503:- Actually, I can. I'm sorry that you dislike my opionion. This page has existed for over 16 years, has had thousands of edits, with dozens of sources, and hundreds of well-sorted links. It is a clearly well maintained and an important article. Your rationale that it should be deleted simply because it is too vague is nonsensical. You did not even attempt to bring up the issue at hand on the articles talk page to attempt to re-define or engage in a discussion about the articles scope. This is the first AfD this article has been put up for, and was only PRODed several years ago and was promptly removed. Also worth noting this article is also under 30/500 protection via the arbitration committee. Because of this, it does in fact strike me as wikilawyering, at best. At any rate, there is not much more to be said. Other editors can commence with their vote and review. Should this be a keep vote, I would encourage you to discuss on the articles talk page about your concerns over potential vagueness. You could even start that now in the meantime while this is reviewed since it is extremely likely Keep will be the outcome. Carry on~ --
944:
migrated from India during the medieval period, long after the area was settled. In
Britain the Celtic peoples of the west have a case for being indigenous, but colonisation by Angles, Saxons, Norse Vikings, and then Normans took place so long ago, that the distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous is meaningless. It is utterly different with those parts of the world that have been subject to large-scale colonisation by Europeans, African ex-slaves, Arabs, or Han Chinese.
739:
of the wider world fairly recently, say, in the last five centuries, and who are now minorities and/or oppressed by other peoples in their own ancestral territory. It overlaps with, but is not the same, as "minority", or "oppressed people", or "ethnic group". I think we need a serious dicussion on what the scope of this list should be and, depending on what that discussion decides, what to call the list. -
640:
this AfD could be a good opertunity for people to come together and improve the article. The topic is inherently very political and will need to be treaded gently and with understanding. I hesitate to suggest draftify though as I worry it might never exit draft space due to how contentious the topic will certainly become during the editing processs. --
804:
may be the only way to rationalise this content. Overhauling it, when there are no citations for 90% of the content, will be a mammoth effort. Drafting is another reasonably option, but this obviously has the problem of who would take it on. The stubify option is therefore possibly more viable as it,
485:
You can't baselessly accuse me of
Wikilayering for writing a deletion nomination that you disagree with. You have not responded to the actual nomination rationale, that the definition of worldwide "Indigenous peoples" is too vague and: inconsistent for a standalone list. I am not opposed for specific
738:
I am tempted to support deletion, but that would not solve the underlying problem. I do think the List needs to be drastically reformed, and maybe re-named. As other have noted, it is too much of a hodge-podge. In my humble opinion, "indigenous" is a valid term for peoples that entered the awareness
639:
This is a fair take and I have revised my vote to keep instead of speedy keep given this. A page like this is bound to be messy basically however you slice it and it will never be perfect. I noticed the intense bickering when looking through the edit history which (sadly) didn't surprise me. I agree
237:
I am not seeing how this is a maintainable or workable list. There is no clear, consistent definition of what defines an "indigenous people" across the entire planet. While the definition of "indigenous peoples" may be clear in some contexts (i.e. Indigenous
Australians and Americans) in many others
594:
now recognise that
Indigeneity is a question of self-identification, not checklist-criteria. If a group self-identifies as Indigenous, and that claim is recognise in a significant number of reliable sources, then we should include them in articles like this. Of course there will always be disputes
965:
maintainable, it is just entirely uncited. The first step in making this article functional is going through every single ethnic group and determining what the current consensus among scholars or the people themselves is. Additionally, this topic is subjective, caveats should be included wherever
943:
This is a horrid article, at least in part, with some people being named as indigenous, where that is at best doubtful; if anything, they are the settler community despite being nomadic. We seem to have Roma and other travelling communities all over western Europe, but the best view is that they
768:
per Joe's reasoning. Not only is there a clear definition at the start of the article, there are multiple others linked that say more or less the same thing. I agree that this version of the article is a mess, though. It may be better to make this an outline linking to the articles for respective
855:
is sourced to some random person (apparently?) and basically ascribes universal political ideals to all indigenous groups across the world - which is absurd. This article can't seem to make its mind up on what it wants to include. I can see this being a viable list, but it's in a moribund state.
452:
it is unbecoming to edit out my statement and claim it to be a personal attack when it was not. It would be better to wait and see if other editors feel that way and to inform me as such (editors may review the edit history to make their own judgement). But being both judge and jury is unfair.
