Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Iranian peoples

Someone has inserted Kurds and Pashuns and there's no doubt that part of World is their homeland, but 99% other Iranian ethnicities in region can also be called "indigenous" on such basis: Lurs, Laks, Zazas, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, etc. Since all current Iranian peoples are formed on Iranian plateau (except Ossetians), depending by definition they all should be included or excluded. At this moment I excluded both, any opinion against? --HistorNE (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand, Madagascar, and Iceland

Madagascar and New Zealand are present but Iceland isn't. Seeing as these three islands were all settled at around the same time it would make sense to list the Icelandic people as indigenous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.30.242 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Armenians

At the time of writing, I think Armenians are the only group listed here who do in fact have their own state. For every other such group, including those with diasporas as sizable as the Armenians, this seems to have been considered a disqualifying factor for inclusion on the basis that they are not a marginalised group, at least not everywhere. As such, I'd advocate we remove them from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.198.182 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So many peoples in this list who don't fit the guidelines....

Firstly, Non-existent and obsolete peoples are listed, why? Ex: Dzungar people, whom no longer exist (almost totally wiped out in the Dzungar genocide), Vandals, Gauls, Goths, etc. etc. Gauls are part of an interesting trend here of noting the indigenous elements in ethno-national groups: ie, gauls for frenchmen. But the gauls no longer exist as a people, they are absorbed into the French people. (which is gaulish/frankish/latin) Also, groups that are indigenous but not "indigenous peoples" (NOT minorities in their nation state) are included, despite the definition. Ie, Icelanders in iceland, turkmens in turkmenistan, kazakhs in kazakhstan, arabs in arab countries (excluding the bedouin in the southern arabian peninsula, an indigenous people in a non-Bedouin polity)... the only people who is a majority in their state that I can see being included are the Berbers, since even though the population is mostly berber or arab-berber the identity of the country is overwhelmingly "Arab". For the same reason I can see Samaritans being listed but not Jews, since Jews are the majority in Israel... although they could be considered indigenous in Judea, which is part of a non-jewish polity (West Bank). Same with Irish in northern ireland vs those in southern ireland.... the northern irish are part of an irish polity while the southern irish are part of a "british" (but really mostly english) one. Welsh in Wales can be excused by saying Wales isn't an independent country, same with Scots in Scotland. I just think we need to stick to the clear rules. It's not just a people native to a region, but also a people who does not make up the majority political/ethnic identity of the nation in their homeland. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically it's important to remember that a people indigenous to a region may not be a indigenous people of the region. According to the definition. This does mean the group can go to bed as an "indigenous people" and wake up as "merely" a native people if they gain independence. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, tell me what you think. Perhaps we should ignore very recent independences, like that of turkmenistan/kazakhstan/etc from the ussr? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, these seems to have become an indiscriminate list of ethnic groups. We have similar problems with the main article indigenous people, but I suppose there are less eyes on this. I'll try to clean it out. Joe Roe (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Europe section redirects to ethnic groups in europe.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to prune. I agree that the indiscriminate nature of the list is a problem. every single people of the world is "indigenous" to somewhere, if the ordinary language usage is adopted instead of the academic and legal definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitions

Isn't the point of legislation on this issue to protect the rights of native peoples to their own land? Yet, certain governments are reserving the right to grant and deny these rights, clearly a perverted use of power. Under certain political definitions, a people that was never colonized would not be an indigenous people (and hence be available for annexation)! Furthermore, a people who simply transitioned from minority to majority (by the census of the reigning regime, of course), would also lose their protective status, which is outrageous. Common sense and logic dictate that a colonizing power becoming an indigenous people is an impossible travesty, and equally impossible and laughable is the idea that an indigenous people could stop being indigenous, and even become so immoral as to colonize their own land. Yet this is exactly what could happen under these political definitions. By removing the indigenous status of a people, if such a thing were actually possible, the goal of restoring rights to native lands is automatically defeated. Don't you love politics?

Instead, as scholars studying peoples writing an article about peoples, we should be using the anthropological definition of indigeneity. Politics poisons everything. Here is a sampling of definitions from anthropology glossaries and dictionaries:

• indigenous - referring to the native population of an area.

~ Cultural Anthropology Terms, Palomar College

• Indigenous peoples - culturally distinct peoples who have occupied a region longer than peoples who have colonized or immigrated to the region.

~ Some Technical Terms Used by Anthropologists, Professor Alan Macfarlane

• aborginal. indigenous; pertaining to the original occupants of a given region.
• indigenous. native to, originating in or occurring naturally in a given place; aboriginal.

~ Above two from A Glossary of Manitoba Prehistoric Archaeology, U. of Manitoba

• indigenous peoples - The original inhabitants of particular territories; often descendants of tribespeople who live on as culturally distinct colonized peoples, many of whom aspire to autonomy.

~ Mirror for Humanity, Professor Conrad Phillip Kottak

These sources all agree that the defining factor of an indigenous people is this: that their connection to a land is the first, or at any rate, predates that of any other people. Even when anthropology texts import (or more often, simply cite without adoption) the warped opinions of the UN, mentioning minority status, they invariably qualify the description with terms like "typically" and "often." For example:

• Indigenous peoples, according to the guidelines laid down by the United Nations, are defined as groups that have a long-standing connection with their home territiories, a connection predating colonial or other societies that pravail in that territory (Sanders 1999). The are typically a numerical minority and often have lost the rights to their original territory. The United Nations distinguishes between indigenous peoples and minority ethnic groups such as the Roma, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and African Americans....

~ Cultural Anthropology, 7th ed., Professor Barbara D. Miller

• Indigenous societies - peoples who were once independent and have occupied their territories for a long time but are now usually minority groups in larger states.

~ Survey of Anthropology, Bonovillain

Again, the above definitions all put ancient connection with the land as the first and primary part of the definition. The other characteristics are ancillary and descriptive, not prescriptive and essential. Kottak, further above, only cites the UN in the very last chapter, "Global Issues Today," and is quite scathing of such politics in general. And with good reason.

