Talk:List of indigenous peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] Inclusion criteria

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

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

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

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

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

expanded above criteria to be more specific (# 2 and 4). --cjllw | TALK 23:48, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

[edit] Current listing

Note, the current listing is "inherited" from the parent article, and as such the members have not yet been assessed against the criteria proposed above. Therefore, some of these current entries may not satisfy the criteria, and should be reviewed.

Also, since this list will potentially be very large, it might well be useful to further break it down into separate lists, by major geographical region. --cjllw | TALK 01:10, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

[edit] Sorbs (Wends) do not identify themselves as an "indigenous people"

I have removed reference to Sorbs or Wends from the list of indigenous peoples of Europe. Sorbian representatives such as the Domowina decline being called an "indigenous people", rather their refer to their people as a "national minority".

Why? Don't ask me, probably because the German equivalent of "indigenous" (eingeboren) has a very ugly, colonial connotation, a bit like "primitive". However, following the Martínez-Cobo definition, this lack of self-identification excludes the Sorbs from the family of indigenous peoples (in which they in fact never participated, e.g. I never met them at the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations. --Jrohr 18:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jrohr. I for one agree, I've not seen any reference where such a claim is made for this group, under the terms of the criteria given above. I think the same could also be said for Frisians, and also perhaps Basque, though would need to do some more research to confirm one way or the other. Cheers.--cjllw | TALK 23:53, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
The ILO when asked by the German Government on clarification what the concequences of a ratification of ILO Convention 169 would be, has clearly stated that there are no indigenous peoples in Germany. By law, the Sater Frisians are a recognized national minority, protected by the European Framework Convention on Protection of Minorities
I don't know about the legal situation of Frisians in the Netherlands. However, I never heard any Dutch person saying that the Frisians were regarded an indigenous people.
So I assume they can be safely removed from the list.
I'm currently not aware about what is the dominant view of into what category the Basques fall. I would assume that it is just the same as with Frisians and Sorbs.
BTW: If we look at non-Russian peoples in the Russian Federation, the situation is also somewhat tricky. There are the Northern Indigenous Peoples of Russia are the only ones that are clearly recognized by the states as true indigenous. Others like the Komi, Sakha (Yakuts), Altaians, Khakass or Tuvans are said to be non-indigenous by virtue of having their own "statehood", i.e. their own autonomous republic within the federal state. In the tradition of Leninist nationalities policy this makes them a "nation", which is regarded a more advanced state than an "indigenous people". So, if applying the criteria used by the Russian state, neither Komi nor Sakha nor Tuvans would be indigenous. However, internationally they are usually regarded as indigenous, esp. Tuvans and Sakha. Furthermore, they all make claims of being indigenous by virtue of participating regularly in international fora such as the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. BTW: A Northern subgroup of the Komi, the Komi-Izhemtsy or Izvataz were recently officially recognized as a Northern Indigenous People. --Jrohr 10:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed Frisians from the list, agree that their situation is similar to Sorbs / Wends- national or ethnic minority, rather than indigenous.
As for the autonomous or semi-autonomous peoples in the RF you mention, in my view their participation and claims before international orgs suffice to demonstrate an indigenous identification, particularly since most governments are quite reluctant to formally recognise them as such.--cjllw | TALK 02:02, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • Can I just add my two cents here? Sorbs, Frisians, Basques, Germans, all native European peoples - we're all indigenous because we're descended from the first people to live in our European lands. However, the definition of indigenous in this article doesn't accept that. Enzedbrit 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We're all descended from them in varying amounts as well as from other subsequent invading groups (Neolithic peoples, Bronze Age, etc.). The Paleolithic peoples themselves were diverse and not one unified group, as is shown from the different Paleolithic Y-chromosome markers alone. The only evidence we currently have is from some limited studies which only tell us that we have certain Y-chromosomes and MtDNA markers descended from Paleolithic times, and they didnt necessarily all enter the continent during the same era. It is important to note that invaders and migrations from subsequent periods would have also bore some of these paleolthic markers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.126.241 (talk • contribs) 17 August 2006.
Indeed. The fact that only certain peoples and populations are recognised and identified as indigneous peoples in the real and specific sense covered in this article does not mean others cannot be called native or indigenous in a broader, casual sense. But this list is not about all such folks with some ancestral ties to some particular country or region. Perhaps it would be less confusing if there were some different term to refer to those peoples in the first situation, but there isn't one, and indigenous peoples will have to serve that purpose.--cjllw | TALK 04:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should be listed under "Circumpolar North"

The "Circumpolar North" category inevitably lead to duplification: Sámi may live in the North, but they also live in Europe. Which other peoples should be listed there? Of course the Inuit which is probably the only truely circumpolar people. But should all other indigenous peoples of the (sub)arctic also get a mentioning here? This would mean that virtually all indigenous peoples of North Asia (Siberia) and most of Europe are mentioned twice. E.g. Nenets, Chukchi, Koryaks, Evenks, Evens, Sakha, Dolgans, Yukagirs, Enets, Kets, to name but a few.

Is there any definition of what "Circumpolar" means? Where do you draw the line? --Jrohr 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

In proposing the Circumpolar North region, I had in mind several organisations of Arctic/subarctic peoples which are formed to press their related claims and issues, shared by their environment but extending across Nth America & Nth Eurasia. That is, I had thought it might be useful to also see some common listing of peoples in this type of geography, in addition to that based on continental or sub-continental region. Indeed, this would mean that the relevant peoples would appear in two regional divisions. I hadn't much expanded on this idea though, and it may or may not prove to be a useful distinction, and am open to further suggestions on how this commonality might best be treated.--cjllw | TALK 02:40, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

[edit] Are Copts considered a people

Until today I always thought of them as a religious group.

See article Copts

In modern usage, the word "Copt" has become synonymous with the Christian minority of Egypt as some Egyptian Christians claim exclusive, direct ancestry from the Egyptians of Pharaonic times. This, however is a controversial subject lacking evidence confirming its validity, the exclusion of non-Christian Egyptians from such ancestry.

Quoting from Coptic language:

The Coptic language is the last phase of the Egyptian languages, and is the direct descendant of the ancient Egyptian language written in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts. Coptic itself is, however, written in a slightly modified form of the Greek alphabet. As a living language of daily conversation, Coptic flourished from circa AD 200 to 1100. It survives today as the liturgical language of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Is the use of a liturgical language a valid criteria for defining ethnicity? Think of Catholics using the Latin language or orthodox Russians using Old Church Slavonic during their sermons.

Well, of course there are cases, such as Armenians and Jews, where churches and synagogues have been the only places where language was kept alive, making up part of there distinctiveness.

But by itself, this is probably not enough. There should be some degree of certainty that Copts consider themselves to be a distinct people - just like the Tuareg and Berbers (Amazigh) of North Africa do - rather than a religious group. Any references for that? --Jrohr 18:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Jrohr, I agree that the inclusion of Copts here is problematic; it is an entry left over from a previous version of this list before the current definition was applied.
I suppose that it could be argued (as does one of the sites linked to at the Copt article) that "Coptic Egyptian" is a tautology, given that (in some historical contexts, at least), "Copt" was used to refer to the local peoples of the Egyptian region, and that furthermore the Coptic language as you note is a descendant of the native Egyptian languages. By this measure, Copts may possibly be thought of as "indigenous" or "native" to the region, but not necessarily a particular indigenous people. However, modern usage is unclear, and interwoven with the Coptic Church, and so may not now be widely understood to include all such "native egyptians", at least outside of nationalistic circles.
However, even if it were to be accepted that "Copt" does define such a people, I am unable to locate reliable references where Copts claim indigenous peoples status in the technical sense used here - the only mentions seem to be casual, or from sources which are probably not encyclopaedic. Therefore, I would propose its removal from this list; if any reliable references for the claim later turn up, it can be restored.--cjllw | TALK 00:18, 2005 August 23 (UTC)


[edit] Are the Jews an indigenous people?

Technically Judaism is a religion. However, it is commonly perceived as being an ethnic group - certainly this is enshrined in antisemitic thought as well as in Jewish consciousness itself. Now, given that it is globaly perceived as an ethnic group and given that that group has a defined ancestral homeland that was conquered by an colonial power (Rome); it occurs to me that Jews should be defined as an indigenous population. Thoughts on this? 83.130.110.146 (sig. added)

Hi Anon- leaving aside the question of religious vs. ethnic group identity, as per the article's more restricted and technical difinition of indigenous peoples more than a claim to "ancestral lands" conquered by others is required. IMO Jews do not meet the criteria, and furthermore I am unaware of any references where they or other groups have claimed "indigenous peoples" status; unless such sources can be found I would not think that an entry on this list is qualified.--cjllw | TALK 00:22, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Apart from the importance of self-identification as indigenous, the question of indigenousness is relative, not absolute. It depends on the circumstances you live in.
Historically, the Jews were, of course, a people of the Middle East, consisting of a number of tribes, with their own language, culture, religion and statehood (even though they eventually switched from the Hebrew to the Aramaic language.
Under Roman occupation, which led to their eventual eviction from Israel, they probably were close to being an "indigenous people" if that concept had already been in existance by that time and if they had identified themselves as such. (However, in that case, every colonised and oppressed people could be considered "indigenous").
When scattered allover North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, the Jewish communities were what nowadays is referred to as diaspora groups - maintaining their own cultural, religious and lingustic distinctiveness in most precarious and dangerous conditions. Other diaspora groups were e.g. Armenians in the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire as well as the Roma people of southeastern Europe. They were mostly marginalised, partly successful in some specific sectors (e.g. trade) and always in danger of seeing public mood turning against them. However they were not indigenous to the territories they lived in, but often they were highly mobile.
The Soviet Union considered Jews to be a nationality, rather than a religion. In Western Europe of the 19th and 20th centuries, by contrast, Jews were often heavily assimilated, so that they considered themselves to be a religious group. They even tried to replace the term "Jew"/"Jewish" by expressions like "Mosaic faith". This applied to Germany as well, where the Jewish middle class frenetically greeted the breakout of World War I did everything to prove that they were the best patriots the country had.
Well, to finish of here: The question cannot be answered with "yes". It's just way too complicated. --Jrohr 19:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
It cannot quite be answered with "no", either, given that Jews have lived in the Levant for most of the time that they lacked a state in that area. Furthermore, the Jews were marginalized in Muslim and Christian cultures, which occupied the Levant for most of this period.