852:
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
903:- useful page, and as has been said, it has a definition at the start. However, it needs to be re-written and simplified, having every single tribe listed for each indigenous group could result in this page having tens of thousands of individual entries - and that's not what Knowledge is.
599:
version of the list is a giant mess. I've had it on my watchlist for about a decade and I really can't recall more than a handful of significant, constructive edits in that time. Instead there is just a tiresome repetition of the same disputes (notably the inclusion of
Israeli Jews and/or
457:
and feels frivolous given how self-evidently this article deserves to remain. If you feel it is so questionable and needing of editing, it would be much better to edit the page, and discuss the issue at hand on its talk page with other editors. Outright deletion is far, far to extreme and
600:
Palestinians) and a familiar cycle where somebody adds their ethnic group, complains when it is reverted because "we've always lived here!", and we have to patiently explain, again, that if we included every ethnic group that has ever been indigenous to anywhere, we'd have to call it
55:
While AfD is not cleanup, it is also not a suicide pact, and if significant modifications aren't made in line with the overwhelming sentiment expressed below over the coming weeks and months, we will be back at AfD in Q2 of 2022 and the outcome could potentially be very different.
608:, and for whom Indigeneity has been a central part of struggles for recognition and legal rights, has been ignored: the sections on North and South America, Australasia, and the Arctic—where the majority of the world's Indigenous peoples live—are woefully incomplete and
831:, the defintiion was " ethnic groups who are native to a particular place on Earth and live or lived in an interconnected relationship with the natural environment there for many generations prior to the arrival of non-Indigenous peoples." In
795:
page. Instead, it cites a far more random journal entry. In the definition section, it then seems to paraphrase some elements on the UN definition. Not a great or particularly consistent start. No wonder the article has become an inconsistent
856:
Also, re the nominator "it is not clear what would be defined as an 'indigenous person' as opposed to merely an ethnic group that is found in a particular area, such as in most of Africa" the most of Africa thing is not exactly true. In the
670:
The term "indigenous peoples" has become a catch-all term for politically and culturally marginalized ethnic groups all over the world, and undoubtedly has helped to create awareness about the strife of these peoples. But alas, this does
835:
the definition was "ethnic groups who are the original owners and caretakers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently." Arguably a RfC is needed to fix the definition.
791:- While a list on this subject would be useful, this article at present falls short at every turn. I disagree about whether the definition is clear. I'm not sure why it does not simply start with the same definition as on the
206:
553:. Yes there are dozens of citations—45 at the moment—but that is not a good thing in a contentious list with hundreds of entities. Consider also that nearly half (19) of those citations are concentrated in the
534:
has a similar antiquity and edit count, and is also under discretionary sanctions, and yet its most recent AfD closed as "no consensus" a few weeks ago. You have still not addressed the nomination rationale.
679:
of the term (which may vary based on the temporal cut-off point and whether the criterion of political participation is included). The current largely unsourced list is all apples and oranges; e.g. why are
809:, would encourage the article to be rebuilt, bottom up, with inline citations throughout justifying the inclusion of individual entries - the ideal level of sourcing intensity for all such lists.
751:
Insidiously misleading weasel term as others have intuitively grasped and I don't see much room for reform because it's a political term that doesn't match the etymological origin in practice. --
700:
are listed, even though they have all the political power over their country. But still, a huge part of the list contains groups that are
Indigenous peoples by all standards, as pointed out by
860:, for example, you have various ethnic groups who are essentially "native" to the country (by political Western standards) and make up the vast majority of the population, such as the
200:
388:
Doesn't mean that the definition is useful or is consistent. For example, who are the indigenous peoples in states where there are many small ethnic groups and no large ones, like
315:
52:. But not a simple no consensus defaulting to keep. There is a clear consensus that this article needs to be stripped back, modified appropriately, improved and better sourced.
275:
163:
616:
information a inclusion criteria based on
Indigenous self-identification and coverage in reliable sources, not armchair lawyering based on what this or that NGO says. –
238:
it is not clear what would be defined as an "indigenous person" as opposed to merely an ethnic group that is found in a particular area, such as in most of Africa.
708:, but I share with the OP the concern of how to realistically turn this into a manageable list that lives up to its definition. At the current state, I'd opt for
295:
136:
131:
140:
335:
123:
110:
95:
255:
I also endorse the comments of Joe Roe and
Austronesier below, which probably get closer to the heart of the issue than my original rationale.
