Talk:Uncontacted peoples

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

Pasted text from main article[edit]

A block of text from the Jarawa page is pasted here:

Jarawa Concerns: Change in food habits and introduction of addictives such as tobacco and alocohol Intrusion of poachers into Jarawa Reserve for removing natural resources like wild pig, fish, crab, wood and honey. These intrusions often result in violent encounters. Ongoing sexual exploitation of Jarawa women. In one case, a Jarawa woman was raped inside the GB Pant Hospital, Port Blair. In another case Jarawa woman was raped by two tribal welfare male staff.

This text is not sourced, and reads like a poorly built and poorly formatted bulleted list. Does it belong in the article? Does it belong in the linked article (3 times)? (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How should be the outside referred to?[edit]

(The 'outside' for the secluded people[? Is outside discrimative? By beeing not able to be outside, without beeing with the 'outsiders'?]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Last "uncontacted Native American in USA over 80 years ago? Pointless[edit]

You've to name some countries everywhere in a way or in another....:( There are many more "uncontacted" tribes with size much larger than a single member, if the threshold to be "uncontacted" in modern age goes back to 1920s.......this would include almost surely some tribes in Ethiopia (eg Mursiland). Please don't Americentrize even something that is inherently unrelated —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is correct, so I deleted that part. I couldn't edit external reference 9, I don't know why, so if anyone can do it, please proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone reverted this, I would like to know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)



The information was out of date, and wrong because it was the Lacandón people of southern Mexico who were last to be contacted, Changed today.2602:304:AF2A:1219:211F:8401:F3B5:CDA (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ..... I made the above edit to the article and talk - for some weird reason I couldn't log in until now. Twistlethrop (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture references[edit]

Cannibal Holocaust & Apocalypto, as well as the documentary; First Contact which actually shows the interactions between the Australian prospectors and the uncontacted people all cover this subject quite specifically. Of course, Apocalypto only covers it briefly and I've seen it mentioned that ~100 years is about the expiry date for relevance for this topic, but I thought I'd drop it in for good measure. Perhaps someone could find one of the sources covering the change in attitudes towards uncontacted people in pop culture, something that Cannibal Holocaust dealt with fairly directly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talkcontribs) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New tribe found in Brazil[edit]

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


In the Vietnam section:

Since then, the government has made many attempts to relocate and settle them.[3] Very few attempts, however, have been made.

I don't know which sentence is correct, but clearly they can't both be. Fishvodka (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Survival International only main source?[edit]

Most of the material claims and statements in this article come exclusively from Survival International who has a less than impeccable reputation. We need to seek out additional sources that aren't just attributed to Survival international. (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed. Many statistics on this article come from Survival International, but I can't find sources for their claims on their website. They only seem to have videos on the website to back up their claims, and these videos provide no statistic information. Before their statistic claims are confirmed, I think we should remove some claims presented as facts from this article, or at least make it clear that they may be inaccurate. This article distributes information that may be not true. Thoughts? I'll try to find some more sources. VCrane (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Link does not work anymore (Vietnam section)[edit]

In the Vietnam section: the url does not work anymore, I suggest the following: "" Zavphi (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


According to the report of Vincent Brackelair there aren´t, strictly speaking, any uncontacted peoples in Venezuela anymore. The Yanomami have already had first hand contact with other groups. Here is the link for the report: --Rivet138 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why "uncontacted"?[edit]

Isn't it exactly their problem that they were contacted? With all the well known consequences? They are isolated but not uncontacted. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncontacted because no efforts in language and trade has been made. Contact them is very dangerous as they feel threatened and reacts aggressively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why "India"?[edit]

Adding entire India to "uncontacted" is not useful. KartikMistry (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Uncontacted peoples.svg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Uncontacted peoples.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


Researcher Nicolás Flores was assassinated by Mascho-Piro with an arrow. The Manú Park is now closed because him (and others) leaved gifts in the park such as food and clothes. Probably the industrialized food intoxicated someone and they decided to kill him.

FUNAI is predicting a conflict "never saw in 500 years" between three tribes wich one is imigrating from Peru to Amazon/Acre (state of Brazil). People should avoid Envira region because is been disputed by the tribes, everyone who trepass this region is in extremely danger by ranger/arrow attacks.

