition be changed to people with descendants who have been in an area for generations, and note that different sources define it differently.

E.g. See use of the term "Native American" before 1900. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Any source to improve the article would be great. Moxy- 00:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that sources are needed for changes, but the "dubious" tag was created for situations like these, where otherwise reliable sources get a detail wrong or speak clumsily on the issue. The word "indigenous" is ambiguous but the Wikipedia article should clarify it.
I'll see what I can do. 2603:7081:1603:A300:C882:B064:D8A9:DBC (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The distinction is nicely explained in the Wiktionary entry on indigenous, which lists the upper case Indigenous as an alternate spelling. In 2020, the influential Associated Press Stylebook changed its prescribed style from indigenous to Indigenous, but this prescription was not widely followed outside the United States. I think Wikipedia should allow both forms because they have significantly different connotations, like republican vs Republican and deaf vs Deaf, as explained in the lede to Deaf. In this regard, indigenous would mean someone significantly descended from inhabitants of an area who have been there for many generations, and Indigenous would mean someone who identifies as such a person. The upper case form would also be used writers who believe that diverse indigenous groups in different parts of the world share a common identity by virtue of needing to protect their culture from assimilation or extinction. CharlesHBennett (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

History

Hello all

I have made extensive edits to this section for the following reasons:

1) The previous version wasn't a history of Indigenous peoples, but mostly a lightly paraphrased summary of the introduction of one book about the discovery doctrine, followed by a piece of advocacy rebutting this account. I have replaced this with a concise summary of European justifications for colonization drawing on a wider range of sources. If people want to know more about the discovery doctrine they can follow the link to that article.

2) I have replaced the section European Colonialism in the New World with a very brief overview of the history of Islamic and European contact with indigenous cultures in Africa, the Americas and Oceania. Once again, the previous section was based on only one book and was too focused on European colonialism and the Americas. There are already several articles on European colonisation and the colonisations of the Americas which readers can consult for details.

I have also tried to rewrite the information more from an indigenous perspective. The previous information was too Europe-centric as if indigenous peoples had no history before they encountered Europeans and were merely passive victims of European colonization. It's a difficult balance to strike but I think we need to attempt it.

I have left the section on Classical Antiquity the way it was, but it doesn't look relevant to me. It has nothing to do with existing Indigenous populations which I thought were the subject of this article. It would be better to replace it with more information about actual Indigenous civilizations before Islamic and European colonization.

The section on Settler Independence also needs to be expanded. It is too USA-centric and based on only one book. A version of the discovery doctrine was indeed incorporated into US law and this has had an influence on north American jurisprudence. But this is only a small part of the history of indigenous peoples around the world in settler societies and other nation states.

Of course, providing a succinct account of the history of Indigenous cultures is an almost impossible task because it amounts to the history of the world. Nevertheless, if we are going to have a history section it needs to be done. The account needs to be expanded, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. A section for Asia is also needed. At this stage I would be interested in your comments about whether this is a better approach.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natalie.alvarez314 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Isabella10185.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Original Human Population?

The opening sentence is demonstratively false, “Indigenous peoples are the first inhabitants of an area and their descendants.” Human history is one of near constant migration of peoples into different territories, often territories that are already occupied by other ethnic groups.