Clearly, the UN is not a valid authority in defining who is indigenous and who is not. Its decisions are based primarily on political considerations, rather than on anthropology and actual scholarship, and this official document is a clear example of this. It shows that they have no official definition, and the UN does whatever the hell they want with no oversight.

To quote them, "an official definition of 'indigenous' has not been adopted by any UN-system body.[...] According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples" (emphasis mine). In other words, a committee picks and chooses their favorites.

This opaque, arbitrary approach is completely contrary to the scholarly method appropriate for an encyclopedia. Their opinion should not be cited except in a distinctly secondary role compared to scholarly sources.

Even worse, they brought in a completely unprecedented and unrelated criterion to restrict indigeneity to native peoples who "Form non-dominant groups of society." Hmm. Is this exclusion, prima facie, valid? Obviously, they are trying to exclude somebody. And that stinks of politics.

But enough. I challenge any of you to find a dictionary or anthropology textbook that defines indigenousness this way. I'd be especially interested in such a definition predating the UN Working Group on Indigenous Population's (WGIP) draft guidelines from 1989.

Just as legislation cannot redefine up to be down or make one equal two, legislation can't give and take away indigeneity. That's an inherent part of who a people is, an inalienable birthright. Musashiaharon (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No the point of legislation is to protect that land of non-state ethnic groups to land they were inhabiting before another ethnic group built a state around it. Also onte that of the definitions you have added all except one include mention of status as a colonized minority within a state society. Also the UN does not keep a list of peoples that are or arent indigenous (making your critique of the UN as misguided as it is confused), just as they do not define who are indigenous but provide the criteria through which different world states can implement the category in their legislation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Maunus's formulation smooth, and fairly solidly grounded. It, like all definitions, fails with particular examples such as the Sentinelese, who have never been occupied, or dominated by a colonial majority. In that case, the addition of a word like 'generally' is advisable. The article has significant inclusions that fail many given definitions. Unless a field is defined with precision, what is to be included or excluded cannot be determined. And that is the problem here.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a significant difference between the scholarly usage and the usage in international legislation. Note that three out of five of the definitions you quoted are of "indigenous", not "indigenous peoples" (they are separate concepts). The other two explicitly define indigenous peoples in relation to colonization, as the UN does. We use the UN definition purely because it provides a clear and concise statement of the common usage of "indigenous peoples" by academics, legislators, indigenous rights organizations and indigenous peoples themselves. An authoritative definition is necessary because of persistent, politically-motivated attempts to apply the etymological fallacy to this and related pages, defining "indigenous peoples" in such a way that it includes pretty much every person on Earth, and therefore rendering our coverage of them worthless. Joe Roe (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it faisl with regards to the sentinelse whose territory has been incorporated in to the British empire and subsequently into the state of India which considers them a "scheduled tribe".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Musashiaharon: I'm also curious as to what peoples you think are being wrongly included/excluded under the current consensus definition. On a list article like this definitions are only important in so far as they determine the scope of the list, so arguing semantics alone is a bit of a waste of time. Joe Roe (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not merely a matter of semantics. It has practical import. History has shown time and time again that even the most benevolent of governments will do injustice and bend the law wherever they believe they stand much to gain and little to lose. But first, I will address the issue of etymological meaning. It is true that words do not always follow their original meaning, as they were originally constructed from their donor languages. In our case, "indi" means "inside," similar to "endo," and "genous" means "brought into being." Thus, the meaning "brought into being inside" some region. This is still the meaning used in most every other field of study, including geology, biology, linguistics, and so on. Although the meaning of a word may change, the context of the change is highly significant. This includes the time of the change, in what usage it is being changed, who is changing the meaning, and, finally, what they stood to gain by this modification.

Applied to our case, the attempt to change the word's meaning was in the 80s and early 90s, in the context of international law, by the world governing authority of the time, the UN (Kottak 296). What did they stand to gain from the change? First, they could claim to be in full support of a popular concept, and thus gain the support of the masses and the governments they elect. However, if the UN gave their resolutions "teeth," the member governments would be required to surrender land or power to indigenous groups. So we find that the UN would have been interested in making sure they complied with the letter of their declarations, without actually doing anything concrete about it. So, as governments do, they played games with their definitions to escape real responsibility, with extra insurance that the indigenous peoples, the unpopular kids on the playground, could never raise their heads to take any precious power from the quite lawful and moral-minded elite.

This is not a new story. It's been repeated time and time again in the past, and not just with dictatorships. Even that bastion of freedom, America, has had a dark past, where the founding fathers turned a blind eye towards slavery in the Union with the infamous two-fifths clause, defining non-whites to be worth less than a full white man with regard to the census count. Why? This way, slave states could get themselves extra representatives in the House, without giving their slaves any actual representation via voting rights at all.

Even after the liberation of the slaves after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws kept the newly-"freed" people subdued. Although the law permitted no discrimination on the basis of race in the polling booth, many locales side-stepped the law by the introduction of a "grandfather clause," only permitting a citizen to vote if their grandfather shared that right. This, of course, had the effect of barring any descendants of slaves from voting, and was a thin mask for de jure, or institutionalized racism.

To this day, the concept of disenfranchising political opponents by legal redefinitions lives on in the common practice of gerrymandering. Under this tactic, voting districts are redefined to break up the opposition and concentrate friendly voters to favor the interests of the ruling party. By this artifice, a government can control the outcome of an election, and make a mockery of the foundations of democracy. If done cleverly, no one could catch the ruse without detailed insider knowledge of voting patterns.

Based on knowledge of the above, I have already pointed out how the UN's non-definitive guidelines could be used to deny indigenous peoples their due rights. I'd rather not get embroiled in the controversial details of particular examples at this point. Suffice it to say, it is safe to assume that where a government can exploit loopholes to their advantage without strong opposition, they will.