Furthermore, the advent of Zionism occurred at a time when nationalism was surging and "racial" theories proliferated. Thus, it was perfectly acceptable for a secular and Europeanized Theodor Herzl to write about a secular Jewish Altneuland in the Levant. The connection between Jews and the Levant is well-documented; the kohaynim have been shown to be genetically related to one another, and the Torah, structure and wording of the Hebrew language, and various artifacts all point to at least some Jews being essentially aboriginal to the Mideast, and all of them culturally linked by religion or ancestral religion to the Mideast. (This includes the Khazars, even though their ancestral land was near the Caspian Sea, because they had converted to Judaism and, by doing so, they became culturally linked to the Mideast by religion. Of course, this principle can be extended so that most of the world's people are culturally linked by religion to the Mideast: Christianity and Islam are two huge faiths of Mideastern origin.) Judaism, in general, has a close cultural bond to the land of Israel, even closer than Christianity or Islam does, because of the heavy Levantine component of Jewish ancestry and culture.

That being said, are there still "indigenous" Jews? Probably, along with the Palestinians. First off, there are Jews that generally occupy a lower social strata than other Jews because of their culture or where their ancestors lived in the Diaspora, including Jewish Arabs. Furthermore, Israeli Jews tend to be either secular or Orthodox, with secular Judaism being dominant, but the Orthodoxim having much say in some government policies (through Shas and other religious parties). Moreover, the Jews living in the West Bank are a special case because they have claim to indigenity, but are also colonizers of a sort (and, furthermore, they are technically outside of Israel itself, in a no-mans-land controlled by the Israeli army and thus possibly under Jews who are distinct from them due to being in the Army; while the army does take some measures to support those settlers, they are quite repressive to both the Jews and Palestinians of the West Bank).

Moreover, I don't quite agree with the generally accepted idea of "indigeneous" peoples necessarily not being in control of the country they live in. Because of that definition, we are leaving out peoples who have been around on their historic lands for many centuries, such as the French and the British and the Japanese. I take the idea of Nebogipfel in Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships. In that book, the Time Traveler (a Londoner) is going back in time (I think), viewing London shrinking back to its origins, and he raises the idea of talking with the "aboriginals", or seeing the "aboriginals", to Nebogipfel (who is time traveling with him). At this point, Nebogipfel turns to the Time Traveler and points out, "But you are one of the aboriginals". Nebogipfel (admittedly, someone from the year 600,000-something) has a point. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

I thought we had solved this but obviously not. The science.co.il page referenced does not even use the word indigenous. The other source is from an Israeli artist & Fine Arts professor... I'm not sure that qualifies as reliable. Comments? - TheMightyQuill 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I posted about this is the RfC below. I was hoping that someone could revert Kuratowski's Ghost for this. I already reverted his additions of this material. He does not want to seem to acknowledge the definition as we discussed throughout this page, most recently with his participation in the RfC below. I feel these actions are motivated by a desire to make WP:POINT about the inclusion of Palestinians, for which we are engaged in lengthy discussion below. Could we agree that user's that repeatedly reinsert material while ignoring the consensus building talk be blocked from further editing, after receiving a warning. I'm trying to think of deterrents, because from my experience with these kinds of editors at otehr pages, I don't think positive engagement is going to work. It's already been tried via the RfC process. Tiamut 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If we stick with the Cobo definition (which we should, as there is no other), you have to be marginalised, in order to qualify as indigenous people, which members of the Jewish minority in Ottoman ruled Palestine probably where. But it would be quite ridiculous to refer to Jews in the Jewish state of Israel as "marginalised group". Certainly, Jews were marginalised in many parts of the world, but not as an indigenous people but as a diaspora group, see above. --Johannes Rohr 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more Ainu on Sakhalin island

Hello! [My organisation] recently hosted Alexey Limanzo, the elected leader of the 3400 indigenous inhabitants of Sakhalin. I explicitely asked him about Ainu and he explained that after the Russian takeover of the Southern half of the island in World War II, all Ainu had left the island. Now, the only indigenous peoples living on Sakhalin are the Nivkhs, Evenki, Oroks and (IIRC) Oroch. All of them live in the far North of the island, none in the formerly Japanese territories. --Jrohr 12:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Finns?

According to newest and most accepted theories the linquistic ancestors of Finns have been living in Finland since the ice age (10 000 years ago), or at least from the kiukainen-perioid of stone age (6000 years ago). Therefore Finns are indigenous with the same reasons and the same logic as Sami are indingenous. If we go far enough in the past, we found that the linquistic ancestors of Sami and the linquistic ancestors of Finns are the same people (though genetically Finns are not related with lapps but are closely related with germanic speakers). However the indigenous status is not formerly given to the Finns in finnish legal system, propably because Finns are not a minority in Finland. Still even Karelians, very close relatives of finns who lives in Karelian republic in Russia, are having this indigenous status in some sense. Is it just that a people is indigenous if its minority and not indigenous if its majority. This is irrational. The size of people does not matter. Some sources actually say Finns are indigenous: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/coprofiles.php?showCountry=1&showProfile=1&countryId=43&cName=Finland&regionId=4 Also many say Finns are native. It is quite a close to indigenous. Tuohirulla puhu 22:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuohirulla, if you review the definitions provided at the 'inclusion criteria' above, you will see that "indigenous peoples" is meant in a particular, not a general sense, insofar as this article/list is concerned. True enough, Finns may be considered to be indigenous or native to the area, in the general sense; but (unlike the Sami or Karelians) they are not so considered in the particular sense. In this particular, contemporary sense identification as an "indigenous people" has a definite political as well as cultural dimension to it, and the length or priority of historical assocation with a region is not the determining factor. "Indigenous peoples" are those who identify as such, and/or are recognised as such by others, in the context of their assertion or claim to certain collective rights concerning lands, resources, traditions and culture. The Finns have not to my knowledge asserted indigenous peoples' rights for themselves at international fora such as the various UN bodies, whereas the Sami have. As you point out the Finnish legal system does not specifically apply indigenous status to Finns, but it does recognise (at least some of) the Sami people's indigenous claims. While it is indeed true that most claims for indigenous identity under these parameters are made by minority groups in the context of some majority or dominant other group, it is not always the case, and does not mean that the size of the community matters. This is not an "irrational" distinction, but merely one which reflects the reality of the cultural, political and rights-based pursuit of indigenous identity by certain peoples, regardless of the extent to which these have formal governmental recognition or even whether one agrees with all that is claimed.
This of course still does not prevent Finns or any other group being generally described as indigenous or native to a region, as perhaps some other sources do (I am unable to access the link you provided to check the context in which the mention is made); however this is not what we mean here in this instance by "indigenous peoples". Hope that helps, --cjllw | TALK 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tongans: A problematic inclusion

I find it problematic/confusing that Tongans, (Eastern )Papuans and (Western) Samoans are grouped into the Fourth World, since they all have achieved self-determination through the decolonization process, in whole or in part. In my mind, indigenous-ness implies that during waves of human migration an aboriginal people/society has been bullied and disenfranchized in the past and that this legacy lives on in the present in the form of political, demographic/numerical and economic marginalization. Can a people that, by virtue of being an ethnic majority, controls the government, economy, legal system, military etc of a state still be labeled "indigenous"? //Big Adamsky 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I say yes, but the general usage of the term has referred to the underdogs, rather than the top dogs. I think that there ought to be a term for a people historically linked to a land for a period of at least three or four centuries (long enough for a story to become an ancestral legend in oral traditions), through thick and thin, who are in control of that land now, regardless of whether or not they controlled that land at particular points in the past. I'm perfectly willing to appropriate aboriginal. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be such a formal term to describe peoples in that general situation, but AFAIK there is not one in agreed or wide use, nor is there one which includes all such peoples with some lengthy association to a region regardless of their political/cultural circumstance (other than using words like "aboriginal" or "indigenous" as simple adjectives, or even contrasting those who are not as immigrant communities). Per my comments below, the usage of "indigenous peoples" here and in the literature is more specific than meaning simply "been there long enough to have a claim over territory".
As for the inclusion of Pacific peoples who have acheived some degree of autonomy in the post-colonial era, these have however continued to seek and promote representation as indigenous peoples in a variety of ways. See for example the Pacific Caucus of Indigenous Peoples, a recognised associate of the UNPFII. It includes Tonga, Fiji, Samoans etc in its membership. Their identity as such continues (per their statements) even where some have a degree of autonomy, since there remain a number of post-colonial issues and other ongoing indigenous associations.--cjllw | TALK 02:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Or to put it another way: peoples who seek recognition of their identity and associated rights as indigenous peoples continue to be indigenous peoples, even in cases where they have in some measure achieved that recognition and a degree of autonomy over their own affairs. The situation is not necessarily synonymous with "downtrodden" or "disenfranchised".--cjllw | TALK 03:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of two sub-lists

I've removed the two recently-added sublists, one for peoples with some lengthy association with a region and who have some degree of dominance/autonomy, and the other for peoples with the same degree of association but whose cultural/political dominance is not established (paraphrasing their long titles). There are several reasons:

  1. First of all, the term indigenous peoples is understood in this article to have a more specific and restricted meaning, per the main indigenous peoples article. At the top of this talk page is an attempt to document some objective criteria –"objective" in the sense that they appeal to external notable references and not the individual judgements of wikipedia editors– which should be used to determine inclusion or exclusion from the listing here. Those in the now-removed sublistings have no demonstration I can see or find that they meet any of these criteria (note, I'm not at this point vouching that all of the other entries do meet at least one of these criteria, as I've not been through them all recently; it'd probably be a good idea at some point to annotate each entry with some reference to indigenous status, so reason for inclusion is made explicit).
  2. If I understand the intent of the first of these sub-lists correctly, then that description could well apply to almost every ethnic group and population- there'd probably be 10,000 or more potential entries in such a list. This would not seem to be very useful, and would in any case require some detailing of the criteria and some evidence that it is a categorisation of peoples used or recognised by external sources (otherwise, it has the risk of being original research). Perhaps I'm mistaken but I don't think there'd be the references to support such a classification.
  3. The second of these sublists might almost be synonymous with ethnic minority, perhaps a valid classification which could be discussed and tabulated, but if so it does not have the same meaning or scope as "indigenous peoples" and so is out of place here. Perhaps there's a case for making List of ethnic minorities, but again there'd be a need to formulate some clear and reasonably-objective criteria for the list.

Certainly, identity as an indigenous people is by no means clear cut in a lot of circumstances, and there can be frequent confusion between the contemporary and specific intended meaning, and the general. It's further complicated by the different attitudes various governments take towards recognising the status, with many seeking to deny such recognition outright; nevertheless, it does remain a valid and generally-recognised distinction. However, extending the intended meaning of this article/list to potentially include just about all ethnic groups and other minorities does not seem to be useful or promote an understanding of the issues surrounding indigenous peoples and their associated rights and claims.--cjllw | TALK 02:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinians are indigenous

What follows is the criteria for identifying indigenous peoples per[1] the Wikipedia Category:Indigenous peoples, and after each caveat, I have provided the sources that cite Palestinians as indigenous in this regard.