Many Indigenous peoples are known to have been preceded by earlier ethnic groups whom they either displaced or assimilated, in the majority of other cases the territory has been inhabited for such a long period of time that most of its history of human habitation is unknown. The only groups who can definitively be called the “original” people are groups whose territory was uninhabited until recent times such as the Hawaiians and Maori. Examples of Indigenous groups being later arrivals include the Inuit who were preceded by the Dorset and even the Norse in their territories, the Sami who were preceded by a mysterious “Paleo-Laplandic” population, and many Native American groups who were predated in their traditional homeland by other Native American groups. I’m not sure how to source and reword the opening line but the widespread definition can be demonstrated as a falsity.GladeMist (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the opening sentence we had before these edits by Treetoes023 a few months ago was better, though it still said "earliest known", which doesn't make sense. – Joe (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
All we have to do is add "in recorded history" or something similar. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that would help. There are many recorded examples of population replacements in precolonial Indigenous history. If you look at our definitions section, most highlight either that Indigenous peoples were either present in a territory at the time of colonisation or state formation, or more generally have an ancestral claim to land (the WHO definition). None say that being the first matters. I think the lead should align with that. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the lead is fine as it is, the second sentence of the lead communicates that the definition is not authoritative. Here are the first two sentences of the lead: "Indigenous peoples are the first inhabitants of an area and their descendants. However, the term lacks a single, authoritative definition and can be used to describe a variety of peoples and cultures.". – Treetoes023 (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
We won't find a single, authoritative definition, that's for sure. But the lead must still reflect sourced content in the body of the article. As far as I can tell, there are no sources to support your first wording, and few to support the removal of colonisation as a defining factor. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@GladeMist, @Joe. I had thought of mentioning in the article the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands as the indigenous people and wondered if you had any comments? I think they meet the definition here but it would be unusual to describe such people in that way. It would also be politically contentious. Look at the article if you aren't sure of the history. This question is meant to be about the definition but I know it brings up the Falkland Islands dispute, unintentionally. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I see two problems with it. First, they probably meet the definition when taken very literally, but the above discussion should have made it clear that there is more to the term than just the sum of its parts (especially when capitalized). Even when taken literally, the term 'indigenous' alone usually carries an implicit connotational baggage of marginalization and cultural uprooting. So the applicability of the term "Indigenous people" to Falkland Islanders is more than problematic. Second, we would need reliable sources that actually call Falkland Islanders an Indigenous people. FWIW, an official web page[3] explicitly does not so ("The Falkland Islands have never had any native inhabitants and no indigenous people"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
At the end of the day it comes down to whether reliable sources describe the Falkland Islanders as Indigenous. I doubt it, but I haven't looked into it in any depth. – Joe (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Bump. It’s an easily evincible fact that the current opening definition is incorrect. The widespread use of “Indigenous” refers to populations that were subjugated and colonized by later arriving peoples. It doesn’t necessarily refer to the first ethnic group to populate a territory and in many if nog most cases, it doesn’t. What good ways can the opening be rephrased accurately? What satisfactory sources are available to summarize this? Despite many sources using the currently stated definition, it can be demonstrated ad false using basic fact. Ideas? GladeMist (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
"Despite many sources using the currently stated definition, it can be demonstrated ad false using basic fact." Wikipedia is based on the consensus of reliable sources, not what individual editors think is true or false. See WP:NPOV. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous Palestinians section deleted by user DovidRoth