People or peoples?[edit]

There is a discrepancy in this article between the title ("Peoples", which unneccesarily adds an "s" to a word that is already a plural), and the body of the article (correctly using "people" as a collective noun).

In the interests of consistency, I propose that the title of the article be re-named "Uncontacted People".

Yes, yes, I know that some aid agencies / politically correct folks like to add an "s" to "people" on occassion, but they do all tend to belong to one particular part of the political spectrum. This is not regular English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly regular English, And no, people is not already plural, it is singular.
The problem is that the word "people" has undergone a transition in meaning in the past century or so. 100 years "people" had just one meaning: ethnic group. Hence "We, the people" in the US constitution, meaning "We, the US ethic group". If one wished to refer to more than one ethnic group, one referred to "peoples", such as "The peoples of the New World", meaning "The amalgamated ethnic groups of the New World". If one wished to refer to a group of individuals without reference to their ethnicity, one used the word "persons" or "men". At some point the distinction between "people" and "persons" became vague, and today most individuals use "people" as a perfect synonym for "persons. However the old usage still remains perfectly correct: people still means "ethnic group" and "peoples" still means "ethnic groups".
This is an article about uncontacted ethnic groups. It is not about uncontacted individuals. It is not about a single uncontacted ethnic group. The only correct title for such an article using regular English is "Uncontacted peoples". Any other phrasing would be incorrect using standard English.
I have no idea where you get the idea that "peoples" is aligned ot any political group. It is standard, regular English, universal in the English speaking world. Might I suggest consulting a dictionary?Mark Marathon (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

South America section - list tribes in tables or text, but not both[edit]

This section is confusing. The tribes listed in the paragraphs of text do not match the tribes listed in the tables. Lists of regions where uncontacted tribes can be found are unnecessary, since the tables also include a column for location. Suggest using tables to list the tribes and the text to describe other facts relevant to the region. Tripleblade (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Just a thought, how come is there no section about African uncontacted people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:62A:4:427:889:20D3:918D:708B (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking much the same thing when reading this. Is it due to the lack of centralised governments that keep registers of tribes/peoples? My parents recently lived in Lesotho where I heard anecdotes of some tribes not being located until the 1960's due to the mountainous terrain in the country. This is definitely worth looking into! (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)J_alba

Article in Smithsonian[edit]

There is an article in the March, 2013 edition of Smithsonian magazine that mentions several recently discovered peoples who are not named in this article. Does this article need to be updated? Additional articles written? If so, I am not the person to do this, but wanted to call attention to the possibility, since I would love to read those future articles. This is a fascinating subject. (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Since this magazine is probably a reliable source, information from it can be added to articles; you can do this yourself. Please sign your entries here using four tildes. David Spector (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


What about Europe? And Africa. They should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't europe be for the Siberian peoples, which are more asian? although I could be wrong, I don't know much about it but I would be interested to find out about those two regions — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several ethnic groups in Siberia. And yes, some of them (though not all) are of Asiatic origin. All of them, while not necessarily integrated into the wider global culture, are in full contact. The same with Africa. So far as I know, there are no peoples who meet the criteria for inclusion in this article in either region. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"The same with Africa." If that's the case, shouldn't the reference to central Africa be removed from the introduction. Hazpotts (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad link to "Ruc People"[edit]

The link to "Ruc People" redirects to "Chut People", a page with no information on the Ruc... (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Levels of endogamy and indirect contact/contact with neighbors[edit]

It would be interesting to have something related with estimates of levels of endogamy. Some of the population estimates are extremely low, I'd guess it means they probably exchange people with neighboring tribes, "less uncontacted".

Were there instances already of ermit-like isolationists actually culturally forgetting they were once a branch of an European/other population, along with other aspects of their own history? I've heard once that in Brazil there's a village of people who think they're Catholics, but they're actually Jewish people who were once running from anti-semitism and tried to pretend they're Catholics in order to do so, but they kept Jewish rituals and so on, while at the same time they eventually forgot and came to thought they were really Catholics. They're "uncontacted" in an Amish-type of level, which is probably technically out of the definition of this article, but I was wondering if there were something more extreme than that in some localities. Unfortunately I have no other recollection about them, except that they're somewhere in the North or Northeast region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

More about them, possibly conflicting somewhat with the description I gave priviously: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)