Jump to content

Talk:List of Indigenous peoples/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Clean up

The AfD resulted in "no consensus", but many participants at the AfD called for changes in this list article. As a first step, I believe that we should, in line with WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:No original research, restrict this list to peoples that are labelled "indigenous" in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 13:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Austronesier: and Joe Roe's proposal to stubify the list. I think changing the definition in the lead to match the Indigenous peoples article would be better, as that definition is far less ambiguous. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Indented above comment. 16:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
The definition in the first sentence of the article "Indigenous peoples" is sourced to, but does not closely follow, Merriam-Webster, which states "[O]f or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now dominant group." Some other definitions on the Internet include:
  • "[R]elating to or being a people who are the original, earliest known inhabitants of region, or are their descendants."Dictionary.com
  • "[U]sed to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from someplace else."Cambridge Dictionary
  • "[P]eople or things belonging to the country in which they are found, rather than coming there or being brought there from another country,"Collins Disctionary
  • "([O]f people and their culture) coming from a particular place and having lived there for a long time before other people came there."Oxford Learner's Dictionary
One thing I notice is that none of these sources use the term "ethnic groups". Also note that Merriam-Webster is the only source listed above that refers to colonization. Given how broad the dictionary definitions of "indigenous" are, I still think we ought to refer to reliable sources to determine whether a group is "indigenous". - Donald Albury 19:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Donald Albury, I personally disagree with the idea of scrapping everything that is unreferenced. This list is substantial and it could constitute a valuable resource for people doing their own research on the topic (resource--not reference). I've already labelled each section (or line) applicably with templates/disclaimers that these claims are uncited, so at least now the average user will be aware that this information is dubious...
Each of these do need to be evaluated though; I bet there are a lot of valid sources already in many of the linked ethnicities. Perhaps a first step is to reach out to editors via the linked articles' talk pages, as well as reaching out to applicable WikiProjects for each general section.
Also, I agree: stubify. 16:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
Sidenote: Perhaps the best way to raise awareness and urgency about this article is to push for deletion. 16:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
I'll say again, if we cannot find reliable sources that support classifying a people as "indigenous", it should not be in this list. I personally do not plan to immediately start removing peoples from this list, but it eventually needs to be done. - Donald Albury 19:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is the only logical way to even begin culling entries. The note about the absence of terms relating to ethnicity in the standing definitions is highly pertinent, because, as it stands, most of the article reads just like a list of ethnic groups. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
We are in agreement then. 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
  • I've purged many of the African entries, except ones where an "indigenous" label is reasonable (i.e. San, Hadza, Pygmies, Berbers). Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    Hemiauchenia - Respectfully, on what basis? What determines "reasonable"?
    See the following publications by IWGIA:

    The question of aboriginality or of ‘who came first’ is not a significant characteristic by which to identify indigenous peoples in itself. Limiting the term ‘indigenous peoples’ to those local peoples still subject to the political domination of the descendants of colonial settlers makes it very difficult to meaningfully employ the concept in Africa. Moreover, domi- nation and colonisation have not exclusively been practised by white set- tlers and colonialists. In Africa, dominant groups have also repressed marginalized groups since independence, and it is this sort of present- day internal repression within African states that the contemporary Afri- can indigenous movement seeks to address.

    Rather than aboriginality, the principle of self-identification is a key criterion for identifying indigenous peoples. This principle requires that peoples identify themselves as indigenous, and as distinctly different from other groups within the state. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of the principle of self-identification among organisations working on indigenous issues, including the ACHPR, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), other UN agencies and indigenous peoples’ own organisations.