User DovidRoth deleted the section detailing indigenous Palestinians, and labeled it as problematic. Can someone please restore it? 72.223.44.242 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a lot of reverting happening in this section.
1) The section does appear to be too long - the indigenous claims of both the Jewish people and Palestinian People is an article in itself
2) This article is meant to be a brief mention
Can we all take it to the talk page and work on this together? Chavmen (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be the last stable version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_peoples&oldid=1188046462
An IP user made the section too long and WP:UNDUE for this section. Chavmen (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please come here for a discussion on the topic. There has been contested info asserted here which was removed several times. Please explain why this should be inserted. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  • To all who are bringing their debates to numerous pages: this article is called "Indigenous peoples". While the narrative of being "indigenous" is obviously relevant for both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, how relevant is actually the conflict for this article to the point of turning it into yet another proxy ***ground and fill it up with coatracked material? –Austronesier (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why you people are trying to replace the content on Palestinians with an Israeli-focused narrative. Content on Palestinians and Israelis as Indigenous peoples can co-exist as long as there is quality sourcing, as a compromise. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Salmoonlight, I think what happened was that an IP user added an unbalanced narrative and user @Dovidroth reverted it.
Please see my comments above.
Would be wise to revert to the last stable version if this hasn't been done already. Chavmen (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_peoples&oldid=1188046462
This one. Chavmen (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I get it, but why can't you accept that content and try to balance it out? I still don't see how that version is unbalanced or irretrievable. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, that diff is wrong. It's the revision from before the IP's addition. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I was sure it was this one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_peoples&oldid=1188046462
The diff in question is from IP user 91.54.29.14.
It gives undue weight to the Israeli-Palestinian indigenous claims compared to other indigenous peoples.
It's not what this article is for. This article is to briefly mention and have links to relevant groups. Chavmen (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I suppose, but it seems you are only going after it now because someone decided to add more content supporting Palestinians as Indigenous and vaguely criticizing Israel. It is no more undue or less brief than the sections above and below for other Indigenous peoples. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
1) I don't appreciate the tone with your messages. First you say "you people" and next, you use terms like "going after it".
May I point out that I have not reverted or edited any part of this recent edit. I watch this article and have noted the changes over time and am trying to build a balance.
2) The Israeli-Palestinian section is off balance compared to others and much of this information can be saved for their own individual pages. Other editors have pointed this out see below, where right after the IP edit a tag was added to the article commenting it was too long. So this is not just me and my opinions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_peoples&oldid=1188845636 Chavmen (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Before this September, this section was a single paragraph and had been relatively stable for years. I've reverted to that version. I think we do need to cover Israel–Palestine here, because it's a significant element of the modern geopolitics of Indigeneity, but a paragraph is really enough. Detailed discussion belongs in relevent articles about the Israel–Palestien conflcit, or in its own article. In any case, based on the discussion above, the recent additions are clearly controversial and so a consensus needs to be established to restore them. – Joe (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    I will point out that while I think it is good to seek a stable version. The version you restored ignores the continued Jewish presence from ancient times and the wish for Jewish return to Zion. I will also state that I too think we should minimize Israel–Palestien conflict in the page. I do think that the Jewish connection to the region is well documented and can be explained in the historical context. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Do you have reliable, neutral sources that frame "the Jewish connection to the region" and "the wish for Jewish return to Zion" in the context of Indigeneity? The concept of Indigeneity (and hence, also this article) is often hijacked by both sides, and this is exactly what we report here (with an extra twist from Tatour's paper that snipes at the current mainstream approach twoards defining Indigeneity). –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
    Exactly, the concept of Indigeneity is often used by Zionists to help bolster their claim of "sovereignty", rather than being truly Indigenous. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Modern Zionists or the founders of Zionism? Sources? It's a very recent concept that has been used in regards to the Arab-Israeli/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
    See here [4] Chavmen (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Both, and if you're going to try and convince me on the contrary, at least use a non-Israeli source. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Sure. But it's your claim so WP:BURDEN.
    I provided a source stating that the context of indigeneity only entered the discourse recently - which is what the article actually states. You used the term "Zionists", new and old, so...source?
    This, however is beside the point, I think the current stable version is good and editors can delve deeper into each claim on their respective pages - not here in this article. Chavmen (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    I honestly think the conversation we are having is a bit border line ridiculous. Genetic studies show Jews are gentically closest to Levantine populations including the Lebanese, Palestinians etc. (Ashkenazi Jews are closest to Spheradi Jews by the way in case the thought popped up)
    Either way. I really think there is little doubt that Jews originate in the Levant region. Saying they did not is fringe in terms of genetic studies. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Sources: [5], [6][7]
    Sources on previous Return to Zion from the 6th and 5th century BC (Yes our modern Zionist movement is not the first time the Jews were exiled and then sought to return to Zion and then returned) [8]
    Honestly, a simple search found me plentiful sources. I also saw @Chavmen added sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Homerethegreat, but do you agree that this article is not the place for elaborating on such claims? I think the expansion of the section on Jews and Palestinians is what caused the issues in the first place - and the elaboration on the claims can be done in respective articles.
    The current version is enough to link to other articles. Chavmen (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    P.S. I only just noticed that the article is EC protected now from this version on 22 Dec so I will stop commenting here. Chavmen (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Regarding specific issue raised. Yes I do agree we should definitely not elaborate. Each section should be similar to others.
    I also don't see why Jews can't just be added as one of the bullet points. They are indigenous, considered an ethnoreligious group and that's it. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Because there is an essential difference between Indigeneity and having origins in some place at some time in history. None of the three sources you have cited about even mention Indigeneity or use the word "indigenous" in the context of the foundation of the modern state of Israel. Whereas we do have sources that report the claim of Indigeneity (as relatively recent rhetorical device, as already pointed out by User:Chavmen); in Wikivoice, this does not translate into a bullet point, but in "Israeli Jews have also claimed indigeneity, citing religious and historical connections to the land as their ancient homeland". If you can provide some reliable sources which broadly cover the topic of Indigenous peoples (which you should do if you have a genuine interest in the topic of this article) and which refer to Jews as being "indigenous" to Israel, that makes a bullet point. Otherwise, I repeat it, we now have another article being EC-ed as a direct result of trying to hijack it for propagating partisan narratives (of either side, see the original piece of text that triggered this discuassion) in as many articles as possible. –Austronesier (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
    What sources do you require? Genetic studies? A history of the Jewish People? Homerethegreat (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
    Less than an hour ago, I have suggested "sources which broadly cover the topic of Indigenous peoples". See, this article is about Indigenous peoples. Apparently, you consider "having origins in some place at some time in history" as synomous to "indigenous", otherwise, you wouldn't even try to bring forward sources that don't explicitly talk about Indigeneity. I follow the more conventional defintions (cf. the lede for some interesting pointers) and thus beg to differ. Anyway, I don't think this discussion is going any further. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • The content about the Israel-Palestine conflict or Jews/Palestinians needs to be kept to a bare minimum, as it's really outside the scope of this page. A single paragraph should be enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Definitions