Yet if you insist on specifics, another issue particular to the previous consensus here is that under the definition followed until now, genocided indigenous peoples may be swept under the rug of history as "no longer relevant." Since these peoples were often left in unmarked graves later desecrated and lost to humanity, the least we can do is to memorialize them here, perhaps in a special section. Maybe their eloquent testimony can guide us to a better future, where would-be mass murderers today are warned that we will vilify them for their deeds, and their victim's voices will never be silenced, for there will always be those who pick up their battle flag and fight for justice. We will preserve this history and not cooperate with any attempt to whitewash the oppressor, but let his name continue to wallow in infamy. So may we be on guard against any future oppressor, foil his plans, and thus preserve justice. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Very little of that wall of text has anything to do with writing an encyclopaedia, Musashiaharon. We are not a government, nor are we here to right the great wrongs of governments. The only point of substance you've made is that the current consensus definition may exclude extinct indigenous peoples. I don't see how this is the case and I don't think it's ever actually come up on this page or others related to indigenous peoples. If you would like to add now-extinct indigenous peoples who were victims of genocide, please feel free. But overall you seem to be arguing against us using the UN definition because you have strong opinions on the UN, not because there is anything actually wrong with the definition or because it is affecting our encyclopaedic coverage of indigenous peoples. Joe Roe (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The article already has a precedent for including extinct indigenous peoples, i.e. Beothuk. So that objection, that the articles excludes such peoples, ignores the evidence of the page.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the list never has followed its definition 100%, this is however hardly a reasonable argument for adopting a definition and inclusion criteria so wide that every known ethnic group could be included (everyone is "indigenous" to somewhere).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The anthropological definition does not include every known ethnic group. It only permits the earliest known ethnic group of that territory. Any later group claiming that same territory is necessarily a colonizer, not the original inhabitant. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with that but it gets tricky where ranges overlap. Anyway if there was a more detailed definition along the lines of "descended from the original people (and not migrants/colonizers)" I'd be happy to include it somehow.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like Macfarlane's and Kottak's definitions above both satisfy your criterion. If we have issues with boundaries, I think we can deal with those better when we have when we have specific examples. Musashiaharon (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

But it's not purely biological, and anthropologists certainly don't see it that way. There's the matter of having a culture with continuity to the original inhabitants- including speaking their language, having a derived religious tradition, and traditional knowledge of the land inherited from the original population. Of course this ignores the forces of Christianization and Islamization (and probably other izations). Anyway it's not just a matter of blood-for example mexicans are to a significant extent native american, but are not considered such, whereas the Metis people are partially european, yet are considered indigenous. The difference is one maintained strong ties with the original culture.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Musashiaharon (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why the hell is this article in I/P collaboration? I/P is the last thing we need here. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Major changes

@Moxy: Your edit summary said "move project draft here" – can you clarify where it came from? I'm seeing a lot of changes and not all of them appear to be improvements. – Joe (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Northern subarticles

We currently have two articles that function as near-forks of sections of this list:

• Circumpolar peoples
• Indigenous peoples of the Subarctic

Both seem to have originated as sections linked specifically from Template:Cultural areas of indigenous North Americans, but given the unconstrained titles, they have ballooned into lists spilling over into Siberia and Northern Europe. On the other hand, all of their prose content remains specific to North America, and they give no justification for their general existence. Should we either:

1. merge these lists into this one?
2. restrict these articles as North America-specific?

--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.indigenouspeoples.nl/indigenous-peoples/definition-indigenous
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022134122/http://www.iwgia.org/sw29940.asp to http://www.iwgia.org/sw29940.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross-cultural sample

Read about the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3772907?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents It has nothing to do with indigenous peoples so I removed the maps. ImTheIP (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples

The World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples maintained by the Minority Rights Group looks like a useful source for this article, although it doesn't clearly distinguish between "indigenous peoples" and other minority groups so not every entry there should necessarily be in this list. – Joe (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's best that if we classify a group as "Indigenous", we need to find multiple Sources to back it up. Dunutubble (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Jews are listed again

This question has been discussed at least three times previously:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_1#Are_the_Jews_an_indigenous_people.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples/Archive_2#Jews_-_Martinez_Cobo
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#So_many_peoples_in_this_list_who_don.27t_fit_the_guidelines....

and it apparently has to be discussed again because Jews are listed on this page. We have the Martinez-Cobo definition: "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. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."

Jews in Israel do not qualify because they are dominant. Jews living in other parts of the world does not have a "historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies" to the places they are living in.

Furthermore, according to Judaism the Israelite tribes invaded Canaan which would disqualify them from indigenous status. Much in the same way that Saxons and Normans invaded England and therefore cannot be indigenous to it. There is little archaeological evidence for the [of Canaan], but many religious Jews believe in it and therefore do not self-identify as being indigenous.

The only coherent argument [1] to Jewish indigenousness is presented by Ryan Bellerose, who is an activist and certainly not an expert on indigenous peoples. Articles on Wikipedia should be written using a Neutral Point of View and it is not neutral to claim that Jews are indigenous. Since not a single topic-expert agrees with that characterization.

Palestinians would not qualify either (afaict) and thankfully they are not listed on this page either. ImTheIP (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be not just Jews. The list is full of errors. Like the Bantu peoples (which I removed) who aren't indigenous at all. Wikipedia has a real problem with list pages like these. If you write some text in an article, then there are supposed to be sources proving that text to be true. But there is no similar safeguard against adding items to list pages. For example, if someone adds X to to this page, then that is equivalent to claiming that X is an indigenous people. But it not required to provide a source, which is silly. I have noticed the same problem on a lot of "list of" pages. ImTheIP (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

First, I find your insistence that a Native American who is active in the indigenous rights movement is "not an expert" to be highly problematic. Who is more expert on defining a group than the members of that group? Second, as you belatedly acknowledge the Biblical narrative of the Jewish people conquering the land from assorted other Canaanite tribes is not supported by historical scholars. Third, even if we were to accept the Biblical narrative, it does not contradict Jewish indigenousness; Jews did not come from Egypt, as far as their national origin, even in the Biblical tale - they made a temporary move FROM Canaan, due to a famine, with every intention of returning. So in what way does this not fit with defining Jews as indigenous? The fact that Jews felt a special connection to the land in which their ancestors became a people is part of the definition! Further, the fact that many religious Jews do not use the word "indigenous" when referring to themselves has more to do with the negative connotations long associated with the term, and with Jewish attempts to blend into their diaspora societies, and keep their differences hidden. But ask any religious Jew where the Jewish people come from, and he or she will tell you that they come from Israel; not a single one will tell you that Jews come from Egypt. So your argument is pointless. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google search turns up numerous sources that discuss Jews as indigenous to Palestine [2], and ditto for Palestinians [3]. Most are plainly heavily slanted one way or the other, but ideally this article should provide a source-based outline of all significant views, which may well include the view that Jews or Palestinians are indigenous peoples.

