Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bad Citations

This page contains many bad citations. For example, the following definition of "indigenous" is attributed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: "politically underprivileged group, who share a similar ethnic identity different to the nation in power, and who have been an ethnic entity in the locality before the present ruling nation took over power". This phrase does not appear in the Declaration, nor does any other definition of "indigenous", however the Declaration is the only source cited in the 'Definition' section of the page. Most of the references to the Declaration on this page make no sense, it looks like somebody just cited it out of laziness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.197.72 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle East section

The Middle East section links to "Arab Tribes" as the main article, and speaks almost exclusively about Arabs. This is highly misleading and, in large part, downright false. The Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula -- which would be a more appropriate title for the section in question. The indigenous peoples of the Middle East, meaning, the Fertile Crescent and perhaps North Africa, include Assyrians, Kurds, Copts, Jews, Berbers and others. Arabs being native to Arabia are in fact foreign conquerors who arrived in the Ferticle Crescent and Africa only after the Muslim conquests in the 7th Century.

As far as I know, Berbers are not indigenous to the Middle East.If Egypt, Pakistan or Afghanistan (and Persia/Turkey/Georgia/Armenia) are part of the Middle East is subject to controversy. These are recent and transitory political definitions. Yes, the Middle East has a number of indigenous people, icluding Caanites, but please remember that even the Arab tribes are partly of fertile crecent origin Adnani Arabs and even the Qahtani Arabs originated at one point from the north.Kurds and other Iranians are not indigenous to the regions as they moved into the region in historic times from Central Asia and Khorasan. Same is true for Turks, Turkmens and Circassians. Jews may be indigenous to the region and so are Assyrians, Samarians, decendants of Phonenicians and Araamic speaking peoples. However, many of these peoples adopted Arab culture and language and they are city and town/village dwelling people without extand tribal affiliation. You are wrong about Arabs only being present in the fertile crecent after islamic expansion. Ancient (North Arabian) Arab tribes are recorded in Syria, Jordan and Irak from ancient times.Some tribes moved in later, but not all. There also have been christian Arab tribes Ghassanids as well as Jewish (conveted) and Christian Arab tribes in the South as well as the North.Many Syrians and Lebanese trace their origins back to these tribes.Only a fraction of Lebanese are of Phonician origin. But generally speaking, the fertile Crecent has been such a melting pot of Romans, Greeks, Hebrews,, Circassians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians, Akkadidans, Mitanni,sea peoples, Egyptians, Caucasians (region), Mongols, Europeans and recently European Jews (not necessarily Hebrews), that it is difficult to say which group is indigenous since they have also mixed.In addition, the above groups form the ruling industrialized class, while the Beduin tribes who stick to traditional ways are surpressed and often do not participate in the political process of the Levant. Some of the ruling towns people may, or may not have any tribal affiliations, most have lost any of their original cultural diversity and language. (Lebanese, Syrians, Mesopotamians and European Jews). They may have adopted a foreign cultures, lifestyle or political system, or they may have adopted other languages Arabic or even artificial re-created languages such as modern Israeli Hebrew.They are involved with a largely industrial life style and limititing te intertribal cross border relations of the indigenous tribes. This doesn't qualify most fertile crecent inhabitants to be listed as indigineous peoples, same as with town dwelling Arabs without any tribal affiliations. They are not "indigenous peoples" even though they may be native to the region.However, there are few exeptions. Feel free to expand the article if you find one.95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest we amend this section to reflect these realities. --Sstr (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I support your intent. I changed the "Arab tribes" link to a "see also" instead of main article link. There is a bigger problem here, though. It seems that every other part of the world has an extant "Indigenous people of xxx" wikipage but the Middle East does not; this may be why Arab tribes was chosen as a main page.

I am not sure how much use I can be in helping to either sort this out or make a new article or both, but perhaps if you knew of a basic highly reputable online source for content I may help you adapt, cite, and wikify the bones of it for this purpose. Blue Rasberry 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Arabs outside of the Arabian peninsula are populations that adopted the Arabic language, with minimal admixture with Arab DNA. One of the few exceptions to this would be documented mass migrations, i.e. the Banu Hillal in Tunisia. Aside from those, it's fair to say that Arabs are indigenous to wherever they are found in the Middle East, even though the term Arab might be a misnomer from a geneological perspective. MrOakes (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues?

Hi.

I saw this: Indigenous_peoples#Indigenous knowledge and culture

That bit, the way it's written, sounds like an opinion piece (though one I'd agree with to some extent, but that's irrelevant here), rather than a neutral encyclopedia piece.

And the section Indigenous_peoples#Viewpoints on indigenous societies shows the same problem of seeming to give lots more coverage to "non-indigenous" viewpoints that was mentioned 2 years ago (see "Please can we have more balance" above). mike4ty4 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The colour's NOT good

The colour chosen for the text in the template (dark red) is not good, because it looks like the colour of a link leading to a not yet existent page (normal red). I think this confuses people. You can't colour a good link with a shade so close to the colour of a broken link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain revert on Kurds etc.

"One is IRANIC, other one is TURKIC people. Non-Academic references means nothing." I don't understand the relevance of this phrase (in italics), used to justify a revert. Please explain.--Carwil (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, here's the removed text.

The Kurds, native to parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, are indigenous peoples of the region.1,2

1. Hughes, Lotte (2003-04). The no-nonsense guide to indigenous peoples. Verso. pp. 94–95. ISBN 9781859844380. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Ibrahim, Ferhad (2000). The Kurdish conflict in Turkey: obstacles and chances for peace and democracy. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 40. ISBN 9780312236298. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. "Under the existing working definition one could easily identify Basques, Kurds, Abkazians, Bretons, Chechens, Tibetans, Timorese, Puerto Ricans, Northern Irish, Welsh, Tamils, Madan Arabs, or Palestinians as indigenous people." Corntassel, Jeff J. (1995-05). "Indigenous "Sovereignty" and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing "Self-Determination"". Human Rights Quarterly. 17 (2): 348. ISSN 0275-0392. Retrieved 2010-12-16. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Palgrave Macmillan is an academic publisher, by the way. I've added a third, clearly academic reference.--Carwil (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits

I have rewritten the definition which for some reason has degraded from earlier well argued definitions based on sources to a layman dicitonary type definition. I also removed unsourced content of racialist nature, as well as nonsensical and unsourced descriptions of "Norse greenlanders" as indigenous peoples. The article as it was when I found it was a terible POV mess which did not do justice to the topic at all. I expect reversions to a previous version to be well argued and justified by sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Participation in REDD

Many organisations and indiginous groups (ie Kayapo, Huaorani, ...) have cited to be intrested in policing areas for REDD, ie see

• http://www.guilfordian.com/sports/alliance-of-forest-people-discuss-deforestation-1.327158
• http://www.oneworld.nl/lezen/nieuws/geen-bodemschatten-maar-bomen

Also, perhaps these organisations can be mentioned somewhere on the page

• http://www.forestpeoples.org/background/about-forest-peoples-programme
• http://www.international-alliance.org/about_whoweare_eng.htm
• http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/?page_id=206

91.182.193.178 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Inuit versus Eskimo

The latter-day Canadian bias against the term "Eskimo" seems to have gotten into this article. It seems unlikely to me that Brazilians refer only to an Inuk as an "esquimo" and more likely that all Eskimos are called by that name. And the article lists indigenous populations in the US as "Native Americans, Inuit, and other...", even though the US Inuit use "Inupiat" and "Eskimo" (which includes the Yupik) to identify themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Canadian bias against the term 'Eskimo'"? The Inuit people themselves dislike the term. Many people view it as derogatory. They prefer to go by the name they use to refer to themselves in their own language, which is "Inuit". "Eskimo" is a Cree word, with unclear origins and meaning. It makes little sense for English-speaking people to use it in the first place. OttawaAC (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the Inuit people in Alaska - who frequently refer to themselves as Eskimo. Greenlanders also don't use the name though, so its more reasonable to say that there is a US bias in favor of Eskimo. What is important is to recognize that not all speakers of Eskimoan languages like to be called Eskimo, nor do all like to be called Inuit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Caucasus region was never historically part of Europe

Up until the 19th century it was regarded as part of Asia, The Adgye girl is not typical of Europeans, I propose putting a picture of Basques on there instead.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=Map+of+Asia+1815&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=677&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=L5GREsN6JDtYwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.frontispiece.co.uk/site/product.php%3Fid_product%3D438&docid=C4uUUW-IJZjUyM&imgurl=http://www.frontispiece.co.uk/site/img/p/438-499-thickbox.jpg&w=1200&h=800&ei=S6kpT7GiGayP4gTn7pzOAw&zoom=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarletpoet (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgians are indigenous Caucasian people of Kartvelian Family

I've put the photo of Georgians but user reverted it back. Please, do explain yourself here. User:Maunus --Georgianჯორჯაძე 12:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove it again. Being "indigenous" does not just mean "being the first knon inhabitants" if you read the article you will realize that it also has the political meaningof being a cultural minority in a nation state dominatd by other groups. Georgians are a dominat nation within Georgia and are therefore not considered an indigenous people. If you can provide a reliable source describing them as indigenous under the definition used here then we can of cours include them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgians ARE the indigenous people of Caucasus and we have our statehood. Go read about the origins of Georgians HERE --Georgianჯორჯაძე 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read that article. But you apparently neither read hat I just said or what this article says about what it means to be indigenous. Perhaps Laz people should be mentioned as they seem to fit the definition. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand English properly? Do you know what the word Indigenous means? It means - "original inhabitants" of a place. We Georgians are the original inhabitants of entire South Caucasus. And other Georgian-related tribes. And as for Lazs, Laz people are an ethnic subgroup of Georgian nation. It is an ethnographic group of Georgians. There's no such a thing like a distinct Laz people inside Georgia. As for Lazs who were converted to Islam in Turkey they've lost their roots and no longer associate themselves like Georgians, though their language is sister language to Georgian and is related to Georgian language only. You seem that you don't understand this region I guess. We Kartvelians (Georgians) are the original aboriginal nation till this day. Are you telling me that just because we are in majority in our country we are not listed as indigenous? Are you kidding me? Should we supposed to be in minority and after that we will be the indigenous one or what? You make no sense. Put the picture I've put back into the topic. This is not just some nationalistic yelling here or attitude. It's a fact what I am saying. We are the indigenous nation in Caucasus and much of nowaydays countries were not even on earth when we had there our statehood starting from the very antiquity. Go read something and get aware yourself a bit. Put the picture back into the topic. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No. If Georgians were to be included then half of the worlds nationastates would have to be included as well and the article would be meaningless. I have explained the reasoning and I will not insert the picture again and if you insist on including it we will have to seek a third opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Where are you from? Can you please name some of these "half of the worlds nationastates" please that are INDIGENOUS ABORIGIANL peoples? Can you please just name them? I am waiting. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 13:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just get a source that is about Indigenous peoples and include Georgians. Then we'll talk.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I said where are you from. I said go and read Georgians and Georgian History. And put the picture BACK. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for presenting sources. I will check the sources to see what definition of indigenous they use, and if they use the same as this article then of course the picture should stay. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Scope of this article

The phrase "indigenous people" has two meanings. The common sense everyday meaning is for peoples who are the first known inhabitants of a place. The other specialized meaning used by international organizations like UNESCO, ILO, WTO, IWGIA and by disciplines such as sociology and anthropology is about ethnic minorities within nation states of another dominant (often colonial) ethnicity. We should choose what should be the topic of this article because it has implications for the contents - for example if we choose the first common sense definition we should define groups as indigenous that have themselves built nation states on territories to which their ancestors are the first known inhabitants such as Danes, Germans, Swedes, Irish, Georgians, Thai, Burmese, Han Chinese, Tamils, Telugus, Kannadas, Malays. However it would exclude groups that have been known to migrate from one place to another in historic times such as the Cherokee, the Kickapoo of Mexico, the Nahua, and many other groups that fall under the other "ethnic minority" definition. While the first definition is intuitive if we read literally it has unintuitive consequences such as calling Germans indigenous but not Cherokee Indians. The second definition is backed by political organizations and is more well-defined, even if there are competeing wordings of the definition depending on whether one chooses the UNESCO or ILO definition for example. I am clearly in favor of the second definition that excludes national majority groups even if they are considered the original inhabitants of the place, but in the interest of consensus I hope that a discussion here can make a decision. It should be noted that if the "common sense" definition is chosen the page is unlikely to ever attract edits by experts in indigenous peoples as they invariably use the second meaning. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think any native English speaker arguing for the inclusion of Europeans, Han Chinese, etc. in this article must be being deliberately over-literal with the dictionary definition of "indigenous" to make a point. Actually, even the dictionary definition recognises that one is always indigenous relative to some colonisation event. In the overwhelmingly majority of cases the common usage is the big-C Colonisation event; i.e. "indigenous people" are those indigenous to areas of the world colonised by Europeans in the last five hundred years. I wouldn't even say that's a specialised or un-commonsensical usage.

I'm going to assume User:GeorgianJorjadze isn't a native speaker though (forgive me if I'm wrong) so maybe there's just a little lost in translation in this particular case. But it's quite clear that Maunus' second definition is the only one that matches our sources, and the article itself does a good job of explaining the etymology and definition, so I don't see any reason not to stick with it. joe•roe^t•c 22:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like: Indigenous people refers to the original inhabitants of a place and is generally used to refer to a minority population within a larger society. Nobody Ent 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help delimiting the scope of the article - and would result in basically all peoples being includeable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

TO Joey Roe, Nobody Ent: Gentlemen, yes I am not native speaker but I am aware of English well enough to understand what the right wording should mean. You make no sense by saying that JUST because you're not in the minority into YOUR OWN country, you won't be listed as indigenous. This is ridiculous. Should we Georgians become a ethnic minority into OUR OWN country to be listed as indigenous? This is what you're saying? Indigenous means an aboriginal people who were the original and first inhabitants of a place, in this case Georgia's original indigenous people were, are and will be Georgians, those people who created its statehood in very antiquity and before that lived in the territory where are we now located. Georgian tribes were first tribes who ever lived and still live on the Caucasus entirely. And it is unacceptable to not put Georgians into these list. This is not some kind of nationalistic attitude. That's just facts gentlemen. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 09:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep the narrow, internationally recognized definition. The essence of the point Manus is making is that there are two senses of "indigenous" at play here. One stems from the longstanding adjective "indigenous," and the other from five decades of mobilizing, theorizing, and international law writing that distinguish (even counterpose) "indigenous peoples" and dominant state societies. Regardless of whether a some given people fits within both or just one of these definitions, those within second one has a specific, common set of circumstances which are described by this article and are the subject of indigenous rights. So, first answer, these are two separate concepts, and this article should address just one of them.