    To clarify, do these groups you've removed identify as indigenous? 20:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
I don't see how ethnic groups like the Oromo people, Amhara people, Maasai people or Somali people, could reasonably be considered indigenous, in any sense of the word. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, these articles you linked all have references regarding to the indigeneity of these peoples. Per my above quote, how do the people themselves identify? So, do you have a source for them not being so? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, I just want the evidence. 21:17, December 29 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
Because if we are including ethnic groups like the Oromo, who are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, then what this list actually is, is List of contemporary ethnic groups and not "list of indigenous peoples". Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think being a minority is a prerequisit for being an "indigenous" people. 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
Then what is? Why not then include all of the European ethnic groupes like Poles, Welsh, Latvians etc, than have been consistently rejected from inclusion from this list? P.S. your signature formatting to always go to the far edge of the screen is extremely annoying, and I'd rather you changed it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It isn't really a question we need to answer. We can only provide evidence from academics, human rights organizations, and the peoples themselves. If there does not appear to be consensus, then the points of contention should be explained. If the WP:WEIGHT against indigeneity in this list is too great, then in that case it shouldn't be included. The decision comes down to evidence and discussion.21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, self-identification being a basis of indigeneity is supported by the UN, see: this document accessed from Addressing Global Challenges with Indigenous Knowledge22:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Quoting the document above, I think the following is a valuable litmus test:

[We have] developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their
member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities.

23:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
I think we need to keep the definition simple. The U.N. definition sounds like something created by a large committee. I am also concerned that some editors might try to include a group based primarily on "self-identification". - Donald Albury 23:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand the desire to distill this into a few short sentences, but I think it would be misleading to do so. These issues can be approached on a case-by-case basis and with discussion on the talk page. Entries to the list requiring nuance can include disclaimers. One key point in the above guideline, "Distinct social, economic or political systems", easily disqualifies many peoples who might try take advantage of "self-identification".
For example, the Polish, based on my limited knowledge:
  • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. - I don't believe the average Pole considers being indigenous as part of their identity.
  • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies - I would argue no, considering Slavs migrated to Central Europe from the border of Europe/Asia.
  • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources - See above; modern Polish society is not center nature in their culture.
  • Distinct social, economic or political systems - Today, not very different from other western societies.
  • Distinct language, culture and beliefs - Distinct language, but largely mainstream Catholic beliefs.
  • Form non-dominant groups of society - No.
  • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. - Regarding "ancestral environments and systems", no. Acting as a distinctive people, likely.
Regardless, your concerns are valid, I just think the potential for abuse can be managed by the community. Obviously, this discussion needs more involvement and is not going to be concluded in the near future...
Sidenote: I went ahead and just cut the lead of this article by transcluding the lead from Indigenous peoples. I think this saves the effort of going back and forth on how to handle it. If you disagree, we can always revert/discuss.00:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬

Looking at the lead, I'm uncomfortable with how the definition of "indigenous people" is cited, when the first source cited speaks of "the imprecision of the category and the expanding array of the groups involved in the 'indigenous peoples movement'" rather than defining "indigenous people", and other cites to various international organization define terms such as "indigenous and tribal peoples" and "Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities." I propose that the first paragraph of the lead be changed to read: "Indigenous peoples are groups that were the original or earliest known inhabitants of a territory, often in contrast to other peoples who have subsequently moved into that territory," cited to one or more of the dictionaries I listed above. - Donald Albury 21:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best course of action would be to provide a holistic view of the definition, i.e., "The term indigenous has various interpretations, according to some sources, it means one thing, while according to others it means another. This organization says it means this. In contrast, this other organization says something different." Later in the article, "This specific group identifies as indigenous, however, some people disagree. Here is a sentence on each of their points: etc.".21:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen💬
Dictionaries are a poor source for complex topics because their purpose is to give a concise and broad definition. I think it's inappropriate to rely on these when their is a whole body of scholarship discussing the meaning of Indigeneity as being nuanced and context-specific. But, honestly, this definition issue is a dead end. We are not going to come up with the concrete definition of the term that has eluded everyone else here on this talk page. More importantly, readers are not looking for that in an article called "list of indigenous peoples". They want a list of indigenous peoples, and to produce that we only need to look at which groups reliable sources commonly call "indigenous peoples". – Joe (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Maasai