Hello all

I have significantly rewritten and restructured this section to make it more logical and to better reflect the sources. The majority of sources state unequivocally that there is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples and this needs to be stated clearly at the beginning of the section. The various attempts to describe or define the coverage of Indigenous peoples then need to be clearly stated in order of their current importance. Therefore the UN needs to go first because it is the major international body dealing with Indigenous issues and has adopted the major international agreements; that is the ILO Convention of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have created a sub-heading on Historical Definitions where I have placed some information on older definitions which are now out of date and only of historical interest.

I have also changed some sub-heading. For example, the section on National definitions wasn't about national definitions at all, but was a description of the approach of an international body: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. I have deleted the section on the World Health Organization because it is a UN body and since 2007 has adopted the UN approach of not defining Indigenous Peoples.

This is a very tricky section to get right and I am not sure I have got it right, so I would welcome any comments you might have on my approach. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Hello all

I have rewritten this because the old version read like a separate mini-article with different content and sources from the rest of the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and should not contain different content and sources. See: MOS:LEAD. I have moved most of the content to the relevant parts of the article (namely, Definitions, Population and Distribution, and Indigenous Rights) and have briefly summarized the key content for the lead.

The other problem was that it was contradictory, giving a definition in the first sentence then stating in the next sentence that there is no definition. While it would be nice to have a clear definition of Indigenous Peoples, the fact is that the majority of sources state unequivocally that there is no generally accepted definition, and it is not our job as editors to create one in the face of the sources. All we can do is accurately state the current approach in the UN, international law and other major bodies.

I have kept the lead brief because most of the article is unsourced or uses out of date sources and therefore cannot be confidently summarized in the lead. I suggest that a top priority for editors interested in the article should be to update the information in the article with more recent reliable sources. Changes to the lead should then summarize the reliable content of the article adhering to policy on the lead, verifiability, and neutral point of view.