Second point, the first concept of "indigenous" people, as "Born or engendered in, native to a land or region, especially before an intrusion" (Thanks, Wiktionary), may not need an article since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Moreover, the question of who's indigenous to where? in this sense is far more contentious. I would not recommend starting this article without some good reason to have it in the encyclopedia.

For what it's worth, there is a provisional definition widely cited in the "indigenous people" literature, usually referenced with the proviso that the issue of defining is a complex one. It is from José R. Martínez Cobo's study for the United Nations:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:

a. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them

b. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands

c. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)

d. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language)

e. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world

f. Other relevant factors.

In the Eurasian and African context, the terms colonisation and invasion are not as central to the concept of indigenous peoples. The Report of the Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, for example, suggests:

The focus should be on more recent approaches focusing on self-definition as indigenous and distinctly different from other groups within a state; on a special attachment to and use of their traditional land whereby ancestral land and territory has a fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples; on an experience of subjugation, marginalization, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination because these peoples have different cultures, ways of life or modes of production than the national hegemonic and dominant model.

I present these not as a way for us to decide which group is an indigenous people, which we shouldn't since we need to rely on reliable sources to do that, but rather to give some additional clarity about what the "indigenous people" concept has come to mean.--Carwil (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right a point I didn't make is that "indigenous peoples" is not just the same as "people who are indigenous". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The user above put Georgians out of the topic AGAIN! Georgians are indigenous nation and it needs to be mentioned and the picture should be put in the topic. Put it back and explain yourself, Maunus! --Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever been discussed here why "aboriginal" isn't used? Why is "indigenous" preferred? Wikipedia is using two standards elsewhere based on national government usages: Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Indigenous Australians. I would suggest bypassing a localized usage and make a choice for Wikipedia based on an international definition/usage. Cobo's definition for the United Nations would make an appropriate provisional definition, and I would quote/reference it straight off at the start of the article. Local and national terms and definitions get thorny because they are often attached to legal definitions. Canada has all kinds of laws defining who or what is "native", "aboriginal", "Indian", etc.OttawaAC (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

International legislation generally uses "indigenous" and "aboriginal" is pretty much confined to Canada, and is losing ground in Australia - so yes it is good to stick with international legislations because as you say legal issues get complicated in the national contexts. The Martinez-Cobo definition is only one of the internationally used definitions (others are WTO and ILO), and has been superceded by the later UNESCO declaration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the narrow, internationally recognized definition, of course. This is a non-issue, except to the gentleman from Georgia who doesn't understand how the word is used in modern-day English, and has fallen victim to the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the current version -- explaining and focusing on the specialized meaning, but noting (in the first paragraph and in the definition section) the alternative meaning. JamesMLane t c 07:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the narrow internationally recognised definition, and be clear that this is the sense in which the term is used. There seems to be only one user who can't see that this is the only sensible option. A brief look at his contributions seems to show that GeorgianJorjadze started editing last November and is being prolific in editing Wikipedia's coverage of all things Georgian. Whilst I admire and encourage that, trying to shoehorn Georgia into pages where it really doesn't fit over the reasoned objections of the rest of the community is a waste of time.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep the narrow, internationally recognized definition. Per JamesMLane & Dr. Marcus Hill, clarify the meaning and sense in which the term is used, and make note of the alternative meaning for distinction.--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Put Georgians back into the topic! Georgians are indigenous aboriginal people of Georgia and entire Caucasus!

Put Georgians back into the topic with the picture. And explain yourselves why did you put Georgians out of the topic. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jorjadze - I and three other editors have explained at length why Georgians shouldn't be included. Georgians are not an indigenous people under the international political definition of that term, which is the one we use in this article. You need to provide new arguments and new sources in order for this discussion to continue. There is no point in simply continuing to demand explanations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTing will not get you anywhere. Maunus did the right thing by seeking other editors' opinions at RFC and the consensus above is clearly that a) there is a common, source based usage of the term "indigenous" which defines it in opposition to a dominant, colonising culture and b) that is the proper scope of this article. If you can explain, or even better provide sources, as to how Georgians meet that definition then we have a basis to proceed, otherwise I don't see what there is to talk about. joe•roe^t•c 18:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not shouting. I want to hear the explanations because what you did is totally out of touch with reality. Indigenous means a first aboriginal inhabitant of a place which were and are Georgians into the entire Caucasus and that's how Georgians created their statehood on that very territory they always used to live. I know what the dominant and colonial power is if we look at nowaydays much of the world like all South and North Americas, Australia, North Africa etc. But, what does it have to do with us, Georgians? Are we Georgians a colonial power on Georgians or what? Are you saying that we, Georgians should become an ethnic minority into our OWN country and ONLY then you would put Georgians into the list of Indigenous people? I want to hear the exact explanations why you do not put Georgians into the list. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 14:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You have already been given an 'exact explanation': that Georgians are not "indigenous people" in the sense that disciplines such as anthropology and sociology and organisations such as UNESCO use the term - which is the sense that our article does. This is the only explanation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What term do they use? I am asking you again. Should we Georgians become a minority into our country to be listed as the indigenous one? Are you telling me this? --Georgianჯორჯაძე 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That is exactly the history of the people usually referred to (and referring to themselves) as "indigenous". joe•roe^t•c 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So if Kayapo people had created their own state and brought it till today where they would constitute the majority of the ethnicity you wouldn't put Kayapos into the indigenous list? And they wouldn't be an indigenous one? --Georgianჯორჯაძე 19:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, not under the current definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not make sense! This is an insult to all the aboriginal peoples who you do not list as such. What a shame. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually what doesn't make sense is your version since the only people who could reasonably be said to be indigenous to the place they live would be some of those of the East African Rift Valley. There were people in Georgia before the Georgians as well - we don't know what the earliest Homo Sapiens spoke, but it certainly wasn't Georgian and the Caucasus was inhabited by Neanderthals and Homo Erectus before the first Homo sapiens arrived there. To use "indigenous" to mean the first inhabitant just makes the word meaningless. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Go get some books and read them, because your ignorance is ridiculous. Georgian tribes were the indigenous people of the Caucasus entirely between the Black and Caspian Seas. Go read about where does the Caucasian race comes from. Go and read where a meaning a 'White' person comes from. And it was Homo Georgicus who dwelled first and not Homo Erectus. You have no idea about the Caucasus region I guess. You have no idea about Georgians but freely say that as if we Georgians weren't the first known aboriginal inhabitants of our region where we created our statehood. What a shame. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Go read about where does the Caucasian race comes from". We know that already - from racists, as do all the other 'racial' classifications. Still, I'll say one thing for GeorgianJorjadze's nationalist sentiments - he sure can track them back a long time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Invoking the fantastical origin story of the "Caucasian race" (read Steven Jay Gould on Blumenbach for the details of how this tale was woven from nothing) demonstrates nothing but a lack of understanding. Georgian, you have to address not the dictionary definition of "indigenous" but the international definition being described here.--Carwil (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The worst thing is we have an article on the fictive Homo georgicus..·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Homo georgicus is not fictive. It was described from remains from Georgia, which are close to Homo erectus and probably to be classified as such. Irrespective of whether the Dmanisi findings are H. erectus or a seperate species, theu are not relevant here. H.erectus has been living in many places before our own species. H.erectus is extinct and has no relevance on the discussion on indigenous peoples, because there is no direct phylogenetical continuity with present day Georgians more than with other H. sapiens.--Laplandgerard (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is what we are trying to argue yes. And Homo georgicus is not a recognized taxon, so in the sense of a species from which georgians can claim to descend it is fictive. The article on Homo georgicus was written in a way such as to mislead the reader into thinking that there was a relationshiop between "homo georgicus

and modern day Georgians - in order to support Gergian Jorjadze's argument that georgians should be considered indigenous. We have however established that the definition of indigenous that we use here is the narrow one found in international legislation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether a taxon is recognized or not is often depending on whom you ask, and H. georgicus has at least been recognized during a number of years by many experts. Even if my personal opinion supports inclusion in H. erectus as has become the more accepted opinion now. Of course misleading articles like the one on H georgicus should be taken away. The connection between the Dmanisi fossils and present-day Georgians is of course totally fictive.

Back to the main question. For me, it is clear that we should use the narrowr definition of indigenous people, in accordance with the UN and ILO. Which excludes peoples having nations of their own like the Geogians or the Dutch or the Italians etc.--Laplandgerard (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when the truth is "nationalist sentiment"? You probably have different dictionaries out there about words like aboriginal, autochtonous and indigenous people. And if one is defending the truth the badge of "nationalists" and "racists" pops up into the minds of "progressive cosmopolitan world-citizen" kind of people. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh paragraph needs work

I did some stylistic cleanup but didn't touch several MoS violations (duplicate wikilinks, capitalization, etc.) in the paragraph about Bangladesh, because it needs more thorough cleanup. It's currently the last paragraph under "Common concerns" and probably doesn't belong in that section at all. Wherever it goes, it needs to be more neutral. The current version editorializes against the government's position, does not fairly present the opposing point of view, and asserts without citation that the situation is "further evidence of how vulnerable some of the Indigenous Peoples are...." JamesMLane t c 07:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious indigenous peoples

The Sami and Basque are listed as an indigenous group but they don't fit the criterion of living in an area which was colonized. In the sense that they were ruled over by states representing other ethnic groups, probably every group in Europe would qualify under this definition - the Finns were colonized by the Swedish, or the Irish by the British. What we could do with is a list of definitions used by each organization, and for each group, list which organizations label it as indigenous. Otherwise there is no criteria for which ethnic groups should be added to the article. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sami are a very well recognized indigenous people and fit all aspects of the definition. I am not sure about Basque, but that can be looked into. The difference between Finns and Irish and the Sami is that the two first now have their own autonomous nations. Also being colonized is not the only part of the international definitions - it also includes linguistic and cultural practices, and many include a "connection to the land". I don't know of any definition that doesn't include Sami, and I think most include basque as well. The French Breton is another borderline case - which would have to be determined based on reliable sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I suspect sources can be produced to show that at least some North Caucasian peoples fall under the definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sámi people do fit all definitions of indigenous people used by different international bodies, most important perhaps the one in ILO. The Sámi are active in different such bodies, for example the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which has been led by a Sámi during a number of years. I would say there are a number of other European people which do fit the ILO definition to some extent. The definition says, somewhat simplified, that the people have their own culture, language different from the national language and culture and lived in the area before the present boundaries were established. This is true for Sámi, Basques, Bretons, peoples like Mari, Komi, Nenets, Setu, probably even Bretons, Frisians etc but definitely not of Fins and Irish. --Laplandgerard (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitions sectoin

I applaud insetting more material on the different definitions - but would suggest that the section should be somewhat shorter and written in summary style with a "main article" link.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved this material over from another article which overlapped with this one - some of the text was identical and I didn't see that two separate articles were needed. I agree that the section is too long and hard to read but it can probably be slimmed down with no loss of content. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are white people not allowed to be considered indigenous to anywhere?

Could it be any more obvious what's going on? 71.212.230.89 (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please. I'm open to suggestions. Which "white" people do you want to see treated as indigenous? (And why does skin colour matter to you?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Saami would be considered white most places. They're indigenous. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

He/she wasn't referring to skin colour, but race. The Basque would be a better example of a racially European "indigenous people" under the definitions used in this article. In fact, it isn't just white people who aren't viewed as indigenous: for example, many Chinese people wouldn't be either. I agree the definition isn't very clear but that is a reflection of the definitions used by others, and is not the fault of the Wikipedia article in itself. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense - since there is no such thing as "Racially European", and in so far as there is such a thing as "white people" Saami would of course be included just as much as the Basque.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They are, but as was discussed at tedious length above, being "indigenous" is very context sensitive. Danes and Italians are indigenous to Denmark and Italy (unless of course we're looking back beyond the migration period). Many white Americans could be described as indigenous to the United States because they were born there. That's not contentious, it's just a pretty inane thing to say, since in all three cases their indigeneity has very little contemporary relevance. This article is about indigenous people mainly in relation to European colonisation, so it's not surprising that it doesn't talk about Europeans and their descendants (i.e. "white people") is indigenous.