To bring the Maasai back up, is an entire book titled Being Maasai Becoming Indigenous, which is solely dedicated to explaining the complexity of Maasai indigeneity, enough? [link to book publisher page]. Written by anthropologist Dorothy Hodgson. Or how about one from a Kenyan Maasai and scholar, Indigenous Elites in Africa, discussing indigenous Maasai who rise to elite status in various aspects of Kenyan life (such as politics, religion, finance, etc.)? [link to book publisher page]. Written by anthropologist Serah Shani. Others include Ngorongoro voices: indigenous Maasai residents of the Ngorongoro conservation area in Tanzania give their views on the proposed general management plan by Charles Lane [WorldCat entry], and a passing mention of "The indigenous Maasai" (p.29) in Barbara Ibrahim and Fouad, N. Ibrahim's "Pastoralists in Transition - A Case Study from Lengijape, Maasai Steppe" [JSTOR link]. Should I find any more of the numerous, numerous scholarly sources referring to Maasai as "indigenous"?

I'd also like to note that the UN thought to partner with Maasai communities in Kenya as the inaugural beneficiaries of their intellectual property pilot program, which "is aimed to empower indigenous communities to manage their intellectual property in a way that corresponds with their development goals" [link to news announcement].

My broader comment would be that removing groups because of inklings that they don't belong is premature and a net harm to this page. I would suspect many of the African "ethnic groups" removed are likely well-established as indigenous in the academic literature, much like I think these sources show the Maasai to be. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: I'm sorry to wikilawyer about it, but if you don't want something to be removed, then you have to provide a source that verifies its inclusion, like you have done here for the Maasai. I don't think "premature" is the right word when this list has been an unsourced mess for over a decade and incremental improvements have done nothing to improve the situation. – Joe (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Well, given that the list of removals in question was explained here at talk as them all being not "reasonable" to be included here, and Maasai was removed in that specific edit, this immediately calls into question the reliability of the reasonability evaluation made. I mean, the Maasai are quite possibly the most famous indigenous ethnicity in the Africa Great Lakes region. I think their inclusion in such a removal calls into question the decision to remove the others as well.
Of course I'm well aware that such a line of thinking isn't enough to revert, which is why I only reinstated "Maasai". In the coming weeks, when I can devote the proper time, I will go back through the list of groups removed from Africa Great Lakes and restore those for whom I can find more than two RS to support their inclusion in this article.
If I had been active on this page at any point before joining this Talk, or even knew of its existence before it was mentioned at the anthro WikiProject, I would have already added the aforementioned sourcing.
-- Pinchme123 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe and Pinchme123: Joe, you are right, burden of proof lies on the restorer. But I think the removal of the content in the first place was a mistake: we could easily scrap 99% of the article if we are going to remove anything/everything that is unsourced. The value of this list, is that it provides a foundation for identifying and evaluating each of these groups.
It may be unconventional, but (in my opinion) 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 at least partially supported by the guidelines given 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 [...]

And 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.

On the other hand, maybe this list in its current state would be better suited to a "draft" subpage. I obviously haven't been editing for a while, so I yield to your experience. KaerbaqianRen💬 18:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now restored probably 30% of the groups removed in the single edit from the end of December, which were removed because they supposedly "can't be considered indigenous". All have been re-added with academic sources where the group is at the very least discussed in the context of being indigenous. --Pinchme123 (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Addendum: my update wasn't very articulate. What I'm saying is, I'm willing to bet good money that a whole lot of the entries on this list are verifiable. Hopefully editors are willing to take the little bit of time to just look for a source or two that treats the given group as indigenous, before deleting. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Chiming in after the fact, but I think this is a good idea and better reflects current conventions in English. – Joe (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Where are the sources to support your claim that we should capitalise "Indigenous" when referring to ethnic groups? A quick Google shows that the lower case indigenous peoples is still the dominant usage on the Internet. 2001:8003:9008:1301:C403:2CA0:A224:B115 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
To exemplify just how widespread the convention of capitalizing "Indigenous" is, here is the prominent anthropological website Sapiens, the Chicago Manual of Style, the Associated Press, and the government of British Columbia, all specifically stating that they capitalize "Indigenous" when in any sense referencing Indigenous peoples. --Pinchme123 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dominant populations as potentially indigenous

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

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

Discussion: Editor Scope, Inclusion Criteria, and Definitions

@Iskandar323: Your points regarding experts and citations are essential. We are getting sidetracked with "defining" indigeneity which is not in our scope as editors. Additionally, non-dominance is only one part of the criteria in the UN definition; the UN itself explains that the definition is a "working definition" and fluid.
In respect to this, I think what needs to be done here is to apply a generally inclusive, multi-dimensional approach. Open to discussion:
  1. We can only cite information. We cannot draw conclusions. It is not in our scope nor within our ability to define or identify indigenous peoples.
  2. If a reliable source claims indigeneity of a group, then it should be cited and included in this list.
  3. A reliable source in this case would be (not limited to):
    1. The people themselves
    2. An organization representing those people
    3. Various indigenous rights organizations, humanitarian organizations, NGOs, etc.
    4. A third-party academic and establishment of general consensus in the academic community
    5. Some formal recognition (government or otherwise)
  4. In the absence of all the above, application of the definitions provided by the UN, ILO, etc. (Are there other notable definitions?) There is no one definition of indigenous, so the best we can do is collect all definitions by reputable organizations.
This is in line with and an expansion of the previous guidelines provided, which were erroneously removed by a bot in December 2012:

Inclusion criteria

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

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

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

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

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

:Source: archive link

KaerbaqianRen💬 17:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I generally agree with this, with the proviso that we need to be cautious about groups claiming to be indigenous that are unable to present evidence of meaningful continuity from an indigenous people, such as many of the organizations listed in List of unrecognized tribes in the United States. - Donald Albury 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. The sources we should be most wary of are those defining themselves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    I understand your concern and feel the same. I am unsure how to weight self-determination in regards to credibility. You can see this being a bit of an issue with any number of groups attempting to claim indigeneity in the archives. At the same time, we can keep this list generally inclusive while addressing any issues on the talk page as has done before--unless you all can think of a different method. KaerbaqianRen💬 18:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well, if we stick as closely as possible to reliable, secondary and ideally scholarly sources, and ideally, wherever possible, to clear subject-matter experts, that should keep bogus claims to a minimum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    (ec) I share the same concern, which is pushing me toward supporting taking the pre-2012 language and adapting from there. While in my professional, non WP-editor life, I'm 100% on board with indigenous self-identification, I recognize that this approach probably wouldn't stand up to WP's editing policies and procedures. The pre-2012 language makes it clear, we include groups which have first and foremost been reported by reliable sources to be indigenous. Then there's an explanatory list of the generally-considered reasons that reliable sources might report a group as indigenous, which could include self-identification. This keeps WP editors out of the business of evaluating statements - determining whether or not the statement speaks for the group, whether or not it's accurate, etc. - and falls in line with what WP editors do best: rely on the expertise of reliable sources. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Which national variety of English?

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

Prior to the edit that prompted me to take a closer look, the count was 7 American words ("colonized", "recognized" twice, "colonization", "centered", "caribbeanization", "capitalization") to 2 British ("recognised" and "criticised") by my count. These counts exclude all wikilinked words, though I would note that all the wikilinked words are the American versions (e.g. versions of -ization). I'd also note that I missed a "practices". So I think it's 8 to 2, not including the wikilinks. Here's the prior version I was looking at: [1]. I'd also note, the creator of this page used one word that would signal the regional preference in that first edit: "recognized". --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
OK. I have reverted myself. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Donald Albury 01:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Indigenous_peoples/Archive_8&oldid=1239393621"