I am not at all sure that I have got the lead right so I would be grateful for any comments or suggestions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Population and distribution

Hello all

I have added information which was in the lead and have edited other information to make it consistent with the sources and the rest of the article. Also please see the above discussions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Short description

Hello all

I have changed the short description of Indigenous Peoples from "Earliest known inhabitants of an area" to " Peoples who identify as Indigenous and have a special attachment to their traditional territory." This better reflects the recent trend in the UN and international law whereby the most important factor in determining whether a people is Indigenous is their self-determination as such. Few recent sources state that Indigenous Peoples must be the first known people to inhabit a territory. This is because it is often very difficult to determine who first migrated to an area and whether any other groups were displaced or coexisted in the same area. The emphasis now is on whether a group identifies as Indigenous, existed on tradition lands when it was colonized, settled or current state boundaries were introduced, whether they have a special relationship to traditional territory, and whether they have experienced oppression by a dominant culture. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting debate since it deals with the definition itself of the word indigenous. I personally do not feel your change has improved the short description since it renders lots of potential problems, for example Europeans who have lived in North America for 300 years can be considered indigenous? I think most will agree Native Americans or Aboriginals are considered indigenous and not Europeans even if they were there for several hundred years... It's a complicated issue and I commend your efforts in trying to address it and am open to continue discussing and I await the input of other editors. Happy New Year :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Aemilius Adolphin, but I have to agree with @Homerethegreat - your change to the short description still brings up a lot of issues. Just look at the discussion above surrounding the "indigenous" status of the Palestinians who lived in the Palestine territories (or whatever the terminology is) prior to the 1948 formation of modern-day Israel. Many Palestinian Arabs who have been living in "Palestine" for generations would surely call themselves indigenous to the land. Despite this, there are ongoing challenges from Israeli Jews who also claim indigenous status to the area, even if many of them are recent immigrants from Europe or Asia (especially other parts of West Asia). I'm sure there are counterarguments, just like the Europeans living in North America, that many Israeli Jews who are recent immigrants from other parts of the world are not really "indigenous" to Palestine/Israel/West Asia/the Levant/etc. But the Palestinian peoples do not appear to have recognized "indigenous" status as of January 2024 (save for one nomadic group IIRC).
Personally, I think something like People who are identify as or are legally considered indigenous to an area may clear up some of that confusion, especially since being considered "indigenous" is a rather arbitrary and touchy subject.
It clearly isn't about being the Earliest known inhabitants of an area, as the previous description stated, since, for example, I have never seen confirmation that the Sami people arrived thousands of years earlier than the other Nordic ethnic groups (Norwegian, Swedes, Finns, etc). Plus either way, no Norwegian or Finn I've known would say that their people are actually "indigenous" to say... Nigeria and not Norway or Finland respectively. The same goes with the Irish Travellers being legally considered "indigenous" peoples. Nor does indigenous identity revolve entirely around European settlers and their colonies, as noted by the opening section.
Furthermore, the current short description stating that one must have a "special attachment to their traditional territory", or some source definitions of being "indigenous" discussing how they're in touch with one's "traditional culture" seems dubious to me to. People who are ethnically Korean, or French, or German make up the vast majority of people in South Korea, France and Germany respectively. I'm sure they would all consider themselves to be "native" to those aforementioned countries and have a special attachment/identity to their homelands. All of those countries also have cultural festivals to honour and celebrate their respective heritages and what not. But as far as I know, neither of those three ethnic groups are legally considered "indigenous" to their countries and are not included in the population figures for being "indigenous".
Though the page notes that there is no single definition of the term "indigenous" that everyone can agree with, modern ideas seem to have some of overlap with many groups considered "indigenous" are largely nomadic, tribal, marginalized, minorities, etc. Because broadly speaking, much of the world is "indigenous" to their lands. Unless the majority of South Asians would say that they're really "indigenous" to East Asia or something like that.
That said, I'm obviously open to debate and again, I'm aware that this subject is rather contentious. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You raise some good points. The problem we have is that coming up with a short description flies against the recent trend of avoiding definitions in favour of lists of indicators. We are supposed to stick to the consensus of reliable sources but the relevant consensus is not to provide a short description of Indigenous peoples! The only indicator which has general support is self identification as Indigenous peoples. But, as you point out, that's not enough in itself. The problem with your suggestion of "People who identify as or are legally considered indigenous to an area" is that there is no legally binding list of Indigenous peoples in international law, and national laws tend to deliberately use different categories (such as "tribal peoples") in order to avoid admitting that they are Indigenous. One possibility is: "People who identify as Indigenous to an area and are recognized as Indigenous by the international community." The problem with this, however, is that the second part of the definition "...and are recognized as Indigenous by the international community" is only implied by the relevant sources, even if it seems self-evident. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Given the difficulty of concisely defining this term (see 90% of the discussions on this talk page), I'd leave this as {{short description|none}}. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