531:
221:
188:
920:- I don't even see why this article was nominated for deletion, the term is defined in the article. I see no huge problems with it.
872:, but because they are descendants of the Bantu migrations thousands of years ago they are not considered "indigenous" in the way
857:
653:
516:
471:
431:
127:
90:
83:
17:
595:
and edge-cases, but I don't think that criterion is any less precise than that used in the majority of our lists. That said,
182:
1015:
998:
977:
953:
935:
912:
889:
845:
818:
775:
760:
743:
730:
658:
627:
568:
544:
521:
495:
476:
436:
405:
383:
347:
327:
307:
287:
264:
247:
65:
590:. I can see where the nominator is coming from, but we've been too hung up on "definitions" in this set of articles. Even
178:
357:
167:
104:
100:
692:
included (technically they are non-majority autochtonous peoples, but in no way politically marginalized), but not
554:
119:
71:
228:
1033:
40:
908:
949:
740:
454:
530:
None of the things you have mentioned are at all relevant for whether or not an article should be deleted.
841:
771:
756:
726:
540:
491:
401:
343:
323:
303:
283:
260:
243:
591:
1029:
885:
814:
601:
194:
36:
705:
418:
There is absolutely no reason for this to be put up for AfD, and it's extremely self-evident too. --
1011:
904:
650:
513:
468:
428:
214:
973:
945:
928:
797:
792:
837:
752:
722:
622:
563:
536:
487:
449:
397:
339:
319:
299:
279:
256:
239:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1028:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
881:
810:
389:
361:
61:
877:
827:
The definition given in the lead of "Indigenous peoples" constantly changes over time, in
1007:
643:
550:
506:
461:
421:
356:
There is a clear definition at the start of the article. We also have a category for
994:
921:
869:
806:
801:
865:
701:
689:
617:
558:
157:
851:
861:
613:
57:
1006:. To broad to be of any use and will never be well verified or maintained.
989:
850:
Agree that there are some serious definitional issues at play. The quote
693:
612:
unsourced. We should take this AfD as an opportunity to start again with
697:
685:
696:
who are also a non-majority and non-marginalized autochtonous group?
681:
453:
Nevertheless, I shall re-explain more gently. This proposal reads as
486:
lists for the indigenous peoples of
Australia and the Americas.
1024:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
873:
880:
are. In some places, "indigenous" is also a legal category. -
394:
majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of
604:. Meanwhile, coverage of groups who are without question
549:
I'm afraid that this list is not well-maintained at all,
396:? "Papuan" doesn't count because it is not an ethicity.
832:
828:
153:
149:
145:
213:
316:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
276:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1036:). No further edits should be made to this page.
334:Note: This discussion has been included in the
314:Note: This discussion has been included in the
294:Note: This discussion has been included in the
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
987:and edit forconsistency with other articles.
227:
8:
555:section on Jews, Palestinians and Samaritans
296:list of History-related deletion discussions
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
800:. I would tend towards delete only because
336:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
333:
313:
293:
273:
393:
532:Mass killings under communist regimes
7:
675:always match the stricter definition
392:. What ethnic group represents the
24:
858:Democratic Republic of the Congo
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
853:institutions and legal system.
1:
1016:17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
999:06:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
978:22:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
954:14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
936:08:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
913:06:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
890:17:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
846:22:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
819:21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
776:12:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
761:17:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
744:16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
731:09:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
659:10:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
628:09:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
569:10:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
545:09:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
522:09:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
496:09:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
477:09:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
437:08:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
406:07:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
384:07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
348:06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
328:06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
308:06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
288:06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
265:10:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
248:06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
66:02:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
358:Category:Indigenous peoples
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1053:
120:List of indigenous peoples
72:List of indigenous peoples
1026:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
168:edits since nomination
602:list of ethnic groups
84:Articles for deletion
793:Indigenous peoples
772:ThadeusOfNazereth
626:
606:Indigenous people
567:
350:
330:
310:
290:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
1044:
976:
931:
924:
854:
774:
704:. I am aware of
647:
620:
561:
510:
465:
425:
390:Papua New Guinea
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
232:
231:
217:
161:
143:
81:
34:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1034:deletion review
972:
934:
929:
922:
878:African Pygmies
770:
657:
641:
520:
504:
475:
459:
458:unwarranted. --
435:
419:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
363:
174:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1050:
1048:
1039:
1038:
1020:
1019:
1001:
981:
980:
968:
967:
956:
941:Keep but purge
938:
926:
915:
905:Deathlibrarian
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
822:
821:
778:
763:
746:
733:
664:
663:
662:
661:
648:
631:
630:
592:UN bureaucrats
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
547:
525:
524:
511:
480:
479:
466:
440:
439:
426:
410:
409:
408:
351:
331:
311:
291:
270:
269:
268:
267:
235:
234:
171:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1049:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
986:
983:
982:
979:
975:
974:KaerbaqianRen
970:
969:
964:
960:
957:
955:
951:
947:
946:Peterkingiron
942:
939:
937:
933:
932:
925:
919:
916:
914:
910:
906:
902:
899:
898:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:Songye people
867:
863:
859:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
829:December 2020
826:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
799:
794:
790:
786:
782:
779:
777:
773:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
750:
747:
745:
742:
741:Donald Albury
737:
734:
732:
728:
724:
720:
717:
716:
711:
707:
706:WP:NOTCLEANUP
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
678:
674:
669:
666:
665:
660:
655:
652:
646:
645:
638:
635:
634:
633:
632:
629:
624:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
598:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
570:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
546:
542:
538:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
518:
515:
509:
508:
502:
499:
498:
497:
493:
489:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
473:
470:
464:
463:
456:
455:wikilawyering
451:
447:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
433:
430:
424:
423:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
382:
381:
359:
355:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
169:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1025:
1023:
1003:
988:
984:
962:
961:- This list
958:
940:
927:
917:
900:
866:Lulua people
838:Hemiauchenia
833:October 2019
788:
784:
780:
769:continents.
765:
753:Killuminator
748:
735:
723:Austronesier
718:
714:
713:
709:
676:
672:
667:
642:
636:
609:
605:
596:
587:
583:
537:Hemiauchenia
505:
500:
488:Hemiauchenia
460:
450:Hemiauchenia
445:
420:
413:
412:
398:Hemiauchenia
362:
353:
340:Hemiauchenia
320:Hemiauchenia
300:Hemiauchenia
280:Hemiauchenia
257:Hemiauchenia
240:Hemiauchenia
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
77:
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
930:(talk page)
882:Indy beetle
862:Luba people
811:Iskandar323
798:WP:COATRACK
354:Speedy Keep
201:free images
715:TNT-delete
614:verifiable
1030:talk page
1018:Yuchitown
1008:Yuchitown
966:required.
923:oncamera
644:Tautomers
584:Weak keep
551:Tautomers
507:Tautomers
462:Tautomers
422:Tautomers
37:talk page
1032:or in a
785:draftify
710:draftify
694:Visayans
610:entirely
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
789:stubify
736:Comment
719:stubify
702:Joe Roe
698:Tongans
686:Yorubas
668:Comment
637:Comment
588:stubify
501:Comment
446:Comment
207:WPÂ refs
195:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1004:Delete
868:, and
807:WP:TNT
802:WP:TNT
781:Delete
749:Delete
682:Amhara
414:Speedy
179:Google
141:delete
58:Daniel
995:talk
985:Keep.
805:like
690:Hausa
379:Focus
222:JSTOR
183:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1012:talk
959:Keep
950:talk
918:Keep
909:talk
901:Keep
886:talk
842:talk
815:talk
766:Keep
757:talk
727:talk
623:talk
597:this
586:but
564:talk
557:. –
541:talk
492:talk
416:Keep
402:talk
344:talk
324:talk
304:talk
284:talk
261:talk
244:talk
215:FENS
189:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
62:talk
990:DGG
874:Twa
787:or
721:. –
712:or
673:not
618:Joe
559:Joe
229:TWL
162:– (
1014:)
997:)
971:--
963:is
952:)
911:)
888:)
864:,
844:)
817:)
783:,
759:)
729:)
688:,
684:,
543:)
494:)
404:)
360:.
346:)
338:.
326:)
318:.
306:)
298:.
286:)
278:.
263:)
246:)
209:)
166:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
64:)
1010:(
993:(
948:(
907:(
884:(
876:/
840:(
813:(
755:(
725:(
677:s
656:)
654:C
651:T
649:(
625:)
621:(
566:)
562:(
539:(
519:)
517:C
514:T
512:(
490:(
474:)
472:C
469:T
467:(
448:@
434:)
432:C
429:T
427:(
400:(
376:m
373:a
370:e
367:r
364:D
342:(
322:(
302:(
282:(
259:(
242:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.