Talk:List of Indigenous peoples

Dominant populations as potentially indigenous

Clearly, there are multiple and at times somewhat conflicting definitions of indigeneity, and this is translating into significant disagreement, particularly over the the matter of whether largely dominant cultures in areas such as Africa and the Pacific Islands can be deemed indigenous. Obviously, the end-goal basic requirement for all entries is to simply be reliably sourced a statement by a subject-matter expert. For the moment, however, while where we have numerous dominant, but only potentially indigenous populations, two pertinent further questions (based on the various definitions at our disposal) are: were these populations the first settlers, or are they an amalgam of successive waves of migration? And, if they are culturally dominant, does the population at large maintain strong ties to their ancestral tradition and culture? Any first settlers have a strong case to indigeneity, even if they remain culturally dominant to this day, but the links to tradition and culture are also key to the notion of indigenous society. In dominant populations, the likelier candidates for indigeneity may well be much smaller communities or groups within a society that have maintained clearer links to their ancestral traditions than society at large. Such groups might contrast with the wider population, which may no longer be so tied to traditional culture. This culture can be defined in a variety of ways, including through language, but language alone is not really useful in instances where you are talking about whole populations and not discrete groups. These are the sorts of questions that subject-matter experts will have asked and answered, and the answers to such questions are what we should be searching for. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The dictionary definition does not exclude them. Therefore, they should be included on this list. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Editor Scope, Inclusion Criteria, and Definitions

@Iskandar323: Your points regarding experts and citations are essential. We are getting sidetracked with "defining" indigeneity which is not in our scope as editors. Additionally, non-dominance is only one part of the criteria in the UN definition; the UN itself explains that the definition is a "working definition" and fluid.

In respect to this, I think what needs to be done here is to apply a generally inclusive, multi-dimensional approach. Open to discussion:

1. We can only cite information. We cannot draw conclusions. It is not in our scope nor within our ability to define or identify indigenous peoples.
2. If a reliable source claims indigeneity of a group, then it should be cited and included in this list.
3. A reliable source in this case would be (not limited to):
   1. The people themselves
   2. An organization representing those people
   3. Various indigenous rights organizations, humanitarian organizations, NGOs, etc.
   4. A third-party academic and establishment of general consensus in the academic community
   5. Some formal recognition (government or otherwise)
4. In the absence of all the above, application of the definitions provided by the UN, ILO, etc. (Are there other notable definitions?) There is no one definition of indigenous, so the best we can do is collect all definitions by reputable organizations.

This is in line with and an expansion of the previous guidelines provided, which were erroneously removed by a bot in December 2012:

Inclusion criteria

The intended purpose of this listing is to provide a survey and overview of various distinct peoples, communities and societies who may be referred to as an indigenous people, even if some other terminology may be in more common use (for example, Native American).

Not every ethnic group article or stub will warrant inclusion in this listing. The term indigenous peoples has a distinct meaning as per the main indigenous peoples article, which is more specific than the general sense of "a people or group considered native to, or originating from, a given place".

The following are criteria suggested as guidelines for determining whether any particular people or group ought to be listed here. These criteria are put forward as an attempt to forestall any need for POV-based inclusion (or exclusion), particularly in cases where the claim to identity as an indigenous people may be contentious, inconsistent or unclear.

• an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either:
  1. some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; and/or
  2. some recognised body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; and/or
  3. some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; and/or
  4. some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union).

That source should naturally be cited on the relevant page (and perhaps here on the listing, also). Where there is (independent) contention about identifying any particular group as an indigenous people, the contention should be noted in the relevant article along with the cited reference(s) in which this contention appears. See Category talk:Indigenous peoples for some further discussion. --cjllw TALK 04:16, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

:Source: archive link

KaerbaqianRen^💬 17:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I generally agree with this, with the proviso that we need to be cautious about groups claiming to be indigenous that are unable to present evidence of meaningful continuity from an indigenous people, such as many of the organizations listed in List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. - Donald Albury 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. The sources we should be most wary of are those defining themselves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I understand your concern and feel the same. I am unsure how to weight self-determination in regards to credibility. You can see this being a bit of an issue with any number of groups attempting to claim indigeneity in the archives. At the same time, we can keep this list generally inclusive while addressing any issues on the talk page as has done before--unless you all can think of a different method. KaerbaqianRen^💬 18:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, if we stick as closely as possible to reliable, secondary and ideally scholarly sources, and ideally, wherever possible, to clear subject-matter experts, that should keep bogus claims to a minimum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  (ec) I share the same concern, which is pushing me toward supporting taking the pre-2012 language and adapting from there. While in my professional, non WP-editor life, I'm 100% on board with indigenous self-identification, I recognize that this approach probably wouldn't stand up to WP's editing policies and procedures. The pre-2012 language makes it clear, we include groups which have first and foremost been reported by reliable sources to be indigenous. Then there's an explanatory list of the generally-considered reasons that reliable sources might report a group as indigenous, which could include self-identification. This keeps WP editors out of the business of evaluating statements - determining whether or not the statement speaks for the group, whether or not it's accurate, etc. - and falls in line with what WP editors do best: rely on the expertise of reliable sources. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Convention is to capitalize "Indigenous" when referring to ethnic groups

If there are no substantial objections, I'm going to standardize this with the other Indigenous articles on en-wiki and move it to the current redirect: List of Indigenous peoples. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in after the fact, but I think this is a good idea and better reflects current conventions in English. – Joe (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the sources to support your claim that we should capitalise "Indigenous" when referring to ethnic groups? A quick Google shows that the lower case indigenous peoples is still the dominant usage on the Internet. 2001:8003:9008:1301:C403:2CA0:A224:B115 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To exemplify just how widespread the convention of capitalizing "Indigenous" is, here is the prominent anthropological website Sapiens, the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press, and the government of British Columbia, all specifically stating that they capitalize "Indigenous" when in any sense referencing Indigenous peoples. --Pinchme123 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Washoe people tribe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Which national variety of English?

@Pinchme123: changed the spelling of some words from British to American, and I reverted them. Pinchme123 sees a prevalence of American spelling in the article. I think that is not so clear cut for words that do vary between those two varieties of English and are not in quotes or part of citations. I do not have a set preference (I am American). Any opinions? Donald Albury 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Prior to the edit that prompted me to take a closer look, the count was 7 American words ("colonized", "recognized" twice, "colonization", "centered", "caribbeanization", "capitalization") to 2 British ("recognised" and "criticised") by my count. These counts exclude all wikilinked words, though I would note that all the wikilinked words are the American versions (e.g. versions of -ization). I'd also note that I missed a "practices". So I think it's 8 to 2, not including the wikilinks. Here's the prior version I was looking at: [1]. I'd also note, the creator of this page used one word that would signal the regional preference in that first edit: "recognized". --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. I have reverted myself. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Donald Albury 01:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Where's Mali people for instance, the Dogon etcetera? Saharan people

This article is deceptive, it's missing information Qwepo (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)