please add to the existing article:

Indigenous peoples by region

Asia

Central Asia

The Iranian peoples are indigenous to much of Central Asia, descending from the ancient Proto-Iranians.[1] By the 1st millennium AD, their area of settlement was reduced by Slavic, Germanic, Turkic, and Mongolic expansions, and they were subject to Slavicization[2][3][4][5] and Turkification.[6]

Today, modern indigenous groups include the Tajiks in northern and western Afghanistan, most of Tajikistan and southern Uzbekistan,[7] the Pamiris in eastern Tajikistan (Gorno-Badakhshan, Afghanistan (Badakhshan), Pakistan (Gilgit-Baltistan) and China (Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County), and Yaghnobis in Tajikistan (Sughd Region).

Southeast Asia

Thailand was inhabited by several indigenous groups before the arrival of the ethnolinguistically Tai peoples, including Austroasiatic speaking groups (Khmer Surin, Khmu, Kuy, Lawa, Mon, Paluang and others), Sino-Tibetan speaking groups (Akha, Karen, Lahu, Lisu and others), Austronesian speaking groups (Malay, Moken, and Urak Lawoi), and Hmong-Mien speaking peoples (Hmong, Miao, and Yao).[8] Various groups who inhabit the high mountainous Northern and Western regions of the country are refered to as Chao Khao (ชาวเขา), literally "Hill tribes" by the Thai Government.[9]

Dilshodjon24666 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Do the sources describe all of these groups as indigenous peoples? I can see that some use that term, but is it used to describe Iranians, for instance? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Young, T. Cuyler Jr. (1988). "The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses". In Boardman, John; Hammond, N. G. L.; Lewis, D. M.; Ostwald, M. (eds.). Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 11 (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-22804-2. The Iranians are one of the three major ethno-linguistic groups who define the modern Near East.
  2. ^ Brzezinski, Richard; Mielczarek, Mariusz (2002). The Sarmatians, 600 BC-AD 450. Osprey Publishing. p. 39. (...) Indeed, it is now accepted that the Sarmatians merged in with pre-Slavic populations.
  3. ^ Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 523. (...) In their Ukrainian and Polish homeland the Slavs were intermixed and at times overlain by Germanic speakers (the Goths) and by Iranian speakers (Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) in a shifting array of tribal and national configurations.
  4. ^ Atkinson, Dorothy; Dallin, Alexander; Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky, eds. (1977). Women in Russia. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8047-0910-1. (...) Ancient accounts link the Amazons with the Scythians and the Sarmatians, who successively dominated the south of Russia for a millennium extending back to the seventh century B.C. The descendants of these peoples were absorbed by the Slavs who came to be known as Russians.
  5. ^ Slovene Studies. Vol. 9–11. Society for Slovene Studies. 1987. p. 36. (...) For example, the ancient Scythians, Sarmatians (amongst others) and many other attested but now extinct peoples were assimilated in the course of history by Proto-Slavs.
  6. ^ Roy, Olivier (2007). The New Central Asia: Geopolitics and the Birth of Nations. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian Plateau, which remained Persian and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
  7. ^ Foltz, Richard (2019), A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East., I.B.Tauris
  8. ^ Draper, John (2019-04-17), "Language education policy in Thailand", The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 229–242, doi:10.4324/9781315666235-16, ISBN 978-1-315-66623-5, S2CID 159127015
  9. ^ Morton, Micah F.; Baird, Ian G. (2019). "From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 50 (1). Cambridge University Press: 7–31. doi:10.1017/s0022463419000031. ISSN 0022-4634.