Or maybe it's just a big conspiracy by the POLITICALLY CORRECT BRIGADE. You never know. joe•roe^t•c 15:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are explaining that in a way that is not entirely correct. "indigenous peoples" are peoples that have a special recognized status under international legislation. Indigenous peoples are therefore not just peoples who are indigenous to some place (because everyone would then be included) but people who fall under the international definition. It is true that this definition includes being indigenous in relation to colonization (not just European) - but that is not the sole defining criterion for inclusion. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, but I was trying to explain the broad definition not just the "narrow international" version that was discussed above (although I do absolutely agree that's the proper scope for this article). One can be indigenous (to France, Manchester, the Earth...) without being an "indigenous person". joe•roe^t•c 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

White people are indigenous, but this article is using a different definition of "indigenous" to that commonly occurring in the English language. I don't have a good solution to this, other than clearly stating in the article that it is referring to the use of the phrase by various organizations. Maybe the article could be renamed to "Indigenous people status" or something similar. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The article's name is fine. We don't have to let the ordinary language use determine the scope or names of our articles when there are perfectly fine and broadly accepted scholarly definitions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day it's double standards, politics, and ideology (especially in regards to immigration to Europe) that is dictating the language of this article. 71.212.249.162 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention, and shouldn't mention immigration to Europe. It has nothing to do with this topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you establish your criteria for "indigenous" in such a way as to exclude European people who have had a continuous existence on their lands for thousands of years, then that creates a situation where they can have no say in who immigrates to their land because they have no United Nations recognized "connection" to their land. 71.215.95.3 (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And this is a talk page for discussing improvements to our article, not a forum for debates about immigration policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The definition of indigenous people states that indigenous people are "[those who] normally preserve a degree of cultural and political separation from the mainstream culture and political system of the nation state within the border of which the indigenous group is located". So people who identify themselves with the mainstream culture are not indigenous (whether European or not) and people who don't, are indigenous (e.g. Saami people).
If you look from a broader perspective of the term, every human being has ultimate African origin and is indigenous only to Africa. Humans later populated other continents and areas in different time periods so nobody is actually indigenous to any place other than Africa. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So by that criteria Han Chinese are not indigenous to China. After all they are the "mainstream culture" and several minorities live among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.17.197 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. You will also not find them mentioned as such in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Society for Threatened Peoples

On 11 March 2012 user "Samombeia" (no talk page) removed, and I restored, the listing among accredited organisations of the Society for Threatened Peoples. The user cited German media sources to the effect that the Society's organiser Tilman Zülch had been legally accused - I have read those sources. If that is so, however, it does not follow that (a) he is guilty or (b) that, even if so, the organisation is at fault. I note that, on the same day, a user "Tilman Zülch" has made several changes to the article Tilman Zülch. As to the present article, I think that this is "back off" time. Unless, however, it can be shown that the listed accreditations for the Society for Threatened Peoples are wrong. --Wikiain (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no user account by the name User:Tilman Zülch; where do you get this idea from? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On further examination, I suspect this poster meant that the account in the name of the organization's abbreviation, User:GfbV-Int, was making the inappropriate edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are Turkic peoples indigenous to Europe but ethnic Europeans are not ?

would love to know why the Basques are the only white European's considered indigenous...

--99.231.215.49 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Basques are not Turkic, and they are as white as you presumably are. They are indigenous because they were in Spain before the Spanish state came into existence, and have minority status within that state.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Turks are far from being "indigenous" or "native" to Europe. It's common knowledge they stole Anatolia from the original Indo-European inhabitants. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So where were all these white Europeans' ancestors living? Where did they come from? Are they native/indigenous to anywhere? 76.120.17.197 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Africa.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So all these other groups have been living on their respected lands longer than the "Europeans From Africa" have been living on theirs? 76.120.17.197 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the answers to the 'frequently asked questions' at the top of this page. This article is about 'indigenous peoples' as defined by international legislation, and not about anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Were all the people in all the lands the Roman Empire colonized and oppressed "indigenous"?

76.120.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussions relating to changes to our Indigenous peoples article. If you want to ask general questions about the subject, I recommend that you do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

this article has neutrality issues based on racism

it is obvious that in this articled and the lists linked there seems to be the implicit opinion thta indigneius is synonym to people of color and also synonym to primitive and uncivilized or black. why are all the european people not called indigenous? becasue they are white? therefore they are ccivilized? and therefore not indigenous? why are people from nations that are older than some of the european nations called indigenous? i will telly ou why becasue of racism!

this whole thing and the list that is linked to this article is ripe with implicit racist OPINIONS i request others who want to work this over to clean up this article from racist bias together with me! i am not going to chang anything untill there is consensus but this needs to be adressed, because as of now indegenous seems to mean colored! and thats unacetpable and it also seems to by synonimous with primitive and uncivilized! this is just not good enough!13:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Mnlk (talk)

It seems to me that you are the one assuming that people who are not european and white are not "civilized" what ever that means. Indigeneity has nothing to with "civilization" or with "race", and the definition criteria for inclusion is spelled out very clearly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're seriously misunderstanding this article and the word indigenous. It is not a synonym for people of colour; it refers specifically to the pre-existing populations of territories that have been colonised (especially in the context of modern European colonialism). And it is used by the explicitly antiracist indigenous rights movement to refute the idea that there are "civilised" and "primitive" people.

Please see the two previous discussion above on why most European peoples aren't considered indigenous under the definition of the term used by this article (the Sami, by the way, are an exception to this, and they're generally very white indeed). In fact, issues of definition seem to be the only thing being discussed on this talk page recently, hence the article's now very lengthy definitions section. It's getting a bit tedious that people continue to bring up the same points here apparently without bothering to read either that section, previous discussions or the FAQ at the top of this page. joe•roe^t•c 15:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Counter proposal in favor of including ethnic Jews and Palestinians, and using a different definition for indigenous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that we utilize a less narrow and more literal definition of indigenous for the List of indigenous peoples article. The current one is nonsensical (even if it is the internationally recognized definition) because it rests on the idea that indigeneity evaporates once an ethnic group achieves a nation state and majority status. I mean would you argue that a Persian or a Malay who has lived in their respective territories since the beginning is not indigenous just because they have a flag and international recognition? Of course not, but that's what the article seems to convey. My suggestion is to include all of the original peoples of a given continent or sub-continent. Under the definition I just proposed, obviously Jews* and Palestinians would have to be included, as both ethnic groups/nationalities stemmed from, and are a continuation of, the original inhabitants of the Levant.

I also don't agree that this would simply result in "redundancy" or a repeat of the "Ethnic groups" list, as it would still exclude all post-colonial groups like the Afrikaners, Boers, non-Aborigines Australians, non-Amerindian Americans, Cajuns, and so on. In fact, simply restricting it to ethnic minorities is likely to breed even more arguments than it otherwise would, because most people (who are probably unaware of the international definition) will see the article and start to say "HEY WHERE ARE *insert indigenous ethnic group*? WE'RE INDIGENOUS TOO! WHY ARE "THEY" INCLUDED BUT NOT US, WE'VE BEEN HERE JUST AS LONG IF NOT LONGER THAN THEM!".

• Or more specifically, ethnic Jews who are known to have branched off from the original Israelite/Hebrew population, including European (Ashkenazi and Sephardi) Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and Samaritans. Although in their case, you could probably just merge them with the Samaritans, since they're the same people, for the most part.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The central problem is that who is and is not indigenous depends entirely on your frame of reference. There's no such thing as an absolute "original population" of anywhere. If you restrict yourself to the last few generations (which you might do if you're talking about immigration policy, for instance) then all Australians and Americans who were born there can indeed be considered indigenous. Afrikaners are an even better example: they were colonisers in relation to the indigenous African peoples of South Africa, but themselves indigenous in relation to subsequent British colonisers. Not being included in this article shouldn't be taken to imply that a group of people aren't "indigenous" (to somewhere, sometime), but that they're not an "indigenous people" as that phrase is commonly used in English and as defined by international bodies. joe•roe^t•c 11:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is my frame of reference: "originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native". That was taken from Dictionary.com. Neither Afrikaners or the later British colonizers "originate" in Africa in any meaningful way, so they cannot be included. However, Jews and Palestinians are known to originate in the Middle East, and are thus indigenous there. Consensus has been reached on that time and again. To my knowledge, this is the definition that is used most frequently in English, barring international bodies.

Even if it is not your intention to imply that a given group of people is not indigenous (even when they are in the literal sense), that's how most people are going to read it.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a rehash of an RfC from about ten months ago. So the arguments made in that RfC should be addressed if a different consensus is to be achieved Talk:Indigenous_peoples/Archive_3#RfC:_Scope_of_this_article. Here you are not addressing any of the argument, just contradiccting it based on a flawed understanding of the relation between the supposed "literal" meaning and the internationally recognized one. Furthermore, I don't know of any sources that use your proposed definition of "Indigenous people", so that article would be based on original research and would simultaneously contradict all of the sources that do treat the topic of "indigenous peoples". Joey Roe is right. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are no contradictions in my arguments. In fact, as far as I can tell, you have made no effort to thoroughly debunk any of my points here. I even asked you to explain yourself numerous times, and you flatly refused.Evildoer187 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

....sigh.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick to whom the UN define of native peoples. It's not anyone's job to mount an re-define a people as native on Wikipedia if the UN itself doesn't recognize it as such. We can all argue that the whole of human kind is indigenous to the Horn of Africa, that the diverse human populations in other parts of the world are but a Diaspora -- but should we?186.212.242.230 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened to the above discussion? Somebody just came along and "closed" it? How do they think they can do that? Count Truthstein (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested

I'm finding it hard to impossible to follow all of this. I do have one question. Does anyone disagree that whatever definitions we use, we can't list any group as indigenous without a reliable source (and I would think probably with attribution to that source). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to post this question to the Talk:List of indigenous peoples because currently virtually no entry in that article is WP:RS-compliant Crock81 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Doug, that is a good question, because I think it indirectly brings to the fore the lack of parity between the respective definitions being used on this article and the List article.

The italicized blurb that prefaces this article is a declaration that the article includes groups that fall outside of the definition set forth in the opening paragraph on the List article. The List article also has a link to this page preceding the lead List of indigenous rights organizations.

A couple of editors have called the validity of the more narrow definition stated in the lead of the List page into question, and one would seem to be flooding this article with material that deprecates that definition as well as the international organizations, such as the three listed in the lead paragraph on the List page, that have been at the forefront of indigenous issues.

Since this article doesn't involve the List, which includes a couple of contentious issues, I don't see a problem with including definitions such as that put forth by UNESCO in 2002, so long as such secondary definitions are integrated into the article in a manner that does not obfuscate the principle focus of the subject matter.

The List page, on the other hand, should be subject to stricter criteria, as the current Palestinians issue demonstrates. I don't know the background of Moxy's post regarding "recognition by an official indigenous organization", but it seems to me that the sources presented by Dailycare recently move recognition of the Palestinians beyond the level of the tacit and into the realm of the confirmed.

Yet I wouldn't say that consensus has been reached on that point, and the definitional point you raised is likely a contributing factor. I would imagine that there must some Wikipedia policy that holds that such a state of affairs in the real world as substantiated by the sources presented by Dailycare would as a matter of course necessitate the inclusion of the Palestinians, but I am not familiar with more than a few essential Wikipedia policies. I would imagine that a statement on this Talk page made by Maunus recently encapsulates the crux of the matter

Present sources that say that "indigenous peoples" currently have any other meaning than the one in the human rights discourse. Sources about the topic of the article dictate what should be in the article. (my emphasis) So produce sources that support your wide definition of the concept or stop wasting our time with sophistry and filibustering.•ʍaunus•snunɐw• 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)</blockquote.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Omg did not realizes the indigenous peoples dispute from the list article has made its way over here :-(. Should look at all the changes closely - wow lots of work.Moxy (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:List of indigenous peoples

Regarding whether to foreclose discussions about including Jews and Palestinians on the list by specifically deciding a priori to exclude both.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this lonely RfC, and understood your comment below about trying to start an RfC that was cut short by Evildoer187.

But I think the notion of passing on the task of threshing out the complex issues in what is probably the most problematized region represents an attempt at an expedient that would leave one with a feeling of cold comfort upon arriving at the destination.

Apparently Evildoer187 thought he had this topic wired, but he will have proved to have contributed something even if only keeping the door open long enough for yours truly to join the party!

Who would've thought editing an encyclopedia could be so much fun!--Ubikwit (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Clean-up notice

It seems to me such a comment perhaps has a place on the talk page.

The point of the quotes is that they are important as definitions, and have to be quoted in full because they influence the rest of the article.

From my perspective the article is an embarrassment.
The subject of the indigenous peoples is a very complex one, extending much wider in terms of coverage scope and contexts than reflected in this article.
Moreover, the structure is in no way reflecting the scope of the subject. Consulting even the smallest number of general works on the subject online would immediately make this obvious. It is no wonder the discussion on the associated list of indigenous people fails to find a consensus, given users there were arguing over a subject without much foundation of fact. Crock81 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent additions and modifications would seem to be aimed at POV pushing, as they are based on documents published by the UN that are not the most recent--which are found on the Talk page of the related List article. Funny that you should mention that page and fail to include relevant sources.

I have supplemented the section with material from those sources, integrating your references into the flow, considering both topical matter and chronological order of publication.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

The point of the cleanup tag is to note that the article does not comply with the MOS concerning how to write articles about large topics. I agree the article is an embarrasment, but I don't agree that either of you are doing much to help turning the article into a useful source of information about the indigenous peoples of the world. I think Crock81's changes are not all POV problematic, some of them do very well in showing the way in which the concept of indigenous peoples has been and continues to be challenged. It is however written in the same piecemeal bit by bit style that turns the article into an unreadable mess instead of a coherent whole. Past discussions have been supported by a very broad and general consensus, the reason the discussion has failed to do so is the suprising simyultaneous influx of POV pushers turning the article into a battleground about the palestine israel conflict that is and should be extremely marginal if even a part of the topic covered by this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see regarding the tag.

I would agree that the issue of Palestine and Israel is somewhat marginal, because both are basically modern peoples with modern lifestyles; however, the fact that the modern state of Israel was created in a very controversial manner and the disposition of the Palestinians has not been settled, the Palestinians are facing conditions in their homeland that correspond to indigenous peoples issues. One specific aspect of that is in fact recognized as such and addressed in the 2009 report that I have cited in the edit I did here. Once issues such as that are cleared up, there would be no reason for either of them to be addressed here.

I did not say that all of his changes are POV problematic, but that some of the changes seem to favor a POV promoting the characteristics he has tried to claim for Jews on the Talk page of the List article that and deny to Palestinians, which is, incidentally, what you have explicitly claimed to be against here. The expansion of the Cobo definition is desirable.

Some of Crock's editing seemed to be worded in a manner such as to divert importance from the primary conditions relating to colonized aboriginal peoples to a focus on culture and tradition. He also presented the quote from the 2007 publication in a manner suggestive of that as being the most recent source from the UN when he is well aware otherwise. In particular, see Crock81's edits Talk page of the List page under the section "The case for excluding Palestinians as an indigenous Western Asian group", which ends with the statement, " I am unable to establish any distinctly Filistin cognitive or normative traits or behaviours".

