Talk:Indigenous peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why does this article only include "minority" ethnic groups?
A: Because we apply the definition of "indigenous peoples" used by international legislation by UN, UNESCO, ILO and WTO, 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.

Q: Why does this article not include European ethno-national groups such as Irish, French, Georgian etc. They are also indigenous to their countries.
A: Yes they are indigenous to their countries and territories but they are not indigenous peoples under the definition used by international legislation described above. The reason this definition is useful is that under a broader definition of "indigenous" simply as "native to a territory", the definition would include all peoples and ethnic groups, because all groups are indigenous to somewhere. The article would then the same scope as an article on the ethnic groups of the world and it would be redundant as a separate article. Furthermore literature on indigenous peoples always apply a definition similar to the one used in international legislation, exactly because otherwise it would simply be an article about human political, cultural and migrational history - that is another topic. This is the RfC where the inclusion criteria were decided by broad consensus

This is not an article on "indigenous people"[edit]

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)

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)

Fake source[edit]

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 " - 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[edit]

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)

How come?[edit]

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. (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)
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. (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. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Indigenous White People in Europe[edit]

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 (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)