Talk:Indigenous peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

Debate over terminology[edit]

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as well as how the proper terminology has changed for indigenous people with some terms later being viewed as racist, outdated/archaic, etc.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

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

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

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

Māori[edit]

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

Greenland[edit]

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

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

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