It has just dawned on me that the final paragraph he added under the United Nations section is poorly worded and basically superfluous now that I have added the preceding quote, which needs to be formatted.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I have again removed the unsourced WP:OR paragraph from the UN section. Not only is it redundant considering the preceding block quote from an official UN document, but it is unsourced and poorly written.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Maunus, Your comments are fair, but, perhaps you are already aware that since 1945 most attempts at defining indigens have been primarily driven by the UN organisations and their activities. I can if you wish include a timeline of these activities, but I think it unnecessary. I have as you note tried to include at least the 'final' phase of the process (1970s-1990s) after which defining indegins was terminated.

Ubikwit, I'm not sure why you need to drag the "the issue of Palestine and Israel" into my current editing in this article. Have you read the Cobo report? I have spent nearly five hours reading parts of this very large report, itself based on a study. You need to understand that every work of research is conducted within its terms of reference, i.e. it satisfies the need of the audience for which it was commissioned, the stakeholder and the sponsors, since nether Cobo, nor his Working Group, that changed composition over more than a decade the study took to complete, worked on the panel for free. In this, it has to be understood that the report was used to report on the study which was about discriminated populations. When the UN states there is a 350 million indigenous population in the World, it is not talking about ALL indigenous populations, but those that have been determined to have been denied rights under the UN Charter and other decision by the Council. If you will, these populations are UN 'customers' in greatest need of help. The Cobo report, and the subsequent definitions that identify indigens within the dominant populations of modern nation-states are to be seen within the context of the work of the Working Group and the UN as a whole. No one at the United Nations would ever deny that the Thai are indigenous to what the area they are found in now, or that the Han Chinese are indigenous to the Yellow River valley. Its just that neither populations are discriminated against, and therefore do not fall under the criteria of the study.

The paragraph you deleted is called a transition paragraph, which seeks to link one section with another. In this, having identified the definitions or what passes for definition of the indigenous peoples (and I haven't defined that term yet), I will move on to introduce the definitions used by other disciplines outside of the international law. There are at least half-dozen prominent other scientific disciplines that concern themselves with the question of indigens to no lesser extant than international organisation, though perhaps they are less visible in the news. The important part though is that the status of a group being indigenous is determined as much by the historical process as a political one. And wouldn't you know it, most indigenous populations have their traditional histories studied keenly by anthropologists. Then there are the ethnographers that also seem to have something to say about the indigenous cultures, and historians that point to the population dynamics as a process, etc.

For this reason, to be completely objective and encyclopaedic about the article, all points of view on the subject need to be included, and not just those from a few international bodies that were presented until now. It is because of this that I called the article "an embarrassment". Its an embarrassment to Wikipedia of a very subjective presentation of the Indigenous peoples from a single point of view.

As for your accusation that "that some of the changes seem to favor a POV promoting the characteristics he has tried to claim for Jews on the Talk page of the List article that and deny to Palestinians", I find it outrageous! Prove it! I had pretty much stayed out of the utterly pointless and baseless 'discussion' on the Talk:List of indigenous peoples that you seem to relish in. But, I will not be accused of or dragged into another such 'discussion Crock81 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit - before you do anything with the paragraph you find so offensive, tell me here what parts you consider:

• unsourced
• WP:OR
• redundant
• require sources
• and how it is "poorly written"

Crock81 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your pretense of conducting a "cleanup" has been exposed as a simple ruse to push the POV you describe above as follows. You use the term "cleanup" to mask your attempt to interject a POV that you want to push and which you claim is not represented. Your ruse may have fooled Maunus, but not me.

to be completely objective and encyclopaedic about the article, all points of view on the subject need to be included, and not just those from a few international bodies that were presented until now. It is because of this that I called the article "an embarrassment". Its an embarrassment to Wikipedia of a very subjective presentation of the Indigenous peoples from a single point of view. As for your accusation that "that some of the changes seem to favor a POV promoting the characteristics.

Your so-called "trasitional" paragraph is unacceptable WP:OR and unsourced, not to mention ungrammatical. Reminder - this is an article talk page, so this is the place to MENTION anything you want. If you don't, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The paragraph you deleted is called a transition paragraph, which seeks to link one section with another. In this, having identified the definitions or what passes for definition of the indigenous peoples (and I haven't defined that term yet), I will move on to introduce the definitions used by other disciplines outside of the international law. There are at least half-dozen prominent other scientific disciplines that concern themselves with the question of indigens to no lesser extant than international organisation, though perhaps they are less visible in the news.

Either self-revert your edit or I will revert it tomorrow and open a dispute. are you threatening me with a promise of an edit war?

Any further edits you attempt to make that violate WP:OR will not be tolerated, either. What else are you not tolerating, but can't explain why? Your statement above that "definitions or what passes for definition of the indigenous peoples (and I haven't defined that term yet)" is a clear indication that you intend to post OR in violation of that policy. You are predicting future content of my edits! The only definitions of "indigenous" that go up on this page are required to be from reliable sources, and under the category corresponding to the organization or group promulgating the definition.

And that, incidentally, is precisely what I have included before your POV pushing paragraph that violates WP:OR. ...but you won't say how WP:OR was violated when requested to do so The text that I posted earlier is prefaced by the heading "Understanding the term “indigenous”", which I will now add to clarify that, since it would seem you haven't checked the source pdf.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Since I have carried out a formatting and expansion edit, all that you need to do is remove the offending paragraph. Thank you.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

There is something seriously wrong with you, since you seem to think that everyone is out to fool you (a claim voiced in Talk:List of indigenous peoples also) . I doubt Maunus is willing to consider him/her self a fool as you do.

A I never used the term clean up - its on the notice! I'm editing the article.

B You have an opportunity to address your claims above in the points you made. Either put up, or shut up.

C You have a difference of opinion? I don't care about your opinion. If you have a legitimate claim that my editing represents an unbalanced point of view, say so, and elaborate how. If you can't do this, the next time we will meet is in arbitration.

D If you keep repeating yourself, I will simply ignore anything you say. Hence, the five-point section I provided (starred) above I provided for you to explicitly state concerns about OR, sources and grammar.

Given you have not provided any evidence to your claims here in the talk page, I: a) have no reason to self-revert, and b) there is no dispute, just your opinionated claim. I wonder how many Wikipedians will take any notice of that.

Do not edit further until you understand the meaning of the words quote and cite. A statement in a publication is <blockquote>quoted</blockquote>, and a publication is <ref>cited</ref>. I quoted a statement in a publication which is then cited as a reference. Butchering this is not, as you put it, "formatting and expansion edit", never mind that you hadn't actually added anything through your 'expansion'. Expanding an article means adding new content, not butchering the editing of others, and claiming credit. Wikipedia calls this disruptive editing

NOTE - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. This is the first time, due to holiday season, that I have had time to edit this year. In fact, I had not intended to edit this subject at all! However, the subject of indigenousness IMHO is a very important one. and I will seek to improve this article based on time available to me. I am happy to collaborate, but this collaboration will be based on the consensus decisions that take into account "all of the proper concerns raised". Proper concerns means following the editing policy.Crock81 (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please fix your last edit to be in accord with the rule stated at the top of the page that:

Put new text under old text.

This is not about consensus or collaboration, the paragraph in question is clearly a synthetic statement in violation of WP:OR, and is unsourced. If you have a source to show how it is a paraphrase that relates to a transition (to what?), then provide the source.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to argue with you. I intend to follow the policies and have to insist that you do, too. I've made this comments in good faith and with civility; however, either your edits will be in compliance with Wikipedia policies or you will be dealing with the dispute(s) I will file against any of your edits that violate those policies. There will be no edit war.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and not rules, but are generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I think this is one of those exceptions.

I think you mean a synthesis statement, i.e. used in many fields, usually to mean a process which combines two or more pre-existing elements and results in something new. From this you get WP:OR i.e. original research by synthesis. I refer you to here. It seems to me there wasn't anything in the previous version of the paragraph, or the current one, that in any way creates a new thesis.

a) It is common knowledge, self evident from the quotes presented in the article, that international organisations are primarily concerned with the international law.

b) It is an 'open secret' that the international diplomacy and ideological rifts of the Cold War period heavily influenced the cause of many indigenous peoples.

c) It is widely known that the internal politics of the UN are a considerable source of influence on the function and performance of the UN and its organisations. There are many impasses that have resulted in controversy and compromise which suited no one because of individual member states with various forms of influence on the World stage forced the UN hand.

d) If you understood and had read on indigenous rights issues, you would know that establishing any principal in the UN is but the start of the process since the UN lacks a mandate to force member states enacting and implementing very many of its resolutions even when they are binding. Issued by the United Nations Security Council, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted, but it does not define anything, and is not a legally binding instrument under international law; according to a UN press release, it does "represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN's member states to move in certain directions". However, some states were simply not present during the vote, and others just abstained.

e) But, even in those that ratified the Declaration the standards of its application often diverge widely from the expected norm, as I will show when I compile the legal definitions of indigenousness from various states of the World in the following section Crock81 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

f) So which policies are they that you insist I follow? Crock81 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Having the definitions section be chronological with UN last is ok, in my opinion. The idea that the UN declaration doesn't define one is wrong, it does provide quite a strong support for excluding particular kinds of groups - such as those that have never been colonized and are the dominant ethnic group in their own nation states. It establishes leeway in the middle because of the long tradition for dominant groups to define the minorities they don't not to fit any strict definition. The UN declaration is a political mile stone for indigenous rights regardless of critiques and problems, exactly because it is a statament of intent. Now if you guys really want to improve the article you take that definitions section and split it into a new article called Definitions of Indigenous Peoples, then leave a brief summary in place in the article in this section. The questions about internal UN policies and the effects of international politics on UN process this can not be included while it is simply "widely known" - it can be included when it is supported by reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, thank you for your comment.

Let us however agree on some facts.

a) By its own admission there is no definition of indigenousness within the UN or its member-organisations. I can't make up what isn't there, but I tried to include as much as article space will I think allow, which is far more than was there before because I share your point about providing guidance in understanding the issues.

b) Whatever guidance the UN and its member-organisations do provide for identifying indigenous peoples is contextualised by the work performed on the behalf of these groups by these organisations. This is primarily within the work of seeking to establish a non-discriminatory human rights environment to all human populations. The UN is simply not concerned with that global demographic which is not persecuted based on their lack of claims to land rights. The article however is not limited to the indigenous peoples who are in some way not being treated within the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is legally binding, but the subject of indigenous peoples as a whole, of which discrimination you cite is a part, and not the whole article. In this the Wikipedia article as is written is racist! Do you not see that the indigenous cultures are currently treated in the article only from the European perspective and given no treatment at all before' early-modern European colonisation? This Wikipedia article perpetuates the "uncivilized" myth. Ubikwit had wit enough to suggest that non-native English editors should not edit English Wikipedia with reference to this article, dealing with populations most of whom were linguistically raped by enforcement of English as a dominant language!!!

c) It seems to me that you are not clear about what colonisation means. The Latin origin of the word alone ought to suggest its not a modern phenomena unique to European empire-building. Colonialism is not expressed only politically either.

d) Are you sure you know what a Nation state is? I'm not being facetious, because Wikipedia defines this as "...a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. In order to place indigenous populations within the same context, the definition needs to incorporate these same concepts of polity, geography, culture and ethnicity to create a level playing field as it were for equity in the discussion. This has been the ultimate goal of the indigenous human rights organisations since 1947, i.e. the recognition of indigenous politics, land rights, cultural heritage and property, and distinctness as ethnicities. However, denying these identities to other ethnicities seems to me to be both illogical and adversarial as a means of achieving this goal. Do you think the other 6.6 billion people on the planet are going to accept that they have no claim to polity, land rights, cultural heritage and property or distinct ethnicity?

d) I think it is unnecessary to start an article Definitions of Indigenous Peoples, but if you want to do so, be my guest. I have an offline sandbox where I am compiling definitions if indigenousness from other disciplines which will be included in time when the sections that deal with these disciplines are ready for inclusion in the article. I retained the legal definitions in their place for now simply to not change the article too much at this stage, but in future consensus will be required whether the legal definition does, or should, have precedence over other disciplines. My thinking is that the self-definitions of indigenous peoples should be the first proposed in the article.

e) Ok, I accept that perhaps the internal problems of the UN are not necessarily "widely known". However, I also think it isn't feasible to describe these in the paragraph or properly reference them. They are worth mentioning as impacts on the indigenous peoples issues as they pertain to the UN, but are not in themselves within the scope of the article. I will include a wikilink to the appropriate article which appears to be extensive and well referenced. Crock81 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll address your monologue point by point:

a. There is no definition in the sense of necessary and sufficient criteria, however you have to read the declaration very speciously to say that there is not a general sense of what kinds of groups are and aren't indigenous. Ethnic groups with their own nations states clearly are not covered by the declaration's tacit definition. This is however not something we should argue abou based on our own interpretations, we should find second hand sources describing what is in the declaration and how it is to be interpreted.

b. I don't think your interpretation of what the UN is and isn't concerned about is reasonable, and in any case for it to have any validity in terms of writing this article you'd need to support the claim with a source that says so.

c. I think I am very clear about that thanks. No one has said it is only a modern phenomenon, although it is of course extremely common to use the word to refer only to modern colonialism which has by all accounts been the most extensive and pervasive, and the article includes numerous examples of groups that were 'colonized' before the modern period e.g. the Saami, the Basque, etc. The article is not racist, the concept of indigenous peoples itself may be considered somewhat racist, but it is not the job of wikipedia to right that wrong, just to describe the concept and its implications.

d. Yes, I am quite sure I know what that means, thanks. Self definitions have hardly any place in the literature on indigeneity and rightly so since it is basically one of the criteria for status as an ethnic group that its members consider themselves to be "indigenous/primordial" to a specific place. Self-definitions have mostly no legal consequence, and are usually only encountered in the literature as examples of how indigenous groups (defined as such by the legal criteria) conceptualize their own status as such. The consensus for using the legal definition has been well established in an RfC 10 months ago by an overwhelming majority of editors. You cannot change it by unilaterally overriding that decision, but would have to find a broader consensus for the redefinition you are now attempting.

e. It seems to me to be fairly clear that you are on a mission to challenge and redefine the concept of indigenous peoples so it can include dominant ethnic groups in charge of their own nation states, and you seem to be following two routes of argumentation 1. you seek to discredit the concept itself and 2. then to redefine it to mean simply any group that claims a primordial tie to a specific territory. This is very clearly not how the literature on indigenous people defines or discusses the concept, and tends towards revisionism and falsification. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

R.a) You are asking the impossible! Because the 'definition' is focused on combating denial of human rights, and the Declaration simply reflects this as part of the work of the organisation that produced it, all non-discriminated groups are excluded by definition, pardon the pun. No second hand source will ever address non-discriminated groups, and therefore I could never match the criteria you ask of me! The "beauty" of narrow definitions.

R.b) Please be more specific, particularly since "UN" in this case encompass several organisations with diverse priorities, including how they are concerned with indigenousness

R.c) Well, than I might remind you that the modern European colonialism began with the Crusades in...the Holy Land about 1000 years ago. However, even before then, entire indigenous populations became extinct. You think that Europeans have been more extensive and pervasive, but more deadly? However, I call the article racist because it contextualises everything through European eyes. There is no indigenous point of view until a short section at the end! The peoples the article ought to be about don't actually get a say!

R.d) The RfC 10 months ago was based on a mistaken premise. This is not the article about Application of political and legal concepts to indigenousness. Its about the Indigenous peoples, and all that entails. This includes what the said peoples think about inclusivity to their communities.

R.e) No, the indigenous peoples are already so defined to include a wider range of groups, but these definitions are found in disciplines other than law and political science. I need to redefine nothing, but to simply edit prose and add the sources.

R.e.1) I do not seek to discredit the 'concept itself', whatever that means. I do seek to show that the current 'definition' used here is biased against all other disciplines concerned with the indigenous peoples from which data can be derived for enlarging and enhancing the quality of this article. You too can help, because it can be an FA article with a lot of work. Too challenging?

R.e.2) Indigenousness literally means just that, a group with a land claim. If you think that there is no literature that "defines or discusses the concept", than you have nothing to worry about as I won't find any reliable sources. If you think that this 'argument' "tends towards revisionism and falsification", than again, I will be reverted by others time and again because my sources will be unreliable, right? Crock81 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Crock81, A. No, it is a requirement for wikipedia articles to be supported by sources. If there are no sources there is also no article. That may be unfair, but it is a ground rule. Write abook about the supposed indigenous people without land claims and who are not being discriminated, publish it and then we can include it in the article. C. I don't know of any descriptions of colonialism that consider the crusades to be an example of such. And not all ethnic groups that have gone extinct have done so because of colonialism. You are trying to apply concepts to periods in which they are anachronistics. There were no indigenous peoples before the concept became a part of the Western political discourse, before that they were frequently called "primitive", "natives", "savages". The reason the article is written from a Western perspective is because the concept is a western concept. The previous RfC was not based on false premises and you don't get to decide unilaterally what the article is and isn't about. All peoples have land claims - that is not what the literature define as indigenous peoples and I am quite sure you realize this. Consensus has decided that this article is about indigenous peoples as defined in international legislation. Change the consensus and you have an argument. Untill then yes any edits attempting to redefine the article's scope without prior consensus or without strong reliable sources will be reverted. The article can be an FA yes, but not if it is written by someone trying to reconceptualize the topic to fit their political agenda.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis of the chronology in "the literature"? I want a source in order to assess the rationale of the order, because that should be prefaced with an introductory sentence informing the reader of the reason for the counterintuitive placement of the UN at the bottom of the list.

The so-called "transitional" paragraph is described by Maunus as "about internal UN policies and the effects of international politics on UN process this can not be included while it is simply "widely known" - it can be included when it is supported by reliable sources", so there is consensus on that point, and it is out until sourced.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I am in favor of the opnening sentence of Maunus's edit for the lead, so I have restored that, and incorporated Crock81's concerns of the word "protect". --Ubikwit (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

In spite of my declaring support for the version of the opening sentence of the lead as per edit by Maunus, Crock81 has again reverted my edit, this time claiming, erroneously, that the text from Coates quoted in said sentence by Maunus was contained elsewhere in the article in its entirety.

Aside from the fact that the text was not contained elsewhere in the article, he acted in a manner against the consensus declared above with respect to the opening sentence of the lead before he made the edit. Were it to have been the case that the text had been contained elsewhere in the article, I would have deleted it.--Ubikwit (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

I hope you enjoyed your monologue :-)

The "literature" is called Wikipedia! The sources are pointed to by the thing called wikilink, where the reader is expected to read the article to gain knowledge

Wikipedia is not expecting to present an article in an intuitive way where the subject developed over time - the attempted definition of "indigenous peoples" in international law

Actually, I already agreed with Maunaus' statement (see above), and said so above, also explaining what I had done to reflect his opinion. The opinion of a few people does not produce consensus, particularly where common sense ought to prevail

No, you do not support the opening sentence by Maunus (wasn't his edit that put it there), but rather as you say in your summary, the text quoted from Coates is only here, where it will stay. The problem is, there is no <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>! I had advised you to learn what a quote is before.

Nor do I think you have seen the summary paragraph in the Coates paper, which I would be happy to produce for you, having made the mistake not to make a photocopy at the library on the weekend as I didn't think it would come up again. I suspect you won't like the full quote.

Your declared support for anything has no meaning. Its a lead section, and doesn't even require any quotes or references, but is supposed to reflect the body of the article. The selective paraphrasing of Coates produces an article narrowly defined in the politico-legal perspective, i.e. creating a perspective for the reader with is neither fair, proportionate, as far as possible without bias, or representing all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Had you taken the time to read this instead of edit warring, you would have seen that this suggests "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." However, all, including Coates, agree the subject is not definable in a legal sense! To produce a 'definition' in the first sentence, and deny it in the body of the article is nonsensical.

Unlike you, I don't make claim, but statements. I state that the opening sentence to which the Coates is referenced which reads "peoples defined in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations that are often politically dominant." is in fact paraphrasing

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

the first quote in the United Nations sub-section.

The reason you didn't see it in the article, is because you fail to read. You have no consideration towards the editing of others, and simple-mindedly pursue your point of view. Hence you failed to understand that the paraphrase of the Coats conclusion to his paper is but the same quote put differently. You need to read for meaning. Crock81 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it should read "sourced" from Coates.

I was under the impression that Wikilinks were not considered sources, but I don't even see where the relevant links are.

Incidentally, if this edit Revision as of 23:12, 16 December 2012 isn't by Maunus, then who performed it?

It seems that you are trying to surreptitiously repurpose this article, and you are trying to accuse me of POV pushing? You, too, are editing and interacting here in a very dulicitous manner.

I'm starting a new section and moving on from this bogus "clean-up notice" discussion.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Since your reversion it is no longer there, so you will need to trouble yourself to find the wikilink in my last editing before your reversion.

The original editing of the Coats reference was done I think in in August 2007 if my memory from last week serves me right. You will need to look for yourself as I did.

I don't really care what "seems to you". I am trying to repurpose the article by making it more balanced. It is supposed to deal with the Indigenous peoples, not the Application of political and legal principles to indigenous issues. In fact this is called rescoping. If you want to call it 'POV', be my guest. As a free, independent and thinking human being I am entitled by the democratic society I live in to have a point of view, which I intend to express within the accepted standards of Wikipedia.

You can start anything you want, but I will continue here until the issue addressed is resolved where it started.

And so, you claim that the 'definition' sourced from Coates is reflecting the international organisations POV on defining "indigenous peoples"? I have news for you. Coates in fact quotes the The International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs which is an NGO and not a part of the UN. Below is the quote in full starting on page 11

The International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs, adopting a broader, more comprehensive approach, defines indigenous as follows:

Indigenous peoples are the disadvantaged descendants of those peoples that inhabited a territory prior to the formation of a state. The term indigenous may be defined as a characteristic relating the identity of a particular people to a particular area and distinguishing them culturally from other people or peoples. When, for example, immigrants from Europe settled in the Americas and Oceania, or when new states were created after colonialism was abolished in Africa and Asia, certain peoples became marginalised and discriminated against, because their language, their religion, their culture and their whole way of life were different and perceived by the dominant society as being inferior. Insisting on their right to self-determination is indigenous peoples' way of overcoming these obstacles. Today many indigenous peoples are still excluded from society and often even deprived of their rights as equal citizens of a state. Nevertheless they are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity. Self-identification as an indigenous individual and acceptance as such by the group is an essential component of indigenous peoples' sense of identity. Their continued existence as peoples is closely connected to their possibility to influence their own fate and to live in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems. Indigenous peoples face other serious difficulties such as the constant threat of territorial invasion and murder, the plundering of their resources, cultural and legal discrimination, as well as a lack of recognition suffered by indigenous institutions. At least 350 million people worldwide are considered to be indigenous. Most of them live in remote areas in the world. Indigenous peoples are divided into at least 5000 peoples ranging from the forest peoples of the Amazon to the indigenous peoples of India and from the Inuit of the Arctic to the Aborigines in Australia. Very often they inhabit land which is rich in minerals and natural resources. Indigenous peoples have prior rights to their territories, lands and resources, but often these have been taken from them or are threatened. They have distinct cultures and economies compared to those of the dominant society. The importance of indigenous peoples' self-identification is crucial and a part of their identity. Indigenous peoples face serious difficulties such as the constant threat of territorial invasion and murder, the plundering of their resources, cultural and legal discrimination, as well as a lack of recognition of their own institutions.8

The IWGIA definition retains the now-standard emphasis on marginalization, loss of autonomy and control over resources, and the prospect and reality of cultural decline. It highlights, in a variety of ways, the idea of indigenous peoples as being victims of broader processes, buffeted by the forces of development and rendered largely powerless within the nation state.

That 8 at the end of the quote points to a note which itself is a reference to the IWGIA introduction folder [www.iwgia.org/sw617.asp] c.2003-04 The current web page says this [1] The Definitions chapter in Coats covers the first 14 and a bit pages.

So, how do you suppose the first sentence which is backed by the reference from Coates you so insist on retaining reflects the above?Crock81 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support a definition that paraphrases Coates' - to a greater extent, i.e. by emphasising the minority status and historical connection to the land, and downplaying the role of international legislation in defining the peoples.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Crock81, I am against your presently declared heretofore surreptitious effort to "rescope" this article. Furthermore, that falls outside the purview of any one editor, and runs counter to the archived discussion referred to by EdJohnston here.

I have requested protection of the page to prevent your unilateral attempt to take it over.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Are you going to answer my question or not? How does the quote from Coates used as a reference in the lead of the article reflect the paraphrased 'definition' you insist on?Crock81 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the definition has been changed to be more in line with Coates'. A lot broader, but not so broad as to be vacuous which it seems is what you are aiming for. We could call it an attempt at compromise.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not play games. "ethnic minorities" is a different article.

The 'definition' is not by Coates, but his quoting of an NGO group, of which there are several hundred, but the definition is no longer that which this NGO ascribes to.

If you read Coates further, you will see that he does not support this definition. This is because he is a historian. Your 'paraphrasing' in fact denies the expression of perspectives on indigenousness/indigeneity found in other disciplines. It therefore does not represent a neutral point of view, but one of contemporary international law only.Crock81 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one playing games here, you clearly are. Indigenous peoples are clearly a specific kind of ethnic minority in all of the definitions. I have read Coates thanks you very much. IWGIA is not just another indigenous rights NGO, but the main one, that has been instrumental in getting indigenous rights issues to the status it has today. And the definition given is not substantially different from any of the other definitions that have been give that all revolve around ethno-political distinctivesness and historical connections to territory. Paraphrasing is not OR, but a requirement for including material. You are being unhelpful in the extreme bordering on the disruptive. At this point I am not in a mindset to try to accommodate you more.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't need a compromise when I had a definition which is compliant with WP:RS and you do not. The article name is Indigenous peoples, not Contemporary international law and indigeneity, where a narrow definition Ubikwit is pushing would be more at home. This is a general subject article based on its title if nothing else. I put it to you that the definition "A group of people belonging to a certain country or region which is distinguished from other groups by language, customs and attitudes." is precise, concise and consistent with all definitions of "indigenous peoples" because it is general (not vague), matching the article title. Of course by dismissing it, you dismiss the UNESCO International Meeting of Experts on Intangible Cultural Heritage, so you and Ubikwit certainly place your selves high in terms of expert knowledge on the subject. UNESCO, in case you don't know is another one of those "international organizations" mentioned in the lead, and not an NGO.Crock81 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Unesco definition is not more or less compliant with RS than my attempt, to which I am by no means wedded - I prefer a return to the definition from before you showed up. Your proposed definition is entirely vacuous and also a misinterpretation of the UNESCO definition which does not simply say any ethnic group belonging to a region (which all ethnic groups do), but specifically ethnic groups who have a a historical claimn that goes before the claim made by a state, and which is a minority in that state. The entire declaration is based on the premise that indigenous peoples are minorities whose rights need to be protected in relation to the state and the majority culture. You are obfuscating to claim that empty definition represents the UNESCO view. You are simply trying to widen the concept so much that it becomes meaningless and accomodates your own particular favorite ethnic group. Your argument is nothing but a better informed variant of GeorgianJorjadze's nationalistic nonsense that led to the previous RfC and it adds nothing to the argument. Indigenous peoples are not just any people with a historical tie to a territory. All peoples have historical ties to particular territories. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact The subject of the 24 February 2012 RfC was the lead "Indigenous peoples are people, communities, and nations who are native to a particular area."

This clashed with the Definitions' & Criteria sections entirely single-sourced from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (see Sources below)

Fact the report by UNESCO reflects findings by experts in the field, while that by the NGO represents only its organisation perspective, which is no longer current.

Fact There was no 'definition' before I "showed up", but only a mis-referenced paraphrase of an NGO's web page financed by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which can not be said to be a neutral point of view

Fact The definition I edited into the lead was not proposed by me, but a definition adopted by UNESCO as cited.

Fact There is no explanation why this paraphrase is preferred to other definitions cited in the 14 pages of the cited chapter by the same author who rejects the NGO's definition.

Fact Title "should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Oh, the dilemma! What to use, the "common sense everyday meaning" or the "specialized meaning used by international organizations". Of course most Wikipedia readers choose ILO departmental reports for their reading materials, and what was that WTO report which was best seller in Geneva in 2001?

Fact Sources in "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." Repeat just for you all majority and significant minority views

Fact Lead in the article "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

Fact The first sentence "If its subject is definable...should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible." This article, through Maunus' efforts, is only accessible to those with knowledge of "specialized meaning used by international organizations"

Fact Introduction "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.", Lets see...

Population and distribution  Not done Historical cultures  Not done Indigenous peoples by region  Not done Rights, issues and concerns  Done Knowledge and culture  Not done Viewpoints  Not done A decade of editing the introduction to the article about the tribes of Humanity!

Fact Indigenous literally means "born within (the tribe)" and this etymology is cited from a work published in association with the International Development Research Centre (Canada) But where are the Canadian tribes? Well, according to this article only the USA, Brazil, India and New Zealand have tribal people.

Fact Your explanation offered to GeorgianJorjadze as to why Georgians are not indigenous to Georgia (country) is because "...under the international political definition of that term, which is the one we use in this article" they are not "ethnic minorities within nation states of another dominant (often colonial) ethnicity". Of course by your own accepted definition Georgians were indigenous until April 9, 1991. Beware the Zulu or the Kurds! Your argument was actually historically false when you said that "While the first definition is intuitive if we read literally it has unintuitive (sic., logical) consequences such as calling Germans indigenous but not Cherokee Indians." Germans do not claim territorial origins in Germany because of their documented Germanic migration. The Ani-Yun' wiya had no standing national government, but the people dwelt in "towns" located in scattered autonomous tribal areas throughout the southern Appalachia region But of course the Thai: (formerly Siamese) made the list as the predominant ethnicity of modern Thailand with a minor regional diaspora.

Fact You also offered this self-fulfilling prophecy that "...if the "common sense" definition is chosen the page is unlikely to ever attract edits by experts in indigenous peoples as they invariably use the second meaning." Well of course because if the article is narrowly defined by the "specialized meaning used by international organizations like UNESCO, ILO, WTO, IWGIA" not and by disciplines such as sociology and anthropology, that is precisely what you would get! And....you did! All other disciplines have been excluded! Of the 85 references, less than 10 are from non-legal/political perspectives. A single bibliographic item comes from another discipline! Not bad for an encyclopaedic denial of knowledge

Then there was this gem by JoeyRoe that "I think any native English speaker arguing for the inclusion of Europeans, Han Chinese, etc. in this article must be being deliberately over-literal with the dictionary definition of "indigenous" to make a point." Clearly as a native English speaker Joey doesn't realise that English comes from Angles, the Germanic partners of Saxones that invaded and partially colonised the until-then Celtic tribes representatives of which still speak Gaelic as their first language, and that the English language he speaks is a West Germanic language with a good dose of the Norman French reflecting the Norman conquest of England. The Hànzú (Han Chinese) trace their ancestry back to the Huaxia people, who lived along the Huang He or Yellow River in northern China, specifically, the Wei valley that cuts across the long Ordos loop. So, JoeyRoe a "native" English speak, but doesn't understand that when he says "it's quite clear that Maunus' second definition is the only one that matches our sources", one has to cite sources to ensure claimed clarity! Its the burden of evidential proof you see Joey. You know, that old thing called English legal system. What one single source did Maunus cite to engender such trust from JoeyRoe? Why the trusty old http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indigenous!!!

Then the entire World that reads Wikipedia has to take Maunas word for the quip that "International legislation generally uses "indigenous" and "aboriginal" is pretty much confined to Canada, and is losing ground in Australia". Well, gee, as a citizen of Australia I hear "aboriginal" used in the media all the time! But of course its not a term defined in International legislation, but Roman myth given its a Latin loanword in English...er...West German language JoeyRoe speaks.

And if that 'handy' "explanation" was not understood by GeorgianJorjadze, it was reiterated in the "You have already been given an 'exact explanation': that Georgians are not "indigenous people" in the sense that disciplines such as anthropology and sociology and organisations such as UNESCO use the term - which is the sense that our article does. This is the only explanation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)", no citing of sources, no pointing out there is no accepted and adopted definition by any of the organisations that matches Maunus' paraphrase! In fact this isn't true because had the editors consulted Anthropological and sociological works, they will have added at least 30 or more entries to the List of indigenous peoples based on their own paraphrased definition alone! The truth is that the 'definition' serves an agenda, which is not about article improvement.

In reply to the somewhat incensed GeorgianJorjadze, the wholly non-existent international definition being described here (not) is again invoked by --Carwil (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC), though the description is provided ONLY by Maunus who also pronounces a section in Wikipedia article as fictive, but neglects to contribute this "insight" on the article talk page because, ...the section uses reliable sources!

Fact After the "RfC", Maunus commenced "editing" and almost immediatelly received this reaction "19:36, 15 March 2011‎ HiLo48 (-646)‎ (Reverted poorly justified removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content. Maybe take the ideas to the Discussion page) The immediate reply was (Undid revision 419001154 by HiLo48 this is not acceptable the content is fully sourced and explanation was provided) - in fact no edit since the RfC contained even a single new reference, but did remove <ref>P. 395, ''Abominable Snowmen: Legend Comes to Life'' By Ivan Terence Sanderson</ref><ref>[http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter6/text6.htm Chapter 6: The Negrito Race] NOTE: Ivan T. Sanderson was a worldfamous zoologist and writer. He also published exhaustively in scientific journals under the auspices of the British Museum, the Chicago Museum of Natural History and other institutions. He held degrees with honors from Cambridge University, in botany, zoology, and geology, and also studied anatomy and physical anthropology.</ref> How much did Maunus contribute to expanding the article? It ended on the 15 March. He returned again with this "contribution" 15:02, 27 November 2011‎ Maunus (+2,630)‎ (restore definition from before protracted article decay - the current definition is commonsensical not in accord with the way the concept is used in academia) Removed was any notion of the indigenous association with land. Maunas then removed half the section of Classical Antiquity (properly sourced) because (→‎Historical cultures: this is mostly off topic since there was no concept of "indigenous peoples" at this time), but Doh!...ab origine is a Latin word, and barbarian was how Greeks in Classical Antiquity termed anyone not speaking Greek! In response to the attempts to readmit Georgians to Caucasus as indigenous, there was this reversion summary "15:34, 22 February 2012‎ Maunus (-135)‎ (→‎Europe: remove excessive photo - Georgians do not fall under most definitions of "indigenous")", however, exactly how many make up a most? The Oxford dictionary suggests greatest in amount or degree, so that would be at least 51% of all definitions by all significant international organisations, all nations, all of the various academic disciplines, etc. I'd say about 350 sources in all. Maunus, I'm waiting?

After a spate of 4-6 March edits, Maunas ownership of the article reached crescendo by declaring (unsourced of course) that "this definition specifically treats peoples classified as indigenous under international law", ignoring still that the first sentence still said "Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups that are defined as "indigenous" according to one of the various definitions of the term, though there is no universally accepted definition. If there was an international legal definition, why confuse the reader? Just quote it and provide citation!

Apparently I was not the first to notice the discrepancy between prose and provided citations. Count Truthstein deleted copious amounts from the article on the 30 March, meeting no opposition from Maunus. Of course he also removed Basques, Caucasians and Arabs from the article. This is because "additions based on commonsense definition which is not the sense used in this article" are not welcome, and neither is common sense, and perhaps why Maunus likes to say Nonsense a lot.

And what was the contribution to the article by the intrepid sextet of Maunus' RfC supporters? Neither Joey Roe, Carwil, Orange Mike, JamesMLane, Dr Marcus Hill or JayJasper had made any editing contributions to expand the article since the RfC

I have had it with this "discussion". Either use accepted Wikipedia editing standards, or there will be an AN/I Crock81 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you examine the first sentence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, you'll see that the very purpose of the procedure is to request "outside input", i.e., the input of uninvolved editors. If you believe that to be a bad policy, your remedy is not the sarcastic description of other editors as "intrepid" because they don't edit the article; your remedy is instead to go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and propose a project-wide change in RfC policy.

In the previous RfC, I thought that Maunus's opening paragraph did a good job of summarizing the issues. If further refinement is sought, or if you want to re-open the same discussion (no RfC result is cast in stone), then it would be helpful to have a similarly clear and succinct statement of the point(s) in dispute. Even better would be if you and Maunus could collaborate on a presentation that would enable others to understand what's disputed, and the arguments for each side, without wading through the entire discussion. If you'll pardon my self-advertisement, I set up this RfC in that manner, trying to bear in mind the needs of the previously uninvolved editors whose comments are being requested. JamesMLane t c 17:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not going to set up another RfC. I tried that in fact but it was derailed by Crock81's mate User:Evildoer. I think the next step is an arbitration request, but I am also not going to do that as frankly I have other things I need to be dealing with (I had a daughter this Friday and I have a preliminary exam on Indigenous rights to prepare for so I can styart writing my dissertation).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JamesMLane - I have been reading up a bit on policy and procedure lately, which is not how I imagined spending time off work. If you notice, the very purpose of the procedure is to request "outside input", i.e., the input of uninvolved editors, not those ignorant of the subject. In fact, there is ready advice from others what the process of reaching consensus is, and it certainly wasn't remotely followed 10 months ago.
I note that Maunus did not choose to address my point that in a choice between a "common sense definition" and a specialised definition", if one follows Wikipedia convention the former is adopted almost every time. But, you can search Wikipedia for 'specialised definition' and see the sort of articles that come up. It seems to me that "Indigenous peoples" is not a specialised expression, except in international law. Maunus - I would suggest that first we establish the rules that will govern any future RfC. Your assertion that User:Evildoer is my mate, is a strange one since we have barely corresponded. I am truly amazed that you were able to produce all this output, and go into labour, returning to the talk pages and editing so soon after giving birth. Inspiring indeed. Crock81 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Partial reply to Crock81's tirade

At this point I think taking this to AN/I or a similar outside party is a wonderful idea, if only because it would force Crock81 to produce a hopefully concise, at least cogent statement of what he actually wants to achieve with his edits and in this completely out-of-control discussion. I've been following it but, I admit, have struggled to keep a grasp on exactly what's being disputed. But since my name has been raised and I've basically been accused of being Maunus' meat puppet, I suppose I ought to chip in. In my estimation the only directly relevant point here is that Crock81 has yet to demonstrate that his broad definition is supported by reliable sources. He has instead flooded the article with excessive quotations to create the impression that no definition is exists (and therefore, presumably, justify him making one up itself) and this talk page with irrelevant tangents, ad hominems and unsubstantiated assertions that various bodies have significantly different definitions of "indigenous peoples" to the UN, etc. I will just respond to the points where he's attacked me directly, then.

You may have missed it, but I desire to adopt a "common sense definition" for the scope of this article which will admit content beyond that concerning the law and politics at the UN.

Is every discussion you are not in control of, and "out of control discussion"?

Who accused you of "being Maunus' meat puppet"?

I'm sure you have heard of Catch 22? It is defined as "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule," That rule is that no content can be added to the article which does not satisfy the pseudo-definition in the lead section. The lead may not be modified. Hence I can not "demonstrate that my broad definition is supported by reliable sources", because they are not admitted. They are not admitted because of the fraudulent consensus process by which the pseudo-definition was arrived at, and in which you were a participant.

I have not "flooded the article with excessive quotations", but simply added the quotation in full to support the statements already there, which I barely touched, and added references which were lacking.

"to create the impression that no definition exists" is easy, because almost all sources relevant to the three organisations in the section agree on this point, as does the lead section, and did during and after the RfC you participated in!

"irrelevant tangents" that refer to your participation in the RfC which prevents article editing to me? Seems relevant to you, or why mention it?

Actually no, "unsubstantiated assertions that various bodies have significantly different definitions of "indigenous peoples" to the UN" are substantiated because I had added two national definitions that clearly do not match the non-existent UN definition.

I refute the assertion that I in any way attacked you. Crock81 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Crock81 finds so amusing about my statement 'I think any native English speaker arguing for the inclusion of Europeans, Han Chinese, etc. in this article must be being deliberately over-literal with the dictionary definition of "indigenous" to make a point'; to clarify, my meaning was that even the everyday use of the phrase "indigenous" in English (which this article eschews in favour of more precise technical definitions of "indigenous peoples") it would be odd to apply it to majority ethnic groups in their respective territories, and that, therefore, there's an implicit degree of pointiness in throwing around narrowly interpreting dictionary definitions, usually in the form of some SPA wanting their pet ethnicity included as Officially Indigenous. As for the bizarre tangent into English and Chinese historical linguistics... well, yes, as an archaeologist with an interest in language in prehistory I am familiar with those narratives. Enough to recognise them as highly problematic, at least. I fail to see how they're relevant to what I said above, though. I have in fact repeatedly use similar examples (showing that the vast majority of ethnic groups have been both colonisers and colonised at some point in their pre/history) to argue that a broad definition of "indigenous" would be completely unsustainable for this article.

Don't know what an SPA is, but care to 'point' to the "narrowly interpreted dictionary definitions"?

Oh? Which part do you find problematic, the German migration of the Han Chinese being indigenous to the Wei Valley? Perhaps you can even dig up some sources? You brought it up in arguing against the common sense definition of Indigenous peoples, so you though the statement was relevant.

So, your position is that "a broad definition of "indigenous" would be completely unsustainable for this article" because this is a need to know type complicated stuff Wikipedia readers shouldn't be bothered with, what figuring out who were the colonisers and who were colonised, and the effect on the indigenous peoples of the globe. Sort of like Assyrians or Kurds (on the list now).

To be absolutely clear: the opinions I've expressed are my own, based on my own understanding of the issue and my own reading of the sources (yes sources – but one very rarely cites them on a talk page). I am not Maunus' shill, I just, like most other informed people who have contributed to this article and its associated discussions, agree with him on the definition of what the appropriate definition of "indigenous peoples" is for this article.

A nice Disclaimer. Based on Maunus' editing, there is no definition, but a definition he doesn't like, is not allowed.

Finally, no, I haven't found the time to make any substantial contributions to the article directly, although I have out of interest in the subject watched it for quite some time and made minor edits here and there. And I humbly suggest that participating in talk page discussions is itself a worthwhile contribution to article where there is an unfortunate tendency for well meaning editors to plough in and make major changes in the face of existing consensus. In any case, policy is quite clear that there are no qualifications for participating in discussions, and the entire purpose of an RfC is to garner "outside input" from people not directly involved in an editing dispute. It's particularly twisted to argue that mine and other participants in the RfC's opinions are irrelevant because we have not directly edited the article, but insist that Maunus' (admirable) efforts in expanding and maintaining the article are a sign of him claiming ownership. You can't overturn consensus by attempting to discredit everybody involved in it. joe•roe^t•c 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, "outside input" by uninvolved editors, is not intended to invite utter ignorants on the subject to produce their opinions. Perhaps it isn't made clear, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that exists in the realm of published academic media, and therefore how comments in academic publishing work is different in intent and form to your offering. As an archaeologist, if you have ever been published, you ought to know this.Crock81 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO

The declaration on indigenous rights does not include a definition of the concept. But, the UNESCO pamphlet "UNESCO and Indigenous Peoples: Partnership to promote Diversity" explains why this is. And it then refers to the MArtinez-Cobo definition as the one with the widest currency.

The Concept of “Indigenous Peoples”: There is no universal and unambiguous definition of the concept of “indigenous peoples”, since no single accepted definition captures the diversity of indigenous cultures, histories and current circumstances. The relationships between indigenous peoples and dominant or mainstream groups in society vary from country to country. However, all attempts to define the concept recognize the linkages between people, their land, and culture and are almost always politically motivated and formulated in the broader context of international efforts to ensure indigenous peoples’ status and rights.

The International Working Group on Indigenous Populations has analysed existing definitions of the concept, especially with reference to the Convention of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries” (No. 169, 1989). The following working definition has emerged from that analysis and is widely used today.

Working Definition of Indigenous People Proposed by the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations …those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and precolonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

— J. Martinez Cobo (United Nations Special Rapporteur), "Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations", 1987

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact - the currency of the Martinez-Cobo 'definition' was 1987, that's 25 years ago.

Fact - the working definition was a proposal which was not adopted, therefore it is not a definition by virtue of rejection. In other words you insist on using a 'definition' which was already rejected 25 years agoCrock81 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unesco keeps referring to this definition in material published within the last three years. Stuff your "facts".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop playing with words Maunus. UNESCO refers to a lot of things, but UNESCO has adopted only one definition I could find.

yummmmm...Stuffed facts, my favourite. Crock81 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the definition you referred to has been adopted anywhere or has any official status whatsoever. You sourced it to the minutiae of a closed UNESCO meeting in 2002 the "International Meeting of Experts on Intangible Cultural Heritage, Establishment of a Glossary, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 10-12 June 2002 TER/CH/2002/WD/4" in which a group of "dutch experts" proposed a draft glossary of definitions regarding intangible cultural heritage. This unofficial working document is what you have been parading around as "the only definition you could find", that is so ridiculous that it would be funny if I hadn't spent several hours arguing with you as if you were making sense. Given how you have blatantly misrepresented this source I see no possibility of continuing to assume good faith from you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the definition was adopted for the purpose Intangible Cultural Heritage policy. I will confirm with someone next week. (Please note that recognising my lack of expert knowledge I enlisted two friends-of-friends with greater expertise, but due to the holidays both are on limited availability)

The "Dutch experts" were in fact "five anthropologists from various Dutch institutions (expertise represented: museology, musicology, performing arts, general ethnology, encyclopaedia of anthropology, early states; the Netherlands, Indonesia, Africa, Caucasus) and one descriptive linguist (endangered languages).", and therefore had a far wider perspective than Martinez-Cobo group concerned solely with human rights.

The greater problem which your suggestion presents is not only an exceedingly narrow perspective, but one that deals only with the present of the 1972-1987 period, i.e. when the indigenous peoples "form at present non-dominant sectors of society". The World is not however a static system. As was amply illustrated by your conflict with an editor from Georgia during the 'RfC', under this definition Georgians were indigenous to USSR until 1991, during the Martinez-Cobo time in the UN, but not now! And what of the Alawites in the possible near future?

What the UNESCO definition allows is evidence in the form of intangible and tangible cultural heritage as a framework for defining individual indigenous peoples in terms of their own culture, and not only human rights violations. Its the wider perspective that Wikipedia editing guideline calls for - all major and notable minority perspectives. Human rights is an important, but a minor perspective of indigenousness, particularly where field work by the UN agencies are concerned.

I actually agree that no definition is required, but if a definition must be had in the article, it ought to be one that represents the widest perspective for the reader that's possible, not to narrow it to a single issue POV. As I pointed out elsewhere, that article also exists, and there is no reason to duplicate it here.

The definition UNESCO offers more of a conceptual metaphor also Crock81 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Orissa

I reverted the previous change of the name of the state of Orissa in India to Odisha. The state is officially called Orissa, which can be checked at the official site of the State: www.orissa.gov.in --Laplandgerard (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Scope of article, Definitions, etc

Broadly speaking, this is an article that is based on the narrow definition of indigenous used by international organizations in the political and legal realms. This Talk:Indigenous peoples/Archive 3#RfC: Scope of this article was provided by EdJohnston (talk).

See above. It is based neither on a narrow definition (or one intended to be), or that of international organisations. In fact the IWGIA was started by anthropologists Crock81 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunaus will recognize the material because he was an active participant in the discussion.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Well, I will welcome Maunus' comments Crock81 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maunaus' latest edit of the opening sentence looks pretty good. I think that the lead should be as concise as possible. It does a good job of including both the notions of contemporaneity and connection to ancestral territories, and is basically implies "historical continuity", which is sort of implied in contemporaneity. Those three notions are commonly included in the definitions I've seen thus far, along with self-identification.

I do have question regarding the following, however:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term "indigenous peoples"; however, the four most often invoked elements are:

• a priority in time
• the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness
• an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession
• and self-identification

That opening seems like a paraphrase, but is in fact very close to plagiarizing the source see p.8.

The statement "a priority in time" is fairly vague and maybe a bit too abstract taken out of context. It is a somewhat specialized academic term that I haven't seen used in any of the real-world definitions, though the concept is embodied in various forms. I added a blockquote of the very next sentence from that source with a link to the pdf file of the downloadable book, providing a little context from the source.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

a) See

b) the principle, adopted by the UN in 1995, in full reads "a) priority in time, with respect to the occupation and use of a specific territory" Crock81 (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a bad idea to let Crock81 do the research for us, because he seems to misrepresent it and cherry pick to his convenience.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, cherry pick? As in "pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."? As in emphasising the legal and political definitions of "indigenous peoples" while ignoring the

• Anthropological definitions
• Archaeological definition
• Arts definition
• Demographic definition
• Econometric definition
• Economic Development definition
• Economics definition
• Educational definition
• Ethnographic definition
• Geographic definition
• History and Historiography definition
• Interdisciplinary Studies definition
• Linguistic definition
• Philosophical definition
• Psychological definition
• Theological definition
• Social Psychology definition
• Social Sciences definition
• Sociology definition
  

You mean that sort of cherry picking?Crock81 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Show where such definitions might exist in the literature. The concept "indigenous people" was developed in the human rights discourse and remains the main area of use. I don't know that any other disciplinary discourses have competing or contrasting definitions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is that for someone who was making RfC proposals and reverting contributions since based on your " specialized meaning used by international organizations", do don't know quite a bit. If you don't know something, what gives you the right to dictate to others what should and should not be included in this article?

I am happy to free you of your lack in insight - the concept "indigenous peoples" was not developed by the human rights discourse. Indigenous Races of the Earth: Or, New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry; Including Monographs on Special Departments including Indigenous Races of the Earth:

Or, New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry; including M0N0GRAPHS ON SPECIAL DEPARTMENTS OF PHILOLOGY, ICONOGRAPHY, CRANI0SC0PY, PALAEONTOLOGY, PATHOLOGY, ARCHEOLOGY, COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY, AND NATURAL HISTORY contributed by Alfred Maury, Francis Pulszky, and J. Aitken Meigs, Presenting Fresh Investigations, Documents, and Materials, Philadelphia, 1868

Until late 19th century the term was predominantly applied to flora and fauna, particularly botany because plant populations tend to be described in terms of the territory they are found in and which they colonise. However, the Statistics of the Colonies of the British Empire, 1839 already noted that

It is by no means extraordinary that African troops should suffer as well as the whites from the climate of the West Indies, seeing that they are for the most part natives of the interior of Africa, of which the climate is probably very different: and it is well known that, though the indigenous races of tropical as well as temperate climates are peculiarly fitted by nature for inhabiting and peopling the respective portions of the globe wherein they or their forefathers were born, the effects of a transition to any other is in general productive of a great increase in the scale of mortality.(pp.615-616)

Crock81 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about the term indigenous which obviously has the meaning of "native to a place", but that does not determine the meaning of the term indigenous peoples, which is a different thing just like blackbirds is not the same as birds that are black. Indigenous races is not the same as indigenous peoples - and in anycase was never a common way to describe "native people" but one that does occur now and then in the literature of the 19th century. And indigenous flora and fauna is also not the same. Present sources that say that "indigenous peoples" currently have any other meaning than the one in the human rights discourse. Sources about the topic of the article dictate what should be in the article. So produce sources that support your wide definition of the concept or stop wasting our time with sophistry and filibustering.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject was part of my university education what seems like a lifetime ago, and I was under the impression that I am far from an expert, but compared to you I am starting to think of myself as a professor no less. Your conception of the entire subject is so shallow, that you can't even escape the 'gravity' of your cemented political stand. You do in fact do a disservice not only to the indigenous peoples and Wikipedia, but yourself also.

I have new rules now for engaging in discussion with you, or anyone with similar approach to bully-editing. You try to stay in the top three categories of discussion, and we may get somewhere.

• Refuting the Central Point - explicitly refutes the central point
• Refutation - finds the mistake and explains why it's mistaken using quotes
• Counterargument - contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence .........................................................talk here

---

• Contradiction - states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence .......................................................................don't expect response
• Responding to Tone - criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
• Ad Hominem - attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
• Name-calling - sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."

Crock81 (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a bit of a pot/kettle going on here. By ignoring Maunus' requests for current relevant sources, you're putting yourself directly below your own line of discussion. Also, arguing from your own authority is a bit pointless when nobody here can tell you're a dog. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re pot/kettle, you have diffs?

Re Maunus' requests - I'm sure you have heard of Catch 22? It is defined as "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule," That rule is that no content can be added to the article which does not satisfy the pseudo-definition in the lead section. The lead may not be modified. Hence I can not "demonstrate that my broad definition is supported by reliable sources", because they are not admitted. They are not admitted because of the fraudulent consensus process by which the pseudo-definition was arrived at, and in which you were a participant.

Re arguing from my own authority - please provide a diff

I am not an animal, but | |{{User:Jdaniels15/dogs1}}

|

This user likes big dogs, and cannot lie... (though they do NOT like the song this userbox is based on!)