This article is indeed a mess. If someone had the time and inclination, I think it would be a good idea to prune the list of anything remotely controversial/debateable, and only re-add them if their inclusion can be supported by reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that too. We have a similar problem over at the article Talk:Stateless_nation#Criteria_for_a_stateless_nation. It includes a list of stateless nations (Stateless_nation#Claims_of_stateless_nations) and people have been adding entries to that list because they think they belong there even though sources do not support them. I tried to fix that, but ran into opposition. I suspect people feel that their hard work is destroyed when "their" entries are removed, so they naturally resist that. ImTheIP (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The "dominant" criteria is problematic in that it essentially precludes indigenous peoples from ever achieving self-determination, at least if they want to keep their status and all of the attendant protections. That makes this article (and subject matter) tricky, to say the least. That being said, Jews are certainly not the dominant sector of society in the West Bank (or Gaza, or Western Jordan), so it still applies to Jews. And I'm fairly certain that the "historical continuity" part means historical continuity with the lands they claim indigeneity to (and Jews do have this, as the sources show).

Lastly, according to the traditional Jewish narrative, the Israelite (and by extension, the Jewish) identity, culture, language, etc were all born and forged in Canaan. They only fought the Canaanites after *returning* from Egypt. Nowhere does it say that they are a foreign born people whose identity and culture were exported through conquest, like the Saxons and Normans. So in that respect, Jews do identify as indigenous and, as far as I can tell, meet virtually all of the criteria for inclusion.2601:84:4502:61EA:9CBC:A986:BF6A:4890 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, inclusion on this list does not require a seal of approval from topic experts. At least, I don't see that criteria being applied anywhere else on this article, so I see little reason to do it here. Reliable sources demonstrating that they meet the accepted definition should be enough (and they are there, last I checked). There's also this (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224256/aboriginal-rights-jewish-people) from a Canadian expert/worker on indigenous issues. 2601:84:4502:61EA:9CBC:A986:BF6A:4890 (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, inclusion does require several things: 1. sources showing that a people is generally considered indigeneous under the definition used by the article. And 2. a consensus among editors that the sources sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed addition reflects the scholarly consensus on the matter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that criteria being applied anywhere else on this article, and for good reason. By this metric, 90 percent of the peoples listed in this article would have to be deleted.2601:84:4502:61EA:9CBC:A986:BF6A:4890 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You are free to remove any item that you consider not to be sufficiently supported by sources to merit inclusion. But per WP:OTHERSTUFF you cannot use the inclusion of some other dubious item to support the inclusion of another.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point. We are supposed to include populations that meet the stated criteria, and whose qualifications can be backed up by reliable sources. Jews and Samaritans fit this bill, as the sources show.2601:84:4502:61EA:9CBC:A986:BF6A:4890 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous idea that an indigenous people who regain their self-determination, or those who once again become a majority on their ancestral lands, therefore cease being indigenous. Some people who were personally familiar with Martinez-Cobo said that he included that part of the definition out of Antisemitic feelings, specifically to make it impossible for Jews to apply the definition to themselves. But it is logically inconsistent to define indigenous status that way, because the moment any indigenous people regained control, they would then be stripped of all protections that might allow them to remain in a state of self-determination. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, that is the definition of indigenous people. We on Wikipedia shouldn't try and make up our own just because we dislike the official ones. We follow what authoritative sources write and they do not list "Jews" as an indigenous people. ImTheIP (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts, but I have found an Article by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs arguing Jews are: https://jcpa.org/article/jews-one-worlds-oldest-indigenous-peoples/Dunutubble (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Include extinct peoples?

The Caribbean section includes several indigenous peoples that have been considered extinct for centuries. Does that really fit with the purpose of this article? - Donald Albury 00:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they belong there. They should probably have a separate Page. Dunutubble (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

White people

Right now the article only has Indigenous POC groups which is bizarre. Are white ethnic groups in Europe not indigenous for some reason? PailSimon (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ above. ImTheIP (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but besides the basque and Sami all Europeans come from the indeo-europeans who invaded the pre-indo European people. SocialistGoat (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There are other peoples in Europe who speak a non-Indo-European language, such as Magyar, Finnish, and Estonian, which are the official and dominant language of a nation-state, so Indo-European v. non-Indo-European is not a useful distinction as to which people are "indigenous" in Europe. Genetically, modern Europeans are a mix of Western, Scandinavian and Eastern hunter-gatherers, Early European Farmers (from Anatolia), and Western Steppe Herders, only the last of whom are believed to have been proto-Indo-European speakers. - Donald Albury 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

SilvanaKelleher (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)All the Celtic peoples (Basque, Breton, Cornisician, Irish, Manx, Scottish, Welsh) have been/are considered to be politically 'black' since Roman Times, have had their lands invaded. their cultures & languages decimated in exactly the same way as other Indigenous Peoples. Failure to recognise this is neither wise, nor an accurate reflection of the historical facts regarding Roman, Norman, English and French Colonialism. The outcome of failing to include them also causes the failure to recognise the similarities between their cultures & those of other Indigenous Peoples (of which there are many) & the long historical struggles they've had to be recognised as Peoples independent of any Empire. Pale skin doesn't always mean white & it's important to recognise such nuanced distinctions. This also applies to the Gypsy, Roma & Traveller Peoples. Most white people don't get 'othered', this is true, but some do & that matters Sociologically, Historically & Anthropologically. It's past time to recognise these facts (meaning the things that actually did happen, not the fantasy version of events certain groups want everyone to believe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvanaKelleher (talk • contribs)

Please see the FAQ near the top of this page, which explains why most European peoples are NOT included in this list. Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) at the bottom of your post, not the top. Your signature at the top confused me, and would undoubtedly confuse other readers. - Donald Albury 21:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I respect your Arguments, but it should be noted that some Groups that are now considered White (e.g., Irish, Italian, Polish) were until recently considered not to be so. Irish and Poles were both colonized by Foreign Powers and in the Case of the Irish, their Lands were settled upon by Foreigners. It would make sense to include Irish people in the list. Dunutubble (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Classify both Jews and Palestinians as Indigenous?