Reverted lede changes

I've reverted the lede to a previous version, importantly including the language "usually colonized" rather than always "colonized".

I do not believe the new version written by Aemilius Adolphin just a few dozen edits ago represents consensus. We should decide here what to do before changing it.

In particular, "indigenous" really does usually the meaning of "the first inhabitants" of a land. A real wikipedia user, who really doesn't know what the word "indigenous" means, will be looking for something to grasp, rather than a long description emphasizing only that there are multiple definitions. DenverCoder19 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A dictionary definition of the first of "Indigenous peoples" is however not the best thing for us to offer to our readers to grasp. The common usage of the entire phrase is what counts here, and "the first inhabitants" is just part of the package that defines "Indigenous peoples" in modern discourse. The second half-sentence that begins with "especially" goes in the right direction for this purpose (except for "one" in "especially one..."; there is no singular noun phrase in the preceding part). –Austronesier (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the stable version which more accurately reflects the sources. If you wish to make specific changes then seek consensus for these specific changes, don't just replace the entire lead which is properly sourced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Specific problems with the 2023 version of the lead:
1) It stated: "Indigenous peoples are the earliest known inhabitants of an area and their descendants, especially one that has been colonized by a now-dominant group of settlers." However, there is no source for this and it is flatly contradicted by the rest of the article.
2) The second sentence stated: "However, the term lacks a single, authoritative definition." This flatly contradicts the first sentence. And under policy if the reliable sources disagree on a topic then we editors can't just make something up ourselves. There is no consensus on a single definition of Indigenous therefore the article should state this upfront. The current lead does this.
3) The third and 4th sentences about the origin of the term were too detailed for the lead and belong in the main article. The lead is supposed to be a concise summary.
4) The next paragraph was a discursive argument, not a concise summary of the contents of the article. It belonged in the body of the article not the lead. See MOS:LEAD
5) The next paragraphs were again discursive, not a summary of the article. They included generalizations which are not supported by the cited sources, and are often flatly contradicted by the article. Other sources were out of date: there were pre-UNDRIP and therefore didn't reflect the current international law on the subject.
In summary, the current lead better conforms to policy on what a lead is supposed to do. It is a concise summary of the article which accurately reflects its content. It supports potentially contentious statements with reliable sources. I think that if we have specific problems with the current lead it would be more productive if we discussed these specific problems and sought consensus for desired changes. But it's best to start from the base of the current lead which at least is reliably sourced and is a concise and accurate summary of the article as it stands. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

I would like it added in the first paragraph that we have been humans for approximately 150,000 years and that in actuality, all the indigenous peoples we know were not actually the first people in those areas and that they had conquered and wiped out the actual indigenous peoples there. For example, we consider "native americans" to be indigenous, but in reality, they just conquered and wiped out all those before them and were the 'colonists' themselves. If you choose not to add this detail, you are okay with the current misinformation that the indigenous peoples we know today were actually the first people in any given area. Jerharris90 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

Please change "encomieda" to "encomienda" in the sentence "The Spanish enslaved some of the native population and forced others to work on farms and gold mines in a system of labor called ecomienda." Second paragraph in #History; Americas. Pissypamper (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous people

indigenous people were here for 65,000 years 125.253.17.31 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Depends on where "here" is but yes this is true if you're in Australia. See Aboriginal Australians. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Page move discussion of interest

Given how often the subject of capitalization of "Indigenous" has been discussed here, I thought I would notify those here about the page move discussion at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Requested move 25 May 2024. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_4&oldid=1255949286"