"...an indigenous people may be identified as such, where notable independent reference(s) can be found that the group's indigenous identity is either asserted or recognised as being indigenous, or some other cognate term, by either: some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national; (see: [2] and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process; (see:[3] and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication; [4][5] [6]) and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." (see: [7][8] [9] [10]) On this basis, I submit that Palestinians undeniably qualify for inclusion into the Category:Indigenous peoples, and therefore submit that this information should be included into this article. Tiamut 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, basically what you're asserting is that Palestinians are indigenous because some of them claim to be. In that case, I assume you won't have any objection to classifying Jews as indigenous to Israel? --Leifern 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Further to this point, your references hardly prove your point. The only non-advocacy citation is from the Office of High Commissioner on Refugees, and that is a passing description, not an attempt to qualify these people as refugees. Further, it specifically talks about "Palestinian Arabs," defining those as "Arabs" that were "indigenous," i.e., a self-referencing definition that does us no good here. Any historical record will show that the area of the Levant, and indeed, all of the Middle East, was subject to constant movements of various peoples. Arabs have no more a claim to being indigenous than Druze, Beduins, (both of whom take care to make it clear they are not "Palestinian," Samaritans, and, of course, Jews in the area. So unless you are willing to include all these peoples in your argument, the assertion that Palestinians are indigenous is nothing more than a political statement. --Leifern 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see my latest edits. I don't really understand the argumentative tone you have taken here. I provided more sources that are relevant to the criteria outlined than any other group has had to provide here. I have therefore readded the entry on Palestinians, backed by a most reputable source a UN working group on indigenous peoples workshop that included participants from Palestine. I also provided two sources for your addition of the Druze, one a study on identity by a reputable scholarly source. I placed fact needed citations on your listing on the Samaritans (could find no good scholarly sources, though I am sure they exist somewhere). I also placed a tag on Humus Sapiens addition of Jews. He has not sourced that claim or participated in this discussion. I hope this meets with your approval. Tiamut 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The UN is not a reputable source considering its history of anti-Israel bias and rhetoric. Checking up on the history of the Druze you will see that ultimately they are of ethnic Iranian origin. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the UN definitely is an WP:RS here, particularly since one example cited is from the UN working group on indigenous peoples (as per the criteria listed above). The UN is RS for every other article here. Besides, even if your argument were correct, you are ignoring the DNA studies cited and other sociological studies both on Palestinians and Druze that identify them in this way. Please see the criteria listed for inclusion. The source you provided does not meet that criteria. It is not a scholarly, reputable source, nor is it a body that deals with indigenous matters. Please find another source that matches the criteria listed or let's discuss changing the criteria (though I am reluctant to do so given that it seems to have been working fine for sometime now). With respect. Tiamut 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

U.N. workshops are not particularly reliable sources for who is "indigenous" and who is not; why would you imagine it is? The U.N. is a political body, and its working groups particularly so. Also, that particular workshop is obviously dubious, since it mentions that participants came from the non-existent "Palestine", not wherever they actually came from. It doesn't seem to state that Palestinians are an indigenous people. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
By every criteria, Palestinians qualify for inclusion. Self-identification as outlined in The Future Vision document, as reprinted in Zmag, [11], by the criteria at Wikipedia (once again) "notable independent reference(s) ... by some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national" (see: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who explicitly identifies Palestinian Arabs as indigenous to historic Palestine - today Israel and the occupied territories [12] "and/or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process" (see: A report on workshops for the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples produced by a British NGO for Oxford University [http:www.danadeclaration.org/capacitybuildingreport.pdf] "and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication;" (See this Israeli academic sociological study

[13] and this Israeli DNA study [14] [15]) "and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." (See: Palestinian Observer Mission to the UN[16]and the Arab Israeli NGO [17] [18]. On this basis, I submit that Palestinians are undeniably indigenous. Repeated attempts to resist this designation despite the copious evidence presented (more than for any other group listed here and far more than even required) seems to be largely politically motivated. Tiamut 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Palestinian indigeneity

This is a dispute about whether or not Palestinians qualify for inclusion into the list of indigenous peoples.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • What follows is the criteria for identifying indigenous peoples per[19] the Wikipedia Category:Indigenous peoples, and after each caveat, I have provided the sources that cite Palestinians as indigenous in this regard. Tiamut 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "notable independent reference(s) ... by some government, regulatory body, law or protocol, which may be either sub-national, national or trans-national" (see: The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who explicitly identifies Palestinian Arabs as indigenous to historic Palestine - today Israel and the occupied territories [20] "and or some body, NGO or other organisation, involved with indigenous affairs and recognised as an accredited participant, intermediary or representative in some legal, negotiative, national or international regulatory or rights-based process" (see: A report on workshops for the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples produced by a British NGO for Oxford University [http:www.danadeclaration.org/capacitybuildingreport.pdf] "and/or some academic and peer-reviewed literature or publication;" (See this Israeli academic sociological study [21] and this Israeli DNA study [22] [23]) "and/or some representative body of the indigenous society itself, where that representation is made in respect of a claim or issue to a government or governmentally-supported organisation (eg the UN, African Union)." (See: Palestinian Observer Mission to the UN [24]and the Arab Israeli NGO [25] [26].Tiamut 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The only non-advocacy citation is from the Office of High Commissioner on Refugees, and that is a passing description, not an attempt to qualify these people as refugees.--Leifern 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The UN is not a reputable source considering its history of anti-Israel bias and rhetoric. Checking up on the history of the Druze you will see that ultimately they are of ethnic Iranian origin. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • U.N. workshops are not particularly reliable sources for who is "indigenous" and who is not; why would you imagine it is? The U.N. is a political body, and its working groups particularly so. Also, that particular workshop is obviously dubious, since it mentions that participants came from the non-existent "Palestine", not wherever they actually came from. It doesn't seem to state that Palestinians are an indigenous people. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Comments

03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If all of the groups here are sourced in the same way it will solve the problem. I see no problem with having the Palestinians listed here if solid sources are provided. The UN seems like a great source. futurebird 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Being indigenous to an area (existent, pre-historic, or otherwise) does not necessarily qualify a group as an Indigenous People. If there is some evidence that palestinians consider themselves an indigenous people, in the sense that maori or inuit consider themselves an indigenous people, they should definitely be added. If a reputable source (and I consider the UN reputable) exists that calls Palestinians an indigenous people (rather than a people indigenous to somewhere), I think they should be included. The ohchr does not do so. The danadeclaration.org refers to a group of mobile people from palestine, without identifying them as palestinians, nor as indigenous. The adalah.org site reference does not claim palestinians are indigenous. The American Behavioral Scientist on sagepub.com doesn't directly refer to palestinians as an indigenous people. I am neither in support nor opposed to Palestinians being added, but I'd like better evidence. I tend to consider indigenous peoples ethnic groups rather than nationalities, and I would have thought palestinians were ethnically Arabs, but I don't know much about this issue, so I could well be wrong about that. - TheMightyQuill 05:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A few things: 1) the danadeclaration specifically refers to participants as taking part in the UN workshop on "Mobile Indigenous Peoples" (not just mobile) and it lists representatives from "Palestine". That Palestine does not exist any longer in a strict sense is a moot point. Neither does Turtle Island (it's now called Canada and the US), but that doesn't stop indigenous peoples in the northern regions from calling it that. 2) the Adalah source is a Legal Center for Palestinians in Israel and it shows that Adalah held a roundtable on indigenous land rights. In other words, it held an activity for Palestinians in Israel designed to alert them to their land rights as indigenous peoples. Why else hold such a forum? 3) Arab is not an racial group. It is a description for a number of people from different ethnicities who speak Arabic, and live in what has been called by some, the "Arab world" (roughly concurrent with The Levant, the Gulf region, and parts of northern Africa). Arabic dialects differ from region to region and even town to town. the written language is common, but the spoken is very different from Morocco to Palestine. I can't understand north Arican Arabic and sometimes even Egyptian Arabic because of that. Finally, it seems pretty clear to me that reticence here seems to be due to unfamiliarity with non-controversial nature of Palestinian indigeneity as regards international bodies who work on such issues, and in other cases - i.e. those of the many who have reverted inclusion of Paelstinians without dicusssion - political sensitivities tied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That should not however prevent us from providing readers with a truthful repreentation of reality. Palestinians are reocgnized, both by themselves and credible international and sub-national bodies as an indiegnous people. Let the article reflect the facts. Tiamut 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One simple thing, the Palestinians are a mix Arabs from all over the Arab world who entered the region when other people had been well established there for millenia, ergo they are not indigenous, please stop this nonsense. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
To give examples of the same phenomenon, South African Indians aren't indigenous to South Africa, Namibian Germans aren't indigenous to Namibia, Australian Japanese aren't indigenous to Australia ... so too Palestinian Arabs aren't indigenous to Palestine. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's not that simple. History and identity in the region are much more complex than you have made it out to be. Plus, you provide nothing in the way of attribution per WP:ATT that might support your opinion. It is very distrubing to me that while every effort has been made to meet WP:ATT in order to have this information included (and it has been met as per Futurebird), it can simply be dismissed by unsourced opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for original theories on the lineage of "Arabs" or "Palestinians. Tiamut 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hardly anything original, standard information that can be found in studies such as Arieh Avneri's 1984 work The Claim of Disposession. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's your idea of a source that meets the WP:RS guidelines, or WP:ATT policy for this subject? A partisan Zionist polemical piece of work that was quoted in the equally polemical and discredited From Time Immemorial? Come on. Be serious. Tiamut 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, judged by your lastest revert, I see that you require more sources to be convinced. Very well then. In addition to the numerous examples cited above I offer the following:
  • 1) This original document from the United Nations Economic and Social Council, dated 12 August 1999 and entitled "Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its seventeenth session." Note that "The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment - Bedouins Delegation" is listed among the pariticpants. Further, the report states, “An indigenous representative of the Palestinian Bedouins referred to the attempts by Israeli forces to displace the Bedouin tribes by demolishing their homes and confiscating their land, in order to expand Israeli settlements.” (See: [27]
  • 2) A submission from the Mossawa Advocacy center for Arab Citizens in Israel to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in May-June 2005 (available here: [28]) in which they define themselves as an indigenous group, stating: “The Palestinian citizens of Israel are indigenous group , who became a national (Palestinian), ethnic (Arab), linguistic (Arabic) and religious (Christian, Muslim and Druze) minority in their own homeland following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.” The document further explains that: “The Palestinian population in Israel meets the parameters of indigeneity that were set by Mr. José Martínez Cobo, the Special Rapporteur to the UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The main parameters are: priority in time; voluntary perpetuation of their culture distinctiveness; self-identification as indigenous; and experience of subjugation; marginalization; dispossession; exclusion and discrimination by the dominant society.”
  • 3) This scholarly assessment in the Harvard Law Journal [29] (1994) that discusses the conditions and challenges facing “indigenous Palestinian women”, particularly in the occupied territories.
  • 4) This submission to the UN Working Group on Indigenous populations July-August 2006 from the Negev Coexistence Forum For Civil Equality on the Utilization of Bedouin Lands in the Negev for Military Purposes [30] that begins with the sentence. “The Arab-Bedouins are a unique Palestinian community that has lived ¡n the Negev (today Israel's Southern Region) for centuries. In 1948, they constituted the vast majority of the population of the Negev, numbering approximately 70,000 people. After the establishment of Israel, there were only about 11,000 Arab-Bedouins left in the Negev, the rest having left or been expelled to Jordan and Egypt.”
  • In sum, we have an example of a UN document listing Palestinian participants at a UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples meeting in 1999. We have a document from a Palestinian NGO based in Israel identifying itself as indigenous in a submission before an international body (OHCHR – who also oversee the UN working group on indigenous peoples). We have an academic assessment of the conditions for indigenous Palestinian women in the occupied territories from a non-partisan, credible, and scholarly source. And finally, we have a Palestinian Bedouin NGO submitting to the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in 2006. The criteria has therefore been met. I would ask that reversion of these legitimate additions cease. Tiamut 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Bedouins are not the same as Palestinians, are they?
2) I'm sure they claim all sorts of things about themselves. These kinds of claims are not enough, though, are they?
3) You haven't read the paper, and don't know its contents, and there's no indication that Adrien Katherine Wing is any sort of expert on what constitutes an "indigenous people".
4) Again, Bedouins are a unique group, quite distinct from Palestinians, despite attempts to conflate the two. In addition, the submission is from a partisan group.
In other words, the criteria are far from being met. I would ask that these illegitimate political insertions cease. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are ignoring the criteria specified on this page for inclusion which has been meet via the sources provided thus far. You have reverted my sourced edits adding Palestinians and Druze, while retaining unsourced or dubiously sourced edits on Jews and Samartians, (and in an edit marked as minor no less [31])
  • By the criteria defined in this article, these two groups have no business being in the article (they have no proven representation before indigneous bodies, nor has any reputable scholarly source put forward as evidence to that end).
  • I resent you painting my edits as "political views", [32] when this is just a faithful presentation of the facts.
  • It is you that seems to have strong political views preventing you from accepting the use of the term indigenous to describe Palestinians - who include Bedouins (the document says Palesitnians Bedouins doesn't it?). You opposed the use of the term indigenous at the article Arab citizens of Israel where you backed up Isarig in his attempts to remove it from the article, [33]. That resulted in an edit war, whereby another editor inquired into as to why indigenous keeps being reverted if it’s supported by the source? [34]. Zeq later sneakily removed it in the middle of a series of edits

[35] without anyone noticing it. When I did notice it later, I reinserted it and discussed my changes. There was an ensuing multi-editor editing war and I was blocked for breaking 3RR.

  • Now we find ourselves here. I am trying to be reasonable about this. I have researched for hours to have you concede that WP:ATT has been met. I do not want to break 3RR again. Please honestly review the arguments above and your actions as regards the editing of this article. Now ask yourself, is this at all fair? Is this a fair reflection of how WP:ATT should be implemented, and by an administrator no less? Seriously. Tiamut 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Before commenting, a quick disclosure: I am the one who originally formulated the 'inclusion criteria' which appear at the top of this page, which are proposed as guidelines to minimise the subjectivity in discussions of inclusion/exclusion.
I think some of the discussions above are confusing the everyday usage of the adjective indigenous with the much more specific and semi-formalised usage of the term indigenous peoples that appears in national/international politics and law, academia, rights-based organisations and many other places where indigenous peoples' issues are discussed. This is not a list of all peoples who may be considered as being indigenous to ("coming from") any given place, since such a list would include just about every people and ethnic group on earth. Instead it is meant to be a list of peoples per the meaning of the indigenous peoples article (which is drawn from real-world definitions), and whose recognition as such can be notably substantiated. Principal types of evidence would include significant participation and mention in formal contexts such as an international forum, indigenous rights-based NGO, or national treaty, law or regulation.
It is unreasonable to say the UN and its agencies (eg World Bank, ILO) are unreliable and unqualified sources for info on indigenous peoples, just because some perceive them biased or with a political agenda. Parts of the UN system which specifically deal with indigenous issues such as the UNPFII or WGIP are credible and quotable sources, even if you disagree with their aims or what they have to say.
Tiamut has at least done some homework and has supplied references to be examined, and should be credited for that. The other additions have been unsupported, save for the solitary science.co.il link which does not even mention the word "indigenous" and is nothing to do with any claim on formal identity recognition.
However, merely being mentioned in the context of a UNPFII session probably is not by itself sufficient confirmation. The Dana Declaration's Mobile Indigenous Peoples' mtg in which Palestinian attendance is mentioned seems to have been just a preliminary side-meeting by invitation at last year's working session. It's not clear specifically what status for "Palestinians" they intend to put forward in later sessions this year. I'm not sure about the OHCHR/CERD reference, which is in another context. Several of the other references given I looked into are using indigenous more in the adjectival sense, and DNA studies are not helpful or relevant to indigenous issues and identity. In sum I think saying Palestinians are "undeniably" (recognised or claimed as) indigenous peoples overstates the case, and there is some room for contention either way. The indigenous people identification of the Negev Bedouin is I think clearer, and there's much stronger evidence for this- they are covered in some detail in IWGIA's Indigenous World Yearbooks, for example (see the Middle East sections [36]). But I've no comment on whether they are 'Palestinian' or not. I don't think the citations for Druze are claiming specific indigenous people recognition.
The 'indigenous identity' of Jewish people was discussed earlier on this page: #Are_the_Jews_an_indigenous_people? I think Jrohr's response there is pretty much spot on, and I don't think that Jewish groups claim to be indigenous peoples per the definitions.

Most likely for Jews and Palestinians alike the issues and divergent views on identity are "way too complicated" (to quote Jrohr) to allow definitive answers, and hence mention of either is probably best left off this list unless or until there's more consensus. Articles on indigenous peoples are also not really the place where debates on Palestinian or Jewish identity are going to be settled.--cjllw | TALK 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern CJLL Wright, really I do. The editing atmosphere at pages related to the Israel/Palestine issue is contaminating and I have no intention of bringing it here with me, just to score political points. In fact, it's a relief to be here. Despite how much effort this is taking, it's nothing compared to revert-rife and rather hostile environment bred in those conflict-ridden pages. To the point at had, however. I remained concerned that the controversy over the listing of Palestinians, despite the threshold of evidence for indigeneity as outlined herein, requires that we faithfully represent the facts. As you pointed out, the Palestinian Bedouin population can be classified as indigenous for the purposes of these articles based on the sources provided above. And while Bedouins are a nomadic, semi-pastoral sub-section of the Palestinian people, they are still Palestinian people. The attempt to divide them off from the wider Palestinian population is a well-documented tactic of successive Israeli governments, designed to undermine the cohesiveness of Palestinian identity. (See: [37] and[38]. It should be noted that in their submissions to the IP Working Group, the Bedouins identified as "Palestinian Bedouins", emphasizing the Palestinian aspect of their identity alongside the Bedouin one. What I am suggesting, is that a preponderance of evidence has provided suggesting that Palestinians meet the criteria for inclusion on this page, much more than has been provided for any other group listed herein. That there is contention surrounding this listing derives for some from political bias, fear of the implications for quiet at this article, and/or unfamiliarity with the complex matrix of identity issues amongst Palestinians themselves. As a parallel example, the various indigenous tribes of North America were not one people, but were often depicted as such, and often confused with one another. There were even tribes that formed confederations like the Six Nations. One could be Anishinabe (Ojibway) and also be a part of the Six Nations. Similarly, a Palestinian Bedouin lives by a slightly different set of customs than his neighbouring Palestinian from a town in the Galilee, But he identifies with the larger Paletinian "confederation" if you will. No one seriously suggests that Palestinians from the Galilee are not indigenous because they are not Bedouin, just as no one would have suggested that other Six Nations people were not indigenous because they were not Ojibway. Do you see what I mean? Anyway, I am in no rush to get the information reinserted into the article. I want to make sure that this is done in the most through and comprehensive fashion possible to avoid edit warring and disruption of this article page. But I would appreciate it if we could begin by adding Palestinian Bedouins with the sources that meet with your approval, and then continue on to discuss with how to deal with the remaining additions. Perhaps we could pen a larger explanatory paragraph for the Indigenous peoples article on the subject that outlines some of the points you raised, and perhaps even addresses some of the contention (reliably sourced of course) regarding such a characterization. With respect. Tiamut 13:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quick points: 1) I have no problems describing Bedouin as indigenous people in the general region, though there's got to be more than my opinion to substantiate this; 2) Bedouin are no more a subset of Palestinians than Sami are a subset of Norwegians. Bedouin live in several current nation-states across the Middle East and are in no way limited to any definition of Palestine, or even the Levant; 3) I think you will find that the term "Palestine" relates to a geographic entity in all contemporary usage, and all the Palestinian groups talk about the Arab national identity within this geographical area. If you want to say that Arabs are indigenous to the Middle East, we can have another discussion; 4) "indigenous" is a somewhat ambiguous term itself - you can talk about indigenous Floridians as opposed to those who recently moved there, for example. The rights of indigenous people in discussions of humanitarian rights and cultural preservation invariably centers on the threats of assimilation by a dominating culture - see articles on Sami as a pretty good and entirely unrelated example. Classifying "Palestinians" as indigenous can only be justified by using a very broad definition that must also include Jews, Samaritans, Druze, etc. As I said, Bedouin probably would be undisputed for the entire region, though it would have to be documented by external sources. --Leifern 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I must have mislead you as to my intentions in my last edit by omitting a key section in brackets here: 'I remain concerned that the controversy over the listing of Palestinians, despite the threshold of evidence for indigeneity as outlined herein (which I believe has been met), requires that we faithfully represent the facts. This is important. The crtieria is clear and I would like for it to remain as it is, since I understand the distinction between "indigenous" in its colloquial use and in its official use as outlined by the CLLWright. Accordingly, Palestinian Bedouins residing in the Naqab/Negev region of present-day Israel should be added to the list. The rest of the groups mentioned (Samartians, Jews, Druze, etc.) should be subjected to the same standards for inclusion. As for the wider Palestinian population, we can continue to discuss the issue, considering its links to the Bedouin population, and examining new sources and those already submitted against the criteria for these articles pages. I think we can come up with a good explanatory paragraph for the Indigenous peoples article that might do the whole issue justice and also exemplify the difference between the definition as used in the articles, and the word as commonly conceived. Tiamut 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, cjllw asked me to add my comment about this dispute. I'm not sure whether I have anything particularly helpful to say, but I'll try.

  1. On self-identification: This is, as most activists agree, the most important single criteria. I do not have a comprehensive picture, but have been a regular visitor to the WGIP sessions since 1995 through 2006. The WGIP, as many would agree, is (or, alas, was) largest annual gathering of indigenous peoples on the planet. I certainly did not take note of every delegation or organisation represented there, so I cannot give 100% assurances, however, I cannot recall ever having met Palestinian representatives there. Therefore I assume that the concept of "indigenous peoples" has not been adopted by Palestinian civil society. At the same time, the Negev Bedouins have been regular participants, so apart from fulfilling the formal criteria (distinctiveness, marginalisation ...) they clearly identify themselves as an indigenous people, which, according to my impression, Palestinians don't seem to do.
  2. About the reliability of the UN as a source: Participants in this discussion have claimed that the UN was not a credible source because of its anti-Israel bias. The same line of argumentation is usually taken by any government that rejects the existence of indigenous peoples within their territory or under their power. Be it Bangladesh, India, France, Canada or Australia: Each of those states has already accused UN human rights bodies of bias against them. That's the easiest way of coping with inconvenient findings by those bodies. Kill the messenger. So, this not a valid argument.
  3. Taken the "objective" criteria such as priority in time, marginalisation and cultural distinctiveness, I would judge that they do apply to the Palestinians, bearing in mind that the criteria of "priority in time" is relative, not absolute. The fact that Jews have been the majority some 2000 years ago does not really matter here. The defining factor is the confrontation between Arabs living there and Jews arriving (mostly) from Europe since the beginning of the last century, i.e. a scenario, where a local population is subjugated and marginalised by a more powerful group of newcomers. This is quite typical for indigenous peoples.
  4. However, there is a number of cases, where peoples do reject being called "indigenous peoples", and this is for a reason. According to my knowledge the Tibetan exiled leadership rejects this concept because it seems to implicate renouncing the claim to (re)gain a sovereign state. Just like that, the aspiration of most Palestinians is to have their own sovereign and viable state, whereas recognition as an indigenous people could also mean the existence as a distinct ethnic group within the borders of a Greater Israel. Therefore, judged by the criterion of self-identification, my ceterum censeo would be not to include Palestinians into the list. However, as always, YMMV. --Johannes Rohr 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, this source cited above as point 2 of 4 of the newest evidence put forward [39] is evidence of Palestinian civil society in Israel using the term indigenous to identify themselves before an international body, as per point 4 of the criteria at the top of the page. And this Arab Palestinian NGO in Israel, regularly uses indigenous to refer Palestinians, even hosting a Indigenous Land Rights roundtable [40] [41]. (On a very personal note, and totally unrelated to the evidence for this talk, as a Palestinian from Nazareth, I consider myself part of the indigenous Palestinian people and part of why could never settle down happily in North America, despite being educated and integrated there, was knowing it was another indigenous peoples land. Being a settler just didn't do it for me. No offense to anyone, it was just how I felt.) Tiamut 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It just struck me where there is a difference on the issue of self-identification from your very thoughtful comments above, Johannes Rohr. Per the examples I have cited that we agree have met the criteria outlined, Palestinian Bedouins make the list. I would submit that the Palestinians in Israel, and not just the Bedouins, do self-identify as indigenous based on the examples from Mossawa [42] and Adalah and that the first of these sources meets the criteria for the page as well. As regards Palestinians in the occupied territories and Palestinians in the Diaspora, I propose that we omit mention of these groups until we can find sources that meet the criteria outlined. The proposed addition at present would read:
Thanks for your response. When I wrote my comments I was in fact thinking about the occupied territories, rather than of Arabs, or Palestinians, if you prefer, within the State of Israel. I agree that here, the picture is somewhat different, if it can be shown that the concept of "indigenous peoples" has a certain degree of recognition among them. For the people living in the occupied territories, my best guess would be, that they mostly regard themselves as a nation under occupation, rather than an indigenous people, given that the notion of "indigenous people" may contain an implicit recognition of the sovereignty of they state (in this case, the state of Israel). By recognition I do not mean "endorsement", but just the fact that the state is there to stay, no matter whether you like it or not. For the Palestinian occupied territories, I would assume, that the view held by the majority is, that occupation is transient and that the future lies in an independent state rather than a federal Israel/Palestine, that you seem to favour. However, I am by no means an expert in middle eastern issues, so this is just a wild guess. --Johannes Rohr 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But you are quite right. The distinction only became clear to me over the course of this discussion. While I reject that there is a difference between myself and my Palestinian brethren in the occupied territories in terms of indigeneity to this region, I do concede that I have thus far been unable to find a source in which Palestinian in the occupied territories identify themselves as an "indigenous people" (as per the criteria of this page, and as opposed to the adjective indigenous) before an international body. I believe your perception that the distinction may lie in the hopes for an independent state. Though there are many in the occupied territories and Diaspora that reject a two-state solution and advocate for one federal system with recognition, the establishment political representation in the form of the Palestinian Authority (whose authority only extends as far as Area A of the occupied territories) is still more interested in pseudo-statehood than justice for all. The UN regularly refers to the Palestinians as the indigenous people of Palestine, but I guess Palestinian civil society in the occupied territories needs to take up that identity for themselves to be included here. If I do find a source that meets the criteria, I will bring it here for discussion. I might also want to discuss some kind of footnote formulation abbreviating this information. Palestinians could serve as a pedagogical tool in illustrating the varied meanings of indigenous. Tiamut 16:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedouins vs. Palestinian Beouins

On that note, is anyone opposed to listing Bedouins asap? - TheMightyQuill 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So long as we don't describe them as "Palestinians" (a description that they do not commonly use) - Ihave no problem with listing Bedouins as an Indigenous People- indigenous to Israel, Egypt, Jordand and the Palestinina Territories. Isarig 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The source cited explicitly refers to them as "an indigenous representative of the Palestinian Bedouins" [45] While there are some Bedouin who do not identify as Palestinian, those represented in the indigenous working group do. I believe the formulation should match the sourced self-identification, and not the loose opinions of their colonizers.Tiamut 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to their Egyptian colonizers and Jordanian colonizers, or is this derogatory term reserved for Israelis for some reason? The Bedouins of the Sinai certainly do not identify as 'Palestinians" , and neither do the ones in Jordan. Please stop attempting to push your political POV into this article, which is supposed to be a scientific definition of indeigenous peoples. Isarig 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also can someone prevent Kuratowski's Ghost from making ridiculous edits to the page without discussing in the RfC. It's very disruptive and I do not want to get into an edit war haing already had a run-in with 3RR that I do not want to repeat. If others find his edits inappropriate, I encourage them to remove them. Tiamut 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Stating facts with reliable sources which are well known anyway is hardly ridiculous. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for anti-Israel disinformation and polital doublespeak. Can someone please help with Tiamat's blanking of sourced facts. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever sources you have, the topic under discussion is not whether or not Jews are indigenous to the Middle East. The question is, whether or not the political concept of "indigenous peoples" as laid out in the Martínez-Cobo definition applies. This definition is not just about "who was first", but about "Who has the power and who has not". Indigenous peoples are by definition a non-dominant, marginalised stratum of society. The typically do not have their own state and have little prospect of ever getting it.
They are typically denied recognition as a distinct group, i.e. as peoples with collective rights, first and foremost the right to self-determination (as defined by §1 of the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural and on Civil and Political Rights).
Now, it is quite clear that none of this applies to Jews living in the State of Israel, as they have their own state, which is by chance the dominant military power of the Middle East and is explicitly defined as "the Jewish state". If there were any Jewish communities left in Iraq or Syria (I don't know if they are), they might qualify as indigenous in the political sense of the term. But for Israel and the occupied territories, this is certainly not the case. --Johannes Rohr 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Using Martinez-Cobo definition amounts to doublespeak and deliberate deception as it does not conform to the normal English meaning of indigenous. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to learn that you don't like it, but this definition has the widest possible international recognition and is well-established. I really don't think that such a hostile attitude is justified here ("deliberate deception", "doublespeak", etc). That words may have specific meanings in certain disciplines is by no means unusual. And so does the term "indigenous peoples", which probably originated from Latin America (pueblos indígenas), where it describes the descendent of the pre-Columbian population, which found themselves in a marginalised position after being subjugated by the European invaders. Over the last half century or so, this term has been laden with specific meaning, the most condensed form of which is the Cobo definition. If you would instead take the everyday meaning of the word, like "living where you come from", most of the World's ethnic groups could be added to it. What about Germans, Poles, Czechs, Russians etc. pp. They would all qualify as "indigenous" in that superficial sense. This list would therefore become totally irrelevant and arbitrary. --Johannes Rohr 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is entirely confusing apples and oranges; how can we possibly define an indigenous group based on residency in borders assigned in the early 1920s to the British Mandate of Palestine, or shall we now including the Jordanian, Syrian, and Lebanese people as indigenous groups, or are they really just subgroups of the Palestinians? Indigenous groups are obviously not based on modern national or cultural identification, as suggestions like that implying that a Bedouin identifying with the definition of Palestinian people is now suddenly an 'indigenous people'. Arabs, Druze, and maybe even Bedouin might be considered 'indigenous', but modern national constructs like "Israeli" or "Palestinian" have no meaning in this context. TewfikTalk 02:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Johannes Rohr's explanation above (and further above in the RfC section where the larger discussion took place) outlining the distinction between the Cobo definition of indigenous and indigenous as an adjective is essential here. It was not something I fully understood until engaging in the extensive discussions on this talk in an attempt to understand what the criteria for listing and sourcing indigenous peoples here is. I might point out that people's opinions of how a particular indigenous group should be named are not really relevant to this discussion. We should go with how they are described in the source that meets the bar for inclusion. (i.e., the most reputable sources per WP:ATT and WP:RS which are I believe, these two, since these were what prompted people to accept the listing of Bedouins in the first place [46] and here [47]) In this case, it is universally agreed that Bedouins make the list because of their pariticipation in these Indigenous Peoples working groups. The source clearly lists them as "Palestinian Bedouins" representing the "The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment-Bedouins Delegation". Note that despite these Bdeouins being from the Negev (what they call in Arabic, al-Naqab) which is now located in Israel, they stress their Palestinian identity. Surely, we should acknowledge this truth, rather than offering up personal unsourced opinions regarding how Bedouins view their identity in the Negev (rather than respecting how the indigenous people in question would identify themselves as per the standard used in the page). As per Themightyquill's suggestions, I move for the immediate inclusion of Bedouins, but as "Palestinian Bedouins" to the list, in one of two of the following forms:

1)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region, most of whom are also Palestinian citizens of Israel. [48] or more simply as: 2)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region [49]. Any thoughts? Tiamut 09:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way are these "Palestinian" Bedouins any different than the Bedouins of the Sinai, on the other side of an artificially drawn, modern border? Or from the Bedouins of Jordan's Wadi Araba, on the other side of yet another artificially drawn, modern border? These are the same people, and you are trying to promote a purely political view (with a politically motivated region-name, which is not the common usage name today, to boot). Please stop this. Isarig 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
When you resort to personal attacks, it undermines the quality of your argument. This is not some kind of WP:OR interpretation. The source which meets WP:RS (or WP:ATT) uses the term “Palestinian Bedouin” [50]. (In other words, my arguments are totally in line with Wikipedia policy, but for some reason you do not want to accept that.) It does not say “Jordanian Bedouin”, presumably because Bedouins in Jordan are not a marginalized group (a key condition under the Cobo-Martin definition). And it does not say "Israeli Bedouin". It says, "Palestinian Bedouins" representing the "The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment-Bedouins Delegation". I have been more than patient throughout this entire process, engaging in extensive discussions with all concerned, both here and on talk pages. And while it is my personal opinion that the question of Palestinian indigeneity is a no-brainer (which is why I added it to the list to begin it) and have advocated for that position on the talk pages, you will notice that I have refrained from reinserting the listing since, so that we have a chance to build consensus. There is universal agreement that the evidentiary criteria for Bedouins has been met. In the source, they self-identify as "Palestinian Bedouins". That this agrees with my personal POV is frankly irrelevant. Those are the facts. Deal with it. Tiamut 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not attacked you, personally or otherwise. I commented on the nature of your edits here, which are POV (as you self admit, below), and coupled with large amounts of OR. The bedouins in Jordan or Egypt are "marginalized" in the same way the are in Israel - in that they are not the dominant majority. But the bedouin in the Sinai and Jordan are the same tribe as those on the other side of an artificially drawn border created by the French and British colonial powers in the early part of the 20c, and in fact continously crossed that artifial line without giving it a second thought until it became the border between nations at war. To claim that one member of the tribe who is on one side is part of an "indigenous people", but that his brother on the other side is not is not only ridiculous, it makes a mockery of the term and renders it meaningless. I have no problem with designating 'Bedouins' as an indigenous people, indigenous to the Sinai, Israel, Jordan, Syrai, Saudi Arbia, Syria, Iraq and other mid-east regions - as the Bedouin article makes clear. But you will not turn this article into yet another platform for politcal POV-pushing. Isarig 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is always inspiring to find people who are utterly convinced that their opinion is fact. You have been rather more sanctimonious than patient, but that's neither here nor there. If being a marginalized group is the criteria for being indigenous, we can have yet another discussion about any number of minorities in the Arab world, and for that matter the entire class of non-ruling Arabs in the Arab world, all of whom are more marginalized than Arabs in Israel or in the Palestinian territories. By using a term such as "colonizer" about Israeli Jews, your bias and prejudice is pretty apparent. It is rather we who should lose patience with you. --Leifern 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not ashamed of having a strong POV on this issue and I think it's my right to discuss the situation in whatever terms I see fit on the talk pages, as long as I don't bring that POV into the text of the article without proper sourcing. I also feel that it's more than a little unfair for you to try to use my forthrightness regarding my personal opinion to evade the issue at hand, which is that the criteria for inclusion for the Bedouins of the Negev has beem met, and we must now decide how to list them. Given that the source which meets the criteria for inclusion in this article states "Palestinian Bedouins" representing the "The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment-Bedouins Delegation", the question is how do you want to list them?

1)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region, most of whom are also Palestinian citizens of Israel. [51] or more simply as: 2)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region [52]. Any thoughts? Tiamut 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, you reveal your bias by this very phrase: [[Arab citizens of Israel|Palestinian citizens of Israel]]. The Bedouins in the Negev are citizens of Israel. Period. End of discussion. --Leifern 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this. Stop your politcal POV-pushing. We can list Bedouins - indigenous to the Atlantic coast of the Sahara via the Western Desert, Sinai, and Negev to the Arabian Desert - as their WP article makes clear. Isarig 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked you kindly not to keep accusing me of POV pushing. It comes off as an attempt to undermine the credibility of my argument and is wholly unfair. But since you insist on continuing with you unfounded accusations in violation of WP:AGF, it might be useful to others to know that it is you that is letting your POV influence your critical judgement here. The evidence?:[53] [54] [55] [56] You tried to delete the adjective "indigenous" from the article Arab citizens of Israel twice and were reverted by two different editors because the source cited clearly uses that term, and also meets WP:RS for that article. Please stop harrassing me Isarig. I left editing at that article to get away from contentious debate, not repeat it here. This is a different article, with a different set of issues. I know you don't like the outcome because you think it could have implications for that article, but I think it would be better for everyone involved if you could acknowledge that this is a separate argument and the case has been made. Thanks. Tiamut 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
When you describe your own edits as being motivated by a "strong POV" on the topic, I will repeat that self-description of them. Indeed, I reverted your POV description of Palestinains as "indigenous" in the Arab citizens of Israel article, which is what prompted you to come to this page and try to introduce this POV into this article as well. That POV designation has been removed from the Arab citizens of Israel by numerous editors, and it will not be allowed here. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for you to push your politcal POV of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Isarig 18:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, if your only contribution to this RfC is going to consist of personal attacks against me and generalized obfuscations, I would appreciate it if you would continue that discussion on my talk page. Tiamut 18:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA, as it is painfully obvious that you don't understand the concept of personal attacks. I am describing your actions, not you, and I am using your own description of them, to boot. I have stated my objections to your political POV pushing above. You have declined to address any of my arguments. You asked for comments, and I gave them to you. For this to go any further, you need to adress the questions posed to you. Which are: In what way are these "Palestinian" Bedouins any different than the Bedouins of the Sinai, on the other side of an artificially drawn, modern border? Or from the Bedouins of Jordan's Wadi Araba, on the other side of yet another artificially drawn, modern border? These are the same people. Designating them as "Palestinian" Bedouins, rather than "Bedouins" is nothing but politcal POV-pushing. Isarig 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that the Bedouins participating in the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples identify themselves as "Palestinian Bedouins", and in general, people tend to respect how the delegates to such a forum define themselves. Do you understand? Tiamut 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand clearly: A self-selected, politically motivated group came to the UN, described itself as "Palestinian Bedouins", and the equally politcally motivated UN working group was happy to use that label. That does not change the reality on the ground, which is that those "Palestinian" bedouins are of the same tribe as Sinai bedouins, and are part and parcel of the same indigenous people. Isarig 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are of course, entitled to your opinion. But that does not change the reality of how people define and conceive of themselves. You also cannot freeze time and claim that because Bedouins were once part and parcel of the same people, that we should ignore how they identify themselves and instead impose the descriptions we think they should be using.
It is further irrelevant if the Bedouins in the Negev were the same as those in the Sinai, in a historical sense. At present, they are divided by new borders. Within some of these borders, (like Jordan), they enjoy deep identification with the government, and are in fact, the government. Within others (like Israel), there lands are confiscated and their homes are demolished and over 40 of their villages do not appear on any Israeli maps and therefore denied basic services such as water, electricity, schools, and other basic amenities. The difference between how the different Bedouin groups in different areas identify themselves is related to different situations that they face. Do you understand now? Tiamut 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"there [sic] lands are confiscated and their homes are demolished and over 40 of their villages do not appear on any Israeli maps and therefore denied basic services such as water, electricity, schools, and other basic amenities."... this is not POV-pushing?
Let's take another example of a fully recognized indigenous group - the Sami. There are Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, and Russian Sami who identify themselves as one group, albeit with regional differences that relate far less to national boundaries than anything else. In fact, it is precisely that national borders in many cases have been drawn without consideration of these groups that cause the problems. The Bedouin may have separate issues related to the way they are treated in all countries to which they are indigenous, but to conflate their needs entirely with those of other Arabs has to border on the offensive - toward the Bedouins. I'd welcome a good article on the situation of Bedouins in Israel (and they live outside of the Negev, too), but that is an entirely separate issue of the situation for Arabs in Israel or Palestinians outside of Israel. --Leifern 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't, however, make a distinction between Canadian Mohawks and American Mohawks, or the numerous other indigenous groups that cross modern borders. They may have combined identities, but it's the Mohawk (or Bedouin) part that is indigenous, not the national identity. - TheMightyQuill 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Isarig 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
so, if I am to understand your argument Themightyquill, based on your experience of how Mohawks define themselves, you feel that the Bedouins should follow suit? That they are not entitled to name themselves as they see fit? I don't follow at all.Tiamut 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the Mohawks, and various other indigenous groups that cross modern national borders may have national identities , may consider themsleves Canadian Mohawks, or just Mohawks, but the nation where they happen to live is altogether irrelevant to their indigenousness. Logically, Bedouin in Palestinian Territories/Israel face different issues than Bedouin elsewhere. Mohawks in Canada face totally different issues than Mohawks in the United States, so it is useful at times to distinguish both indigenous ethnicity and modern citizenship, however, those are different things. Indigenousn identity relates to a long term identity, and historically, there was no clear dividing line between Canadian/American mohawks. I assume the same is true of Bedouin, but I could be wrong. Were the State of Israel to cease to exist, and Palestinians gained full control of the area, would the Bedouins not continue to be indigenous people? At that point, they might be in conflict with the palestian state. Thank you, by the way, for your calm, constructive debating style. It is much appreciated. - TheMightyQuill 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of my comments below speak to part of the issues you raised. This article by a Palestinian Bedouin professor from Ben-Gurion University in Negev, is also useful in understanding the overlapping identity between Bedouins and Palestinians [57]. In that article, he explains that "The Negev Bedouin are among the Palestinian Arabs who remained in Israel after 1948 and are today a minority group of Israeli citizens. They have inhabited the Negev desert since the 5th century C.E." and "The Negev Bedouin were placed under a military administration until 1966, as were all other Palestinian Arabs in Israel ... (Marx, 1967)." and "Five decades later the tension involving Bedouin-Arab land ownership is still a central issue in the Beer-Sheva region. Ninety five percent of Palestinian Arab claims to land have not been settled, covering approximately 800,000 dunams (Mena Committee, 1997). Half of these lands are in areas settled by Jews. The compromises reached so far between Negev Palestinian Arabs and state amount only to 30,000 dunams." Notice that the author uses the terms Palestinian, Arab and Bedouin interchangeably. I agree it is confusing. But there seems to an assertion of indigeneity both on the basis of Palestinian identity and Bedouin identity.
The question you bring up is very interesting, however. If Palestinians were to gain control of the area that the Bedouins are in, would they cease to be identified as an indigenous people? I suppose that would depend on how they were treated. If Bedouins were marginalized to some degree, as they are in Israel or in the Sinai region of Egypt (where many of them also identify as Palestinian Bedouins, since most of their relatives are in Gaza), then I suppose they would. If however, they were well-represented in government, as they are in Jordan where almost the entire Jordanian population identifies as Jordanian Bedouin (with the exception of the 60% of the population that are Palestinian refugees), then they probably wouldn't (they haven't in Jordan, to my knowledge). I believe that in asserting a dual identity, inn the case of Palestinian Bedouins that both parts are being asserted as indigenous.
To put in another way: as I stated below, there has never been a United States of Palestine. In other words, when a Bedouin is saying that he is a Palestinian, it is not the same thing as a Mohawk saying he is an American. It's more like a Mohawk saying he is both Mohawk and a member of the Six Nations, or the people of the Long House. The identity he stresses, depends on the situation he is in, the historical time period, etc., etc., though admittedly Mohawk remains the primary identity. But he does not consider the other Six Nations people not to be indigenous. Tiamut 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Tiamut 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I would say "The Negev Bedouin are among the Palestinian Arabs..." is not an example of using the terms interchangeably. Bedouins may be an example of Palestinians, but that doesn't mean the two terms are synonymous. In fact, quite the opposite. Perhaps the largest difference between Bedouins and other Palestinians is that Bedouins are indigenous, whereas others are not. If you want to describe them as Negev Bedouin as Abu-Saad does, that would seem more reasonable - a natural geographic subgroup of the Bedouin, rather than a modern national subgroup of the Bedouin.

You comparison of the Six Nations with Palestinians is faulty, because the Six Nations are accepted as indigenous, whereas Palestinians have not been (at least not by the contributors of this article). You could claim something like Finnish Saami when Finland was occupied by Russia... - TheMightyQuill 02:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


I found this particular argument - "in Jordan where almost the entire Jordanian population identifies as Jordanian Bedouin (with the exception of the 60% of the population that are Palestinian refugees). " - to be quite representative of the extreme semantic sophistry, bordering on the ridiculous, nature of your arguments. Seriously - give it a rest. Isarig
You are again repeating the unsourced original research that Bedouins, in general, define themselves as Palestinian. This is not only OR, but you admit yourself that it is false. While some Bedouin individuals no doubt see themselves, and publcily identify, as Palestinians - the same way that some Mohawks undoubtedly see themsleves as American - many others do not, and academic sources that I've presented above draw a very clear distinction between indigenous Bedouins and Palestinians. As TheMightyQuill syas, it is the Bedouin part that is indigenous, not the identification with a modern day nation state. Isarig 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, what makes the Bedouins indigenous in this case, (according to the criteria defined at the top of the page and by Wikipedia policies like WP:ATT, WP:NPOV) is that they identify as an indigenous people, and the basis of that identification is formulated by them here [58] and here [59] as "Palestinian Bedouin". If you review the discussion above (in the RfC section under the Comments where Johannes, and futurebird also placed there comments - two completely impartial editors, unlike Isarig and one or two others, who seem to have an axe to grind), you will see that the only thing stopping the Palestinians in general from being placed on the list, is a lack of solid evidence proving self-identification. Every other set of criteria has been met. Johannes was even of the opinion that if more sources could be found from Palestinian civil society in Israel of self-identification as an "indigenous people", like this one: [60], that he would be inclined to put them on the list, and yet exclude Palestinians in the occupied territories because there is little evidence so far of them self-identifying as indigenous. In other words, Bedouins can identify as both Palestinian and Bedouin, and still claim indigeneity, on either basis. That they have chosen to include both identities in their description of themselves before the Indigenous Peoples Working Group [61] [62] is absolutely significant and should be respected. I also recommend that those unfamiliar with Bedouin identity read this paper by a Palestinian Bedouin professor with Israeli citizenship: [63]. Tiamut 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again with this OR? That a handful of Bedouins appeard at a UN conference under the auspices of a Palestinian delegation does not mean that Bedouins identify as Palestinians. What makes them indigenous has nothing to do with that one-time delegation, but with the fact that they have a distinct culture, and have inhabited their ancestral grounds for many years, and were the only inahabitants in most of those areas for most of that time. Some bedouins self-identify as Palestinians (just like some Mohawks identify as Americans); Some bedouins identify as Israelis (just like some Mohawks identify as Canadian); And some bedouins reject any kind of modern nation-state identity, and self-identify as Bedouins (just like some Mohawks reject American and/or Canadian citizenship and identify as Iroquois); The indegenous people in these cases are Mohawk and Bedouin, respectively. Isarig 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you stop please stop characterizing my assertion that "Palestinian Bedouins" is the proper term to use for this listing, as a violation of WP:NOR? I have provided more than one source to that effect. It is not speculation on my part. I shouldn't even have to prove that both aspects of their identity are indigenous for them to listed in this fashion, since it is precisely what they use themselves in the two sources I provided that meet both WP:RS or [[WP:ATT], and, meet the criteria for this page. ([64] and here [65]) I wouldn't have addressed the issue at all, were it not for Themightyquill's very reasonable questions surrounding the issue in general. Tiamut 00:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And as regards Bedouin identity, perhaps an equally valid source would be this. Isarig 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, it just struck me that the equation of "American" and "Palestinian" is not very relevant here. There is no United States of Palestine that colonized Bedouin land. The Palestinians, including Bedouins, were dispossessed by Israel, not themselves. Tiamut 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Without getting into the veracity of your claims regarding Bedouin dispossion, there is a United States of America that colonized Iroquois land, and yet some Iroquois identify as American. Get your analogies straight. Isarig 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as some Bedouins call themselves Israeli. Tiamut 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we have gotten off track here. As Themightyquill said earlier: "I would hazard to guess that the UN has more credibility in the world than any other single organization. The Indigenous forum and working group were also formed largely out of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, an international NGO independent of the UN." The Indigenous Forum cites the Bedouins in participation as "Palestinian Bedouins" according to the evidence presented above. My question to you Themightyquill is: how can you claim that the UN serves as a WP:RS for the inclusion of Bedouins in the List of Indigenous Peoples, but not a WP:RS on how we should list Bedouins in this article? Thanks. Tiamut 04:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we're able to interpret using common sense. If the forum doesn't recognize Palestinians as indigenous, why would their use of the word "Palestinian" be interpreted as part of their indigenous identity, rather than their national identity, or even just their location? Would you suggest we include Palestinian Bedouins, Bedouins who live in the Palestinian territories but do not consider themselves Palestinian, and Israeli Bedouins, all as separate indigenous groups, even though they may all refer to the exact same people? If the Forum mentions that 10 Bedouin men participated, do Bedouin men become an indigenous group, distinct from Bedouin women? You should be able to ascertain from the full name of the UN that it is based, from it's very origins, in the global system of Nation States. Indigenous groups usually don't fit well into those nation states - this is, to a large degree, the reason they are considered "indigenous." But to be able to function, the UN needs to identify which nation those indigenous peoples live in; hence, Palestinian Bedouins, rather than Bedouins from another nation. - TheMightyQuill 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear TheMightyQuill. All I am suggesting is that we list the Bedouins in the way they are listed in the documents which meet WP:RS or the new WP:ATT. The first one refers to "Palestinian Bedouins," [66] while the second one states that "Arab Bedouins are a unique Palestinian community" [67]. These Bedouins however live in what is now Israel and are Israeli citizens, but they do not refer to themselves as "Israeli Bedouins". Therefore, the "common sense" argument that they are listed as "Palestinian Bedouins" because they live in the "Palestinian territories" is incorrect (and also WP:OR). (See this too from Habitat International Coalition [68] where they are referred to as the "Palestinian Arab Bedouin community in Israel".)
It was when you proposed that we list Bedouins that I offered the formulations I thought were appropriate based on the sources which met the criteria listed at the top of the page. Now, though I feel that Palestinians in Israel in general should also be listed because of this source [69] in which Palestinians in Israel self-identify as indigenous people before an international body (remember too, that this is an idea Johannes Rohr semi-supported when he agreed that Palestinians met all the criteria under the definition, with the possible exception of self-identification) – at this very moment what we are discussing is simply how to list the Bedouins themselves. So, in addition to the other two formulations proposed:
1)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region, most of whom are also Palestinian citizens of Israel. [70] [71]
2)Palestinian Bedouins of the Naqab region [72] [73].
Here are others:
3) Palestinian Arab Bedouins of the Naqab region [74] [75]
4) Arab Bedouins of the Naqab, part of the Palestinian community in Israel [76] [77].
Please choose one, or propose an alternative based on a source that meets WP:RS/WP:ATT and the criteria at the top of this page. Thanks. Tiamut 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Like I said, Palestinian may refer to national identity, rather than ethnic identity. At the risk of repeating myself, a Mohawk from Canada may refer to himself as a Canadian Mohawk, but there is no article Canadian Mohawk, and there is no significant different between Mohawk cultures across the border from eachother. There is no Palestinian Bedouin article either, I might add. The Bedouin from Palestine may well consider themsleves Palestinian and Bedouin, and thus refer to themselves as Palestinian Bedouin, but that doesn't prove that they consider "Palestinian Bedouin" a subset of Bedouin, rather than subset of Palestinian. As long as Palestinian is considered a nationality, not an indigenous culture, I don't like any of your options.

On the other hand, the indigenous people of the continental USA do consider themselves Native Americans, so that's a point for your argument. It's complex, I'll give you that. =)

In addition, that document is pretty good evidence to support your original point that palestinians are indeed an indigenous group. I don't know if it shows that a significant number of them consider themselves indigenous, but I have no idea about how important the Mossawa Center is. Anyone else want to comment on it? Johannes Rohr? - TheMightyQuill 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedouins

Rather than relying on a one sentence comment in a long report, presented by a politically motivated group to a politcally motivated UN organization, how about we look at how bedouins are actually described, in academic as well as popular sources:

  • "there is also a significant minority of Bedouin [in Jordan], who were by far the largest indigenous group before the influx of Palestinians" [78] (This is particualrly intersting, as it draws a clear distinction between Palestinians and Bedouin)
  • "The indigenous people of Sinai are Bedouins" [79]
  • "[the Sinai Peninsula] is also home to indigenous Bedouin populations" [80]
  • "An indigenous group with a major claim to land in the Sinai are the 270,000-strong nomadic Bedouins" - Development of a geographic information system for sustainable development planning in South Sinai, Egypt , Surveying and Land Information Science, Mar 2003

[edit] Jews - Martinez Cobo

The Martinez Cobo definition, which is provided as a "working" hypothesis against the background that there is "no general agreement," states:

“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.”

There is no requirement that they are marginalized, though it states that they are "non-dominant ... of society." Jews in the Middle East easily fit this categorization - there is historical continuity prior to pre-invasion (Assyrians, Persians, Greek, Ottoman, Arabs, you name it) and pre-colonization (same list). Non-dominant is a matter of how broadly you define the area - Arabs certainly consider "Palestine" to be part of the "greater Arab nation" that encompasses the Southwest Asia region, and here Jews - without question - are non-dominant. --Leifern 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that Jews in Syria, Jews in Iraq, Jews in Lebanon, Jews in Morocco and a lot of other places in the Arab world do fit the Cobo-Martin definition - with one caveat: that evidence must be provided for each separate Jewish community in each part of the Arab world self-identifying as such before an international body. That is the standard that has been set for the inclusion of groups into this article. (Jews in Israel obviously do not fit the definition, because they are the dominant society there, as discussed above.) Tiamut 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get this idea that a group can only be indigenous if it self-identifies as such in front of an international body? That is at best a shaky assertion, and most likely Original research. So let's just trash that notion. The entry in this article that we're discussing refers to Southwest Asia, which is defined - in the article - as: "generally includes the region (formerly Persia) westwards of Pakistan, the Arabian peninsula, the Middle East or Levant, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus region and Anatolia." In this region there is no question that Jews fit the definition proposed by Martinez Cobo exactly. --Leifern 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not WP:OR. It's the criteria written at the top of this page and it is designed to avoid "a list of almost everyone", as Themightyquill pointed out so succintly below. Longstanding editors of the article who were here before you or I arrived at this page have made their cases for why it is important, and I think we should defer to their opinion. Particularly seeing as your only interest in the page was sparked after I tried to add Palestinians, and I tried to add Palestinians. (and Druze, after you added it, and after finding what I thought was a reliable source, but which did not make the criteria, remember?). In other words, I don't think we should try fiddling with the criteria at this point to make our respective cases. And it's kind of rude of you to say "let's just trash it" after all this discussion. Let's respect the tranquility of the article and the page as much as we can by respecting the existing criteria. The volume is already getting to be incredible. Tiamut 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are we using this definition from the United Nations an organization that has little credibility in most parts of the world? Also, the article isn't looking groups per state its looking at groups within a subcontinent, Jews are marginalized within Southwest Asia, Israel is marginalized in Southwest Asia. See also [http://www.jimena.org/ JIMENA} for Jews identifying themselves as indigenous and marginalized. Also why are virtually all the other peoples listed in the article not required to provide the same proof that you seek about Jews? hmmm looks like yet another example of Jews being marginalized :P Kuratowski's Ghost 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard to guess that the UN has more credibility in the world than any other single organization. The Indigenous forum and working group were also formed largely out of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, an international NGO independent of the UN. I don't believe Jews or Palestinians were members of the WCIP either.

Also, your Jimena website again uses the word indigenous as an adjective in the same way that Jews are indigenous to New York. If we included everyone that's indigenous in that sense, we'd have to list every person that hasn't moved to a different continent since they were born, and we'd have to move this article to List of almost everyone. Simply being marginalized doesn't make you indigenous. - TheMightyQuill 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would further add that it is rather amazing that you could claim that Jews are being held to a higher standard than other groups. After all the protestations you made for more evidence about Palestinians, despite everything I have provided you with, I would say that the bar has now been set very high. Tiamut 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If we would seriously reject the Martínez Cobo definition or similar guidances provided by international bodies such as the World Bank or the ILO, we would end up with nothing at all. If the criteria for inclusion into the list would be lowered to the adjective English meaning of "indigenous", this list would become completely meaningless. As noted above, we could include just about every nation on the planet, with some notable exceptions. This would be good for nothing.

Well, I wasn't aware, that the Cobo definition in its short form does not use the term "marginalisation", however, this term is being used frequently in this context, e.g. in the extended working definition by Mrs. Erica-Irene Daes, the long-term chairperson of WGIP, see e.g. her Working paper on the Concept of Indigenous People, UN Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1996/2, available for download at [81].

It is true, that all available definitions have the status of "working definition", they are non-exclusive and non-binding. This poses some problems, but there is nothing we can do about it, given that even a definition of "people" cannot be found in any of the international human rights treaties, even though the status of being a people has tremendous weight in international law. As noted above, both core human rights treaties, ICESCR and ICCPR start with stating that every people has the right to self-determination. Now, because exercising this right can have far-reaching consequences, many governments continue to reject that indigenous peoples are peoples. That is why WGIP is/was called the Working Group on indigenous populations, and why we are now in the second international decade of the world's indigenous people (without the plural "s"). Further, we still do not have any treaty on indigenous peoples' rights at UN level. The adoption of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, which had been negotiated some 25 years, has only just been delayed by the General Assembly for another year, and if we will ever have something like a UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which would be a binding instrument, something which a declaration is not), remains to be seen. This legal limbo that the World's indigenous peoples are in, is likely to remain for many decades to come. It may well be that, when it is finally settled, some day far in a distant future, many of the world's indigenous peoples will have ceased to exist. However, I feel that despite the legal uncertainty, there is a far-reaching consensus, that the term "indigenous peoples" has some specific aspects, which go beyond the everyday meaning of the English word "indigenous". Apart from self-identification, priority in time with regard to a particular territory, cultural distinctiveness, the aspect of non-dominance, dispossession, subjugation, marginalisation is at the heart of this existing consensus.

Concerning this debate here, it must be noted, that the situation in the Middle East is quite unique on a global scale. I cannot think of any other case where after 2000 years, a nation has returned to its original homeland.

I'm really sick and tired of hearing the lie that "Jews returned after 2000 years". The Jewish community in Israel has an unbroken continuity for millenia. Yes there were occassions when Jews were exiled and many other occassions over the centuries when descendents of exiles returned. But on no occassion were all Jews exiled, and those in exile are descended from Jews exiled over many different period not 2000 years ago. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever your opinion is, this history is pretty much unique and has nothing in common with those historical developments, around which the term and concept of "indigenous peoples" has emerged. --Johannes Rohr 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This simply does not fit into the scheme, i.o.w. the working definition is neither appropriate to the Jewish population of Israel, nor is it helpful, it does not explain anything, trying to apply it does not lead anywhere. Many international institutions, including the World Bank, regional development banks, national development agencies have policies on indigenous peoples. Neither of these policies would be by any means applicable to Israel, a highly industrialised nation, a leader in science, with strong European traits, a dominant military power of its region. None of the typical concerns that indigenous peoples usually have (e.g. exploitation of their traditional knowledge by pharmaceutical industries, devastation of their subsistence basis through uranium mining, oil and gas extraction, forced eviction for industrial purposes, denial of self-determination etc. pp.) applies to the majority of Jews in that part of the world to which they are historically indigenous. Just to put things into perspective: Indigenous peoples, be it the Mapuche of Chile, the Khanty of Western Siberia, the Bushmen of the Kalahari or the Aborigines of Australia are typically marginalised and are fighting to retain at least a minimal degree of autonomy and self-government. Compare this to the political position of Jews in independent Israel. Is this really so hard to understand? --Johannes Rohr 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah doesn't change the reality that the Martinez-Cobo definition is typical UN doublespeak not the normal English meaning of indigenous. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you chose to dismiss explanations given to you in good faith as "blah blah", there is not ground for discussion. If you chose to ignore the fundamentals, please go play elsewhere. If you ignore the rules of traffic, you should not drive a car. If you refuse to learn a language, you cannot have conversation in it. Even if you dislike the UN, there are other international bodies, which also use the term indigenous peoples in a similar way, using the same criteria (e.g. the OAS, the EU or the Arctic Council). There is a plethora of national development agencies, NGO and regional development banks, which use it. However, I by now convinced that whatever evidence you are confronted with, you will always keep denying the authority and reputability of the source. BTW, the original roots of this concept are not in UN offices but in the social movements of Latin America. --Johannes Rohr 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a perfectly logical and compelling argument. Jewish indigeneity to the Middle East is a fascinating subject in its own right, but it doesn't really have a place of this list, which uses the more political definition of "indigenous". But where does that leave us with regard to question posed in the RfC above? Tiamut 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As it has been pointed out above, the connection between Jews and the Land of Israel was not interrupted for millennia, despite various exiles and conquests. Jewish communities stayed there, it is prominent in Judaism. BTW, Jerusalem had Jewish plurality in 1844, before modern political Zionism. If you say that Israelites and their descendants are not indigenous to the Land of Israel (Judea/Judeans/Jews, hello), you are either politically motivated, or don't know history. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is all pretty much irrelevant. The term "indigenous peoples" has a specific political meaning, which, as pointed out more than once, does not apply in this case. This page here is not the place to fight Middle Eastern conflicts. If you continue to ignore the basics of what "indigenous peoples" is all about, please go away! There are myriads of pages related to the Middle Eastern conflict, to Jewish and Arab history. This one is obviously not the right place. Several people have put substantial effort into explaining again and again, what the political, historical and social background of the concept of "indigenous peoples" is. (one the of the best possible introductions is the Working Paper by Erica-Irene Daes cited above).
However, all the response we receive from your side indicates, that you deliberately ignore all those explanations (else I would have to assume, that you are intellectually challenged to the point of being unable to understand what has been explained to again and again). Again, please go away, as you are disrupting work on this page. --Johannes Rohr 06:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who do you send "away". Please review WP:OWN and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. We should not promote some idiosyncratic definition containing special provisions in addition to a common meaning of the word [82]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you please take note that this definition is not "idiosyncratic". Its principles and provisions are upheld by many international and national bodies, governmental institutions, NGO and not least by indigenous peoples themselves. This has been explained many times on this page. What exactly is so hard to understand about this? Second: What would the point of this list be, if the common English adjective meaning of "indigenous" was the sole criteria for inclusion? This question has been repeated many times here and noone has responded. I have tried to stick with WP:AGF as long as possible. But the more times I see that you simply ignore 90% of the facts provided, the harder this becomes. --Johannes Rohr 09:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


This discussion has been had before. If the term indigenous is to be understood in its common language use then around 90% of the worlds peoples qualify as indigenous sucking all meaning and relevance out of the world. An "Indigenous people" is not simply a people that has lived in the same geographic area for a long period of time - it has to be defined and qualified by somekind of criteria in order to have any meaningfulness - the Martinez-Cobo criterion is such a definition and it is the most widely recognized one throughout the world. Jews may have lived in israel for millenia and they may be indigenous to the region but that doesn't make them an indigenous people anymore than Han chinese are and indigenous people of china or Danes are an indigenous