Why don't we just classify both Jews and Palestinians as Indigenous Peoples? Otherwise it's just a Violation of NPOV.Dunutubble (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing Jews

According to what sources Jews were replaced by Israelis? Also it doesn't make sense it now reads Israelites: along with Samaritans, belong to the Israelite nation--Shrike (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You two at it again? You both reverted and both of you claimed "the sources" and neither of you said which sources, so list 'em out and fix the problem.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have edited this article before and it is on my watchlist.Those who want to make the change should explain Shrike (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't actually "at it" last time with Shrike, who just came and reported me out of goodness of their heart, as an civic citizen would do. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Israelites belong to the Israelite nation - seems to make absolute sense. Like Barbadians and Barbados. As Wikipedia states quite plainly, Jews form an ethnoreligious group. Israelites are the tribe and indigenous grouping for that identity. Source: Mark Smith Iskandar323 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is an entire section , at the top of this page, which discusses this. The pervious consensus was to use "Jews" Inf-in MD (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CCC Maybe we need to have another look, this I suppose is a variant on the is it a religion or a race kind of question? So let's dig out some sources, always the right answer on WP, go by the sources.(whether we agree with them or not).Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak to the logic of the 2017 consensus, but the iron age tribal people are the Israelites, which is also the appropriate subdivision of the Canaanites. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Jews: "Jewish people are members of an ethnoreligious group and a nation originating from the Israelites". Inf-in MD (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What's your point? Yes, the claim to be indigenous in Israel is in essence, the claim to be an ancient Israelite by descent. And yes, @Selfstudier: it is religion versus tribal identity: No one tries to assert that indigenous descendants of ancient Iranians are all 'Zoroastrians' - it's a nonsensical confusion of terminology. It's a WP:CS issue. What if the descendent of an ancient Israelite is no longer Jewish? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What if a Samaritan adopts mainstream Judaism? Are they no longer a Samaritan by descent? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey, if I convert to Judaism today, will that make me an indigenous ancient Israelite?! Cool! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It will make you part of a nation which originated with the Israelites. Yeah, that's pretty cool. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Then again, that would make me part of the same nation as Shrike, so... Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, so? Inf-in MD (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

We'd make terrible neighbours. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Really a matter of personal choice. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My choice is neighbours with common sense and diverse interests. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sure Shrike has both. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have brought a relevant source to the article --Shrike (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside this specific question, I am fairly sure that there is no universally agreed definition of "indigenous" contrary to the impression given in the lead. There probably are some number of attempts at a definition but not one that is agreed upon by all or even a majority. The United Nations Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples did not agree a definition, they agreed that groups could identify themselves as indigenous (the Welsh for example). OK, some groups are agreed upon almost by everyone such as American Indians, Amazonian tribes and so on. Idk if that includes Jews and Palestinians but if you can self identify, why not? At the end of a day, it is just a claim and the issue is then whether it is generally accepted as being a claim with validity and more importantly, are there there any real advantages to having such a claim recognized. If not, it really doesn't matter, does it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the news, there tends to be significant backlash in the US whenever someone self-identifies as American Indian and then is found out to be, not, in fact, American Indian. Self-identification as an ethnic minority is not quite the same sort of summer of free love type issue as self-identification as a certain gender. Do we need to add Magi if we are adding ethnoreligious groups? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

How about, we go with what a preponderance of neutral reliable sources say about whether a group is indigenous to a particular territory? - Donald Albury 14:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Donald Albury, I have brought one such source to the article [4] --Shrike (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well this source is totally confusing in the context of this current conversation. Jews are Yemen's only indigenous religious minority - it clearly stretches the definition of indigeneity into an even broader conceptual category. Not sure it supports you here though Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And here's another : "In the international community that supported creating a Jewish polity, Jews were typically viewed as native to Palestine" Troen, Ilan, and Carol Troen. “Indigeneity.” Israel Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, Indiana University Press, 2019, pp. 17–32, https://doi.org/10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.02. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

These two terms aren't ultimately mutually exclusive. You could write a sentence that went: Jews were typically viewed as native to Palestine ... on account of their descent from indigenous Israelite peoples. I'm actually not entirely sure what all the fuss is about here. I mean 'Israeli' is basically just the modern version of 'Israelite', whereas Jew is a religious descriptor based on the terrible medieval pronunciation of the proscribed Roman term for the Hebrew people, in, yes, sources like Josephus. Did the Romans get the terminology correct? Probably not. Did they care? Also probably not. But using Jew as shorthand for descent from the Israelites is sloppy. It's like calling Hebrew 'Jewish' and calling Israel 'Jewtopia' - descriptive, yes; accurate terminology, no. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No. "Israeli" is the nationality or citizenship of the citizens of Israel. It includes the Arab citizens who may self Identify as "Palestinians", the Druze of Yarka, the Circassians of Kfar Kama, the Bedouins of the Negev etc.. - none of whom have anything to do with the "Israelites". "Jew" is an ethnic/cultural designation. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed the point, or several points. I wasn't saying to use Israeli as a general term - merely pointing to the weird obsession with using Roman historian terminology instead of the perfectly workable terms 'Israelites' and 'Hebrews'. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well we're not here to right great wrongs. It may have been historically better for the Romans to use 'Israelites', but we can't change the history. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If we venture into the Hebrew reading of the same terms, 'Yehudi is a problematic term because it not only means Jews, as in the ethnoreligious group, but also Judeans, so it is explicitly ambiguous in terms of its ultimate meaning. Israelite, on the other hand, is an all embracing term that sheds the specific religious connotations in favour of a definition determined more explicitly by physical, not religious, belonging, i.e.: indigeneity: In some places in the Talmud the word Israel(ite) refers to somebody who is Jewish but does not necessarily practice Judaism as a religion: "An Israel(ite) even though he has sinned is still an Israel(ite)" (Tractate Sanhedrin 44a). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What's done is done. The world has been referring to the current-day nation that originated with the ancient Israelites as 'Jews". We are not going to change that. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well no, the current-day nation is populated by people called Israelis, atheists and all Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

it's populated by Israelis (a citizenship), who belong to different nations/ethnicities. There are Arab Israelis, Circassian Israelis, Jewish Israelis etc... The question here is what do we call the current-day nation that originated with the Israelites. The world has decided that, two millennia ago. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is the reduction of a complex reality to a list. Wouldn't Canaanites be the the "authentic" (original) indigenous? And isn't it the case that both Arab and Jew can trace lineage back to there? Is there a DNA study on that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Yes, what you're looking for is here: Palestinians#Between_the_Jews_and_Palestinians Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I remembered it vaguely from seeing something in the press, that looks like it. Roughly speaking, that says all the current populations are genetically linked to there, right?Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it more or less succinctly dispels all of the race-baiting contestations over the region. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at in a bit more detail I am not convinced that all that stuff under "Canaanite peoples" is entirely accurate.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#Western_Asia Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Jews are not an ethnic group. It is several groups of people that are following a religion, the majority of them are converted. So we can not say that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East, that would be the same as saying that christians are indigenous, when many different ethnicitys around the world are christians.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That's you opinion, but not one shared by the majority of neutral sources on this topic. Also, read WP:RGW. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "neutral source". Everybody (and every source) has a POV and some have an active bias.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I was going by Donald Albury's request, for "neutral reliable sources", but we can substitute "academic" sources, or just reliable sources. In any case, one person's opinion that Jews are only adherent of the religion is not the way to go about this. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's a different "Indigeneity" https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/597667 Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I copied that whole para from Indigenous peoples into the relevant section so that we have a bit of balance to be going on with.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know the Negev Bedouins had been recognised by the UN - very interesting! Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Now it seems that when we look at what is supposed to be just a list, it is full of argumentation about massacres and what not and that is before any DNA stuff. If we can't reduce it to something list appropriate, maybe what we want is a short sentence or two here and a spinout article just on these competing claims.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I wrote that paragraph in indigenous peoples and agree that we could have a whole article on indigeneity in the Israel-Palestine conflict. For this list, which is supposed to be global in coverage, I think it would suffice to say that both Jews and Palestinians claim to be indigenous to the same region. Maybe with separate entries for Samaritans and the Negev Bedouin, since both these groups have some international recognition. The current hodgepodge of simplistic narratives from biblical archaeology and genetics is rubbish whether it starts with "Jews" or "Israelites". It completely fails to represent the complexity of the issue as presented in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Europe Section Unsourced

The entirety of the Europe section is unsourced. There needs to be some source cited for each one of these groups. Additionally, not sure if Roma really belong here, but I am not an expert and have no idea what the academic consensus is. --^💬KaerbaqianRen 20:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The Welsh are indigenous people of Britain

Tolkien studied into Celtic mythology and through this, he was able to study the Welsh language, in one of his lectures on 'English and Welsh' in 1955 at University of Oxford, he expressed his view of the Welsh being indigenous peoples of Britain.

The Cymry, Brythons (or more commonly known as Welsh people) are indigenous peoples of Britain, however.. the identity of Welsh people has been contested but during Queen Mary's rule, she married into a foreign family; the devoutly Catholic Philip of Spain, Catholics were soon assigned the role of the Other”. The reign of Puritan dictator Cromwell (1653-1658), furthermore, further emphasised the sentiment that the English were the chosen people, designated to defend “God’s liberty in a perverted Europe”. These historical events, however, also highlighted the fact that Englishness was not only contrasted with the Continental Other, such as the French and the Spanish, but also with other ethnic types a lot closer to home, such as the Celts of Ireland, the Scots, and the Welsh. Through the ancient annual tradition that is the National Eisteddfod of Wales, Welsh people exhibit their identity, through an event that holds cultural competitions with one another. And although not all scholars recognise the Welsh as indigenous to Britain, there are many others who do.

Despite there being thousands of articles, papers etc highlighting that the Welsh language is derivative of the Brittonic tribes of Britain, editors still question the origin of the Welsh?. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking a language derived from another language once spoken by indigenous people does not make a people indigenous. Every language every spoken is ultimately derived from some ancient tribal language. Modern nationalities are additionally not good templates for indigenous peoples. The Celtic Britons are considered the relevant indigenous group here in the sense of being an extant population in Britain from the iron age through to the middle ages. Incidentally, this is no longer the case, with modern Celtic descendents in the UK being no more related to other Celtic groups than they are to those populations, such as the English, popularly considered to be more Anglo-Saxon: [5] Iskandar323 (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

But the Welsh directly identify with those people, it's less to do with blood, but more to do with culture, so are you saying that your blood has to be pure pre Roman age to identify as indigenous? what about an indigenous from another culture that says "I don't associate myself with my own kind", does that person then identify as that indigenous group?, or lets say Jewish people.. their indigenous identity is their religion and their culture (which has been disputed on this group), what make them stand out against Welsh in Britain? (again the culture rather than blood).Hogyncymru (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-identification is obviously part of the equation, but it does get murky when nationality is conflated with indigenous identity. To be honest, this whole list is a bit of poorly defined mess and conflates various different types of identity with indigeneity, so that doesn't really help, but I would note that the situation around Wales does get a bit murky given the fluctuation of the borders over the centuries and the huge amounts of migration in both directions. Welsh, the language, declined significantly before experiencing a modern revival since the 1980s. So how does one define Welshness these days? It's pretty tricky. The language alone isn't very useful, any more than for, say, Flemish. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding reflist here.

--^💬KaerbaqianRen 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of the Celts, 224 geneticists now say they immigrated 3,000 years ago: [6] Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Better Wikidata than Wikipedia

I see the need to have this content on Wikipedia but the process of categorizing the relationships and matching groups to citations would be more easily managed and more usefully converted into lists on Wikidata. Regardless, managing this is a massive undertaking considering how difficult it is to find sourcing. There must be encyclopedias which cover many of these peoples, but I expect that the best source to cite for each group is some original authoritative source rather than an encyclopedia overview which applies generally to many cases.

This seems like a Wikidata project first. What an interesting article and project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry You may be right, advice on steps to get started with that? Can that data be queried and formatted into an article?

I'm wringing my hands a bit over this but: one concern I have (looking at current categories of ethnic groups on WD) is that an attempt to compile and simply source all these peoples may unintentionally balloon into something bigger. Perhaps more significantly, do you think the barrier to entry for collaboration on a data set on WD would be higher than just a WP article? Thanks for the input! KaerbaqianRen 💬

@Bluerasberry: While I agree with you, I don't think there is anything special about this list that makes it more Wikidata-suited than others? And probably you already know this, but Wikidata lists are highly controversial on enwiki. Technically there is "no consensus" on their use but if you try to use Wikidata in mainspace you will summon a group of editors who will aggressively try to delete or revert it. I don't think it's worth the risk. – Joe (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and KaerbaqianRen: Joe is right that English Wikipedia has a blanket prohibition on Wikidata lists, but there always can be exceptions, and because this topic deals with 100+ languages requiring expertise in 100+ cultures, this article seems especially suited for management in Wikidata. Managing this in Wikidata would be complicated and unprecedented both in Wikipedia and in Wikidata, but considering the large size and complexity of this challenge, I am suggesting Wikidata collaboration as an option. I am not going to push Wikidata hard in this case for now. My suggestion may be in error and not timely, which has been the case for nearly all past suggestions to use Wikidata to improve Wikipedia.

One of the Wikipedia community's major objections to Wikidata are that when we edit content there, then quality control happens in Wikidata rather than Wikipedia, but in the case of this article, we already lack citations so quality control is hardly happening anyway so that criticism is not strong here. Also, since Wikidata is multilingual, I think that this is one of the odd cases where the Wikidata community's crowdsourced quality control will be better than English Wikipedia's, considering that sourcing is likely to be diverse.

To show that Wikidata already has some insight to offer here, check these two Wikidata queries showing what information Wikidata already has about this topic. These could be called "data models".

ethnic groups

indigenous people

Just guessing based on this data - I think Wikidata is cataloging 3-5000 ethnic groups, and about 3-400 indigenous peoples. If we knew what kind of information we wanted about each group, like for example name, place of origin, and higher level categorization, then Wikidata already has some content there to manage this. A drawback is again that Wikidata mostly does not have citations for this, or that it cites databases like Freebase (database) which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source. Freebase probably is reliable for confirming the existence of an indigenous group and certain related data, though, although we would need to discuss it further because by being a database it by default fails so many conventional Wikipedia fact checking criteria. There are lots of open issues here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Melanesia and Polynesia

I have removed the Melanesia section and many of the ethnic groups under the Polynesia section. The groups I have removed do not fit the definition of indigenous given in this article as they are the majority population in the islands which they live (e.g. Fiji, Tonga, etc). --Spekkios (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you attempt to find any potential sources for the listed groups you've removed? Because whether or not a group is indigenous and thus appropriate for this group isn't based our evaluations of those groups, as WP editors, but instead based upon whether or not Reliable Sources characterize them as such. And while this article's descriptive text does note that indigenous groups often have their lands colonized by "larger ethnic groups" and are often minorities, this is not a prerequisite for them to be indigenous. So removing groups merely because you know them to be a majority on their indigenous lands is inappropriate. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The groups that I remove have no sources stating they are indigenous, and the definition used by the FAQ above states that which applies to those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of. The ethnic groups I removed are the majority ethnic identity of the state they are a part of, and therefore do not meet the criteria of indigenous that is being used per the FAQ. --Spekkios (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, which is why it's unsurprising this FAQ refers to a non-existent supposed legal definition provided jointly by the UN and other international intergovernmental agencies. This UN document makes clear (PDF), there is no such official definition for UN and related bodies (including UNESCO). Insofar as they do acknowledge a sense of a definition, it makes no mention of "majority" or "minority," but rather "dominant" groups/identities. I will also note, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (in webpage format at this address) does not contain any definition of "indigenous" at all.

I can find no official definition for "indigenous" from the WTO. The ILO definition (PDF, p.2) makes no mention of being a "minority" as a prerequisite for indigeneity.

At any rate, a Talk page FAQ is not a reliable source. I see more reason to change this FAQ answer than I see to remove indigenous groups from the page simply because they outnumber others on their indigenous lands. Numbers say nothing about which groups are "dominant."

-- Pinchme123 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: I'm "being bold" and removing this FAQ. It was added back in 2012 (and I can't tell if it was actually added as the result of consensus or not). I think there is an RFC in the future of this page regarding the "definition". Like you say, it's attempt to cite the UN is incorrect in that the UN does not use the term "minority", but the term "non-dominant".

Looking back at the archive, the prior criteria for inclusion in this list was accidentally removed by an archive bot sometime around 2012. That criteria was used from 2005 and is more inclusive in its definition. KaerbaqianRen^💬 23:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and I was not using it as one. I was pointing out that the inclusion of the removed ethnic groups runs counter to the stated requirement for inclusion on the list as per the FAQ, which outlines the inclusion criteria that this page uses. If the criteria needs to be changed then so be it.

Regardless, all the removed ethnic groups are both dominant and majority groups. None cite sources for their inclusion. --Spekkios (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There are indeed currently no sources for these listed groups, which needs to be rectified. Given however your certainty now that the groups are "dominant" in their indigenous locales, would you mind offering up sources to support these assertions? That would make their removal all the easier. In the mean-time, I've added them to the list of (currently-excluded) African Great Lakes groups for which I'll be finding sources, once I can start devoting more time. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing content provided in this list without at least attempting to verify the information presented within does not actually improve the quality of the list. This position is supported by the guidelines provided in WP:UNSOURCED:

Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed [...] depends on the material and the overall state of the article. [...] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself [...]

This material is 100% verifiable. Not to mention, Samoan indigenous land of American Samoa is part of the United States, which even under the FAQ you cited, would make them eligible for inclusion in this list.

And per WP:PRESERVE:

Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary.

Removing content that is clearly identified as uncited, serves no purpose here and is not constructive at all. KaerbaqianRen^💬 00:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Polynesia:

Tonga: CIA World Factbook states an estimated 98% of the Tongan population is ethnically Tongan. Tonga is a independent constitutional monarchy not in personal union and has an independent government.

Nuie: Approximately 80% with Nuiean ancestry, 78% Nuiean-speaking, independent government freely associating with New Zealand.

French Polynesia which includes Tahitians, Tuamotus, Austral, Marquesas Islands: 80% Polynesian, separate elected government dominated by Polynesian members.

Wallis and Futuna:Similar to French Polynesia, including government.

Cook Islands: Over 80% Cook Island Maori, independent government freely associating with New Zealand..

Tokelau: 75% Tokelauan ancestry, separate governing structure dominated by Tokelauan's.

Easter Islands: 60%+ with native ancestry, dominating the islands [7][8].

Tuvalu: Independent country with over 85% of it's people Tuvaluan.

Samoa: Independent State of Samoa is 96% Samoan, American Samoa is 89% Samoan. Despite being an American territory, American Samoa has it's own government, including legislative assembly dominated by Samoans. This makes it ineligible as the state (being American Samoa) is clearly dominated by Samoans, as is the entire Samoan islands.

Melanesia:

For Papua New Guinea including Baining, information on the ethnic groups is hard to find, as there are so many. However, the vast majority are native to the island. Unless the ethnic group exists in Indonesian Papua it needs to be removed as the native ethnic groups dominate PNG.

Vanuatu: Entire population almost exclusively Vanuatuan. Independent Republic.

Malaita and Kanak are part of New Caledonia, which has it's own government. Each dominates it's respective historic territory.

Fiji: Independent state, 57% Melanesian-Fijian, 37% Indo-Fijian [9].

Except for the case of Indonesian Papua the above shows that for each ethnic group dominates the area that they live, including political and government areas. --Spekkios (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've checked the first ten sources linked. Not one of them has a discussion of dominance. I also checked the Samoa section links, which do discuss the subject. Aside from the Samoa example, this is a long list of majority-minority determinations, which is not the same thing as dominance determinations. With respect to the Samoa example, it's probably important that the UN doesn't consider American Samoa to be a self-governing territory, which would through cold water on the argument that Samoans "dominate" their entire territory. So does the fact that their entire island used to be entirely colonized by Europeans. I'm not sure us WP editors are in a position to determine whether or not the indigenous label applies; instead, we should be trying to determine if experts have decided whether or not the indigenous label applies. If we notice the label applied to groups that don't appear to fall under whatever definition this page has, we can provide an explanation about why those groups are apparently labeled indigenous by experts anyway. --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a country like Tonga, which is independent and majority-Tongan, is not also Tongan-dominant. What are you defining as dominance? I also wouldn't put much weight into the UN list of non-self govening territories given it includes areas which are self-governing, such as the Falklands, Saint Helena, Tokelau, Bermuda, etc. --Spekkios (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This paper, written by an adjunct professor and a professor of anthropology, however, does quite clearly include (as part of its underlying assumptions) a large number of peoples of Oceania under the umbrella of the term "indigenous". Again, moving beyond this whole "dominance" thing, aren't most Polynesians/Melanesians, etc. basically either the first settlers or close enough to it (iron age migration etc.) that it makes no difference. And don't they also tend to be fairly culturally distinctive? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: In the context, we are not talking dominance in legalistic or bureaucratic terms, but (as @Spekkios was illustrating) being a dominant population (/maybe cultural) group. Dominant is a descriptor, not a technical term, and making up 70-80% of the population is clearly dominant. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: I agree some examples will definitely need notes! Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Collected Definitions of "Indigenous Peoples", for Reference

This document (archive) from the UN provides a good overview of the history of attempting to define "indigenous". The Martineze Cobo Definition

One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of “indigenous” was outlined in the José R. Martínez Cobo’s Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. [...] Martínez Cobo offered a working definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”. In doing so, he expressed a number of basic ideas forming the intellectual framework for this effort, including the right of indigenous peoples themselves to define what and who indigenous peoples are. The working definition reads as follows:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, 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 on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them

b. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands

c. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)

d. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)

e. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world

f. Other relevant factors. On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group). This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference.7

7 Martínez Cobo (1986/7), paras. 379-382.

[...]

In conclusion, in the case of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition of the term is necessary, given that a single definition will inevitably be either over- or underinclusive, making sense in some societies but not in others. For practical purposes, the commonly accepted

understanding of the term is that provided in the Martínez Cobo study mentioned above.

ILO Convention No. 169: Source

Article 1

1. This Convention applies to: (a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations; (b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.

The Report of the Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, excerpt from previously-linked UN doc.

It is sometimes argued that all Africans are indigenous to Africa and that by separating Africans into indigenous

and non-indigenous groups, separate classes of citizens are being created with different rights. The same argument is made in many parts of Asia or, alternatively, that there can be no indigenous peoples within a given country since there has been no large-scale Western settler colonialism and therefore there can be no distinction between the original inhabitants and newcomers. [...] Nevertheless, indigenous identity is not exclusively determined by European colonization.

The Report of the Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights therefore emphasizes that the concept of indigenous must be understood in a wider context than only the colonial experience[:]

The focus should be on more recent approaches focusing on self-definition as indigenous and distinctly different from other groups within a state; on a special attachment to and use of their traditional land whereby ancestral land and territory has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples; on an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination because these peoples have

different cultures, ways of life or modes of production than the national hegemonic and dominant model.

• I would not say that the ILO is a good source for this, as it is narrowly focused as an organisation on labour standards. The main reason the ILO has a policy position on this is in order to provide exemptions from child labour protections in order to allow traditional societies to define their own development priorities, which is a clear agenda and possible conflict of interest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)