|Usage |- Crock81 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are being obtuse Crock81 you have done nothing but arguing from your own authority since you have provided no sources in support of your claim that the topic is most commonly used with a wider definition or that there is an alternative definition in geography or theology. Your complaint about a catch22 is also a red herring since you could simply start trying to change the definition by supplying sources in support of a new definition so that you mioght convince others that it is a good idea. Instead you use badgering, sophistry, wikilawyering and circus tricks to try to get your will without having to produce any sources. That is disruptive and I will soon take action against you for disruptive editing unless you take a different approach to this endeavor. You should: 1. show us some really good sources that use a definition of Indigenous peoples that is so broad that includes any people who resides in a territory in which they are the first known inhabitants. 2. rationally and calmly argue why these sources should be given more weight than the many many sources that are already in the article that define Indigenous peoples specifically in a combination of cultural and political terms as ethnic minorities with land claims against states. Yes, the Martinez-Cobo, ILO, World Bank and IWGIA definitions are all different, but they all agree on this aspect of the definition: it is not enough to simply have been in a place for a long time. We don't have to choose one of those specific definitions, but we do have to provide a definition that has the main shared characteristics of all those definitions. At least not untill you show us some authoritative sources that do so. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I never said that Geography or Theology have alternative definitions to those of ILO, World Bank and IWGIA. They can't possibly because their perspective of indigenous peoples is derived from their disciplinary prerogatives.
However, since you won't even admit the only definition adopted by a UN organisation which I did supply, and not suggested, but demanded that the only one 'definition' was the pseudo-definition paraphrase extracted from a nearly 500 word essay and reduced to a single sentence, what exactly was the point of pursuing that 'discussion'? I think the definition supplied came from a reliable source, since this was not questioned at any time. Therefore, I did in fact "simply start trying to change the definition by supplying sources in support of a new definition so that you might convince others that it is a good idea."
1. Exactly how many sources to the same definition should I supply? Two, three, ten? I think I can find them because its been in use by UNESCO since 2002. Its breadth dos not require first residence in a territory for indigenousness. That would be coming from other disciplines. However, Catch-22
2. Rationally and calmly I yet again point out that the only adopted definitions currently in the article are those in the national section. The quotes I added in the international section were intended to show the process of deliberation in the international community, but one that failed to arrive at an acceptable definition. Call them 'research findings' if you wish, but definitions they are not. Moreover, the identification of any given community as an ethnic group is a whole separate discussion outside of the present subject.
3. The reason Martinez-Cobo, ILO, World Bank and IWGIA statements all agree that it is not enough to simply have been in a place for a long time, is because they are all viewing the subject of the indigenous peoples from the same perspective of human rights, NOW! Time is irrelevant because they are only dealing with the NOW (the present), or the immediate future. This is why the 'enemy' for these organisations is the current modern state. For them, indigenousness began for any particular group when it was recognised to be discriminated against. 1945, 1957, 1963, 1978, all different for each group. ILO really turned to the indigenous issues when the post-colonial liberation movements started because it had been thoroughly 'seeded' by the USSR. The WB concerns itself only with the economics of poverty where the indigenous issues are concerned. IWGIA statement about itself actually includes the claims to territorial rights "IWGIA supports indigenous peoples' struggle for human rights, self-determination, right to territory, control of land and resources, cultural integrity, and the right to development." However, they all repeat that indigenous are, "because they are descendants of those who lived in the area before colonization." That means any colonisation. Exactly how many times has Anatolia been colonised? What about Liguria, Haryana, Bienville Parish, Louisiana? History is like a layer cake.
For example Assyrians claim primacy over the post-nomadic Kurds, but they really need evidence of the Akkadian past. Kurds are very serious about creating a state from demographic enclaves in Turkey, Iraq and Syria, but have little evidence to the land rights claim. Etc.
A broader and more inclusive Indigenous peoples article is likely to create quite a few disputes in the process, that I'm sure of, but it will be a far more informed and informative article, which is the editorial obligation here.
Please leave out all the emotional stuff next time. All the accusations of "badgering, sophistry, wikilawyering and circus tricks" does little to impress me or get you an emotional response. You aren't Socrates, and I'm not charging anyone to read the article. I am somewhat flattered that you think I'm wikilawyering because all I'm doing is providing the right links to things that ought to be known, but are not it seems. There isn't an actual prohibition from reminding about Wikipedia rules and regulations. I had learned something new just 15 minutes ago, so hardly fit for a 'lawyer' Crock81 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just start with one source then we can discuss how it compares to the other ones. I am not responding to more unsupported claims in which you simply divert attention with red herring arguments such as obviously irrelevant musings about whop might be the indigenous people of Liguria or Haryana. Wikilawyering is what you do when you spraypaint your posts with links to irrelevant policies that you have obviously neither read nor understood. Please just present sources about indigenous peoples that use a definition that would include any people who have historical primacy to a territory. One, or two or how many you think you need. Then argue why that definition should be considered to be more widely accepted as the primary topic of an article on indigenous peoples than the narrow one. You are wasting everybody's time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The article -- and any WP article IMO -- should be as holistic as possible. Include any and all notable definitions that have been used for indigenous people, whether ethnological/anthropological, political, legal, historic, etc. Instead of removing info, jump in and add, with sources cited of course. Giving the historic origins of the term's use would make a dandy section or subsection on its own. OttawaAC (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could be more specific regarding how you think the notability of different definitions (e.g. historic and current, academic and colloquial) should be weighed and how you think the actual definition of the article should be made holistic without being vacuous, and while still conforming to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also noone has removed info (except for Crock81's redefinition of the topic), Crock81 has added a lot of information making the article now a sorry mess of patchwork of different definitions with very little coherence and readbility.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is evidently untrue. I have worked mostly on the International organisations section, but had added two national definitions also. Just because an article needs focus it does not preclude it covering many subjects.Crock81 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The patchwork effect could gain some coherence by taking a chronological approach, for one thing. All the various definitions that are now more or less just in a list, categorized according to 'discursive sphere', maybe take them and order them according to how the term's evolved, how definitions and concepts have influenced one another, trace the history that way. Maybe call it "History of the term 'indigenous'". That could give the reader some better context. The common understanding of the term is shaped by mass media; how does it tend to define the term, and what's the history there? Beyond the popular understanding of the term, how has it evolved among academics and in the legal/legislative sense? I think chronological is the way to go with those definitions.OttawaAC (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And to be more specific... I have to say, the lead as it is right now needs to be split somehow (it's just very lengthy), and my preference would be to have it say right in the intro, that 'indigenous peoples' are defined according to various means, whether through self-identification, or by academics, legal bodies, or NGOs. Then go from there, but keep it summary style. Current lede is very wordy, and the italicized blurb is too long...OttawaAC (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually according to WP:MOSLEAD the lead is too short for an article this size.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that you, Maunas, had 10 months to make that lead as perfect as your heart desired before I did so much as one edit. I haven't edited for almost a week now, but I appreciate that with the expectant baby and a dissertation, time is a limited resource. Yet you did find time to defend your preference with vigour.

The truth is that I of course essentially agree with OttawaAC, but one of the reasons I stopped editing, was not only because of the constant edit warring by Ubikwit, and Maunus running interference, but also because the lead is supposed to reflect the entire article, and quite simply the broader, common sense approach to the general subject of Indigenous peoples is quite complex, and I have been trying to come up with an 'Article structure Crock81 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the italicized blurb is of questionable value, but the article needs to have focus to ensure for readability and prevent it from seeming like an inchoate assemblage of "definitions". Chronology might be relevant with respect to explicating any paradigmatic shifts in the use of the term "indigenous people", but there is a clear narrative associated with the usage of the term that Maunus has basically presented, and the time span does not seem to justify a chronological approach. The littering of the article with definitions by Crock81 is a strategy aimed at obscuring the essentially political context in which the term was adopted to address the plight of specific groups of people. To recap--in consideration of the cumbersome state that the discussion has taken on at this point--a couple of points made by Maunus in response and then ignored:

• The entire declaration is based on the premise that indigenous peoples are minorities whose rights need to be protected in relation to the state and the majority culture.
• The concept "indigenous people" was developed in the human rights discourse and remains the main area of use. I don't know that any other disciplinary discourses have competing or contrasting definitions.

Therefore, an organizing principle that puts that context into focus is what would seem to improve the readability of the article. Any academic discourse that has developed as a result of the political discourse should be explicated against the background of the political discourse, not visa versa.

I am not familiar with the literature in the field--so I'll defer to those who are--but it is readily apparent that not a lot has changed over the years, and that the working definition Crock81 is basically trying to assert is irrelevant because,

"the currency of the Martinez-Cobo 'definition' was 1987, that's 25 years ago"

would appear to still be the reference in respect of which other definitions are compared and considered. His attempt to cite 19th century references to justify the haphazard deconstruction of the article would appear to be a strategic ploy to undermine the article, as Maunus has tried to reason with him regarding the surreptitious attempt to introduce the generic term "indigenous".

That brings this comment back to the italicized blurb. In lieu of the forgoing discussions, it is not clear to me that the appearance of the two written representations of the phrase indigenous peoples and "indigenous peoples", one in quotation marks and one not, signifies anything of substantial relevance.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

"explicating any paradigmatic shifts", hey, you had some of those Maunus' stuffed facts, haven't you?

"the time span does not seem to justify a chronological approach" - why?

"The littering of the article with definitions" is an essential part of the green bit!

"political context in which the term was adopted to address the plight of specific groups of people", i.e. the indigenous peoples, is in the Indigenous rights, which was edited pretty much by a single editor, mostly in 2010, achieving a Start quality. Since Carwil contributed a section, he/she ought to have pointed out that a more focused article exists in Wikipedia already.

"Academic discourse that has developed as a result of the political discourse" - where (diff please)?

"I am not familiar with the literature in the field...but it is readily apparent that not a lot has changed over the years" if it is readily apparent to someone "not familiar with the field", it must be positively obvious to those that are! What remains to identify is, which 'field' you are in.

"working definition that Crock81 is basically trying to assert is irrelevant because it dates from 1987" - let me fill you in. 1987 was the year the 'working definition' was not adopted, though it had been in development since 1972, and as I recall presented by each of the three succeeding Special Rapporteurs (I think). I am therefore certainly opposed to using it. I was proposing a definition adopted by UNESCO in 2002. UNESCO has a broader mandate and a greater influence on the work of the UN as a whole than the Working Group, and unlike the advisory function of the Working Group, it actually does stuff. Its definition is not a compromise, but reflects the many spheres of real influence it projects into the lives of very many millions in the areas of Education, Natural Sciences, Social and Human Sciences, Culture, and Communication and Information. Since Wikipedia is also in the Communication and Information 'business', I was very happy to have found this definition, because it seemed a natural paralleling of intents of purpose, particularly given the UNESCO motto Building Peace in the minds of men and women. Its good that you represent a voice of descent though, because there is no arriving at the truth without an argument. The only problem with a counterargument is that it requires "reasoning and/or supporting evidence".

The Martinez-Cobo is "still the reference in respect of which all other definitions seem to be compared and considered" because academics work that way

My "attempt to cite 19th century references to justify the haphazard deconstruction of the article", was not; I did provided it here to show that the concept is not a post-1945 phenomena, even if under a different terminology of Victorian English. I say, WHAT old chap? Crock81 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I had completed a revision of my previous comment concurrent to your edit, I posted that revision and will follow up here.

I'm familiar with UNESCO, but it would appear that your attempt to shift the focus to a more culturally oriented definition is an attempt to deprecate the existence and work of a dedicated group that has been established in the UN specifically to deal with indigenous issues. I'm not going to sift through the forgoing discussions again, but I seem to recall Maunus stating that UNESCO repeatedly refers to the Cobo definition, so that would seem to problematize the contextual aspects of the UNESCO definition you have proposed for the opening sentence of the lead. In other words, that definition does not seem to have the priority in current usage to merit being the opening sentence for framing the article.--Ubikwit (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

What do you mean by "I'm familiar with UNESCO"?

That dedicated group is called the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - its Mandate is

The Expert Mechanism provides the Human Rights Council with thematic advice, in the form of studies and research, on the rights of Indigenous peoples as directed by the Council. The Expert Mechanism may also suggest proposals to the Council for its consideration and approval.

The UNEMRIP is part of the OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, an office within the UN Secretariat, but one termed 'Other' as it is very far in the priority where the main body of the Secretariat work is done - administration of the UN as a whole.

UNESCO on the other hand is one of several specialised operations agencies that answers to the Economic and Social Council. Its definition is just as good as that of the other Specialized Agencies:

• ILO International Labour Organization
• FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
• WHO World Health Organization
• World Bank Group

Any definitions adopted by these agencies are not advisory but are used for policy formulation during ongoing operations. You know, doing stuff, like editing, not engaging in protracted and fruitless discussions.

All of these also have a position on the indigenous peoples, but neither Maunus, nor anyone else considered the inclusion of the POVs of the other three organisations in the article, though I suspect they do a whole lot of work for those this article is supposed to be about. So let's see, that would have been five major operational agencies vs one advisory group. Who's POV you think represents the more authoritative POV for determining indigenousness? So when you call me a "POV pusher", you had better make it the "UNESCO POV pusher". Again I remind you of the content guideline that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Currently the article reflects the view of one insignificant minority, and two out of five significant majorities within one international organisation. POVs on the subject exist outside the UN also.

ECOSOC has broad responsibility for some 70% of the human and financial resources of the entire UN system, including 14 specialized agencies, 9 “functional” commissions, and five regional commissions. In many ways, it is the UN. Is it any wonder that no articles exist for either the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nor did anyone bother to write an article about Martinez-Cobo until recently.

So what if "UNESCO repeatedly refers to the [Martinez]-Cobo definition"? Maunus is the POV pusher for what used to be the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so I would expect him to say that. However, a reference to the non-adopted definition is just that.

When you say "that would seem to problematize the contextual aspects of the UNESCO definition you have proposed" do you actually consider the logic behind what you write? What is the problem of replacing the proposed, but not adopted definition rejected in 1987 by an advisory body' with an adopted definition by an operational agency in 2002? In other words, that UNESCO definition does not seem to have the priority in current usage to merit being the opening sentence for framing the article. Crock81 (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say Crock81, I am in agreement with Maunus' characterization of your editing practice as sophistry, which is clearly demonstrated in your forgoing response. In lieu of the amount of discussion that has taken place here, such behavior would seem to demonstrate a substantial degree of inconsiderateness or even disrespect of the competence of other with whom you make a pretense to be engaged in reasoned discussion. Since I have put substantial time into this discussion, I will respond to you queries; however, since I am not an expert on the UN or in this field, I'll defer to those more knowledgeable to follow through on any loose ends. First, since the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was established in 1968, it would seem to have been superseded by the UN PFII, and since you harp on "thematic advise", here is a page from the website of the PFII The following are the six mandated areas of the UNPFII:

• Economic and social development
• Culture
• Environment
• Education
• Health
• Human rights

With respect to UNESCO, the scope of that organizations activities would seem to cover "Culture" and "Education" from the list above. That clearly places UNESCO as an organization in a lower order status to the PFII with respect to indigenous issues, and that is why the "definition" you attempt to appropriate from minutiae of one of their meetings is being presented out of context. That "definition" would appear to have been discussed with respect to the organizations efforts represent to the public its effort to support indigenous peoples within the scope of the sphere of activities engaged in by UNESCO.--Ubikwit (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Provide diff to my "sophistry"

The Permanent Forum is an advisory body, not a policy producing one like the agencies, and commissions.

The context is intangible cultural property, never mind tangible cultural property Crock81 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to spin the story about the purported Unesco definition in a manner such as to present that body and the people involved with their works as having "broader perspective" etc on the basis of anomalous comparisons of academic disciplines and artificially deprecated scope for the PFII. Your objective is to supplant the consensus based use of the "narrow internationally defined definition" of indigenous peoples.

And you continue to try and spin that yarn even though several articulate and experienced editors have brought it to your attention in an explicit manner. --Ubikwit (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit