Talk:List of indigenous peoples
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of indigenous peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.|
|WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The article List of indigenous peoples, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from three arbitration cases (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO). The current restrictions are:
|edit||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Content of archives
Please discuss all topics from archives on current talk page.
- 2 Current listing
- 3 Sorbs (Wends) do not identify themselves as an "indigenous people"
- 4 What should be listed under "Circumpolar North"
- 5 Are Copts considered a people
- 6 Are the Jews an indigenous people? also Talk:List of indigenous peoples/Comments
- 7 No more Ainu on Sakhalin island
- 8 Indigenous Finns?
- 9 Tongans: A problematic inclusion
- 10 Removal of two sub-lists
- 11 Palestinians are indigenous
- 1 Request for Comment Palestinian indigeneity
- 1 Bedouins vs. Palestinian Beouin
- 2 Bedouins
- 3 Jews - Martinez Cobo
- 4 Inclusion criteria for Southern Africa
- 5 East Africa
- 6 Terms of reference
- 7 Zambonji
- 8 Breakdown
- 9 Amero-Liberians
- 10 Proposal for inclusion
- 10 Table format proposal
- 11 Samaritans, Jews, Druze, Maronite Christians, Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Arabs, Bedouin.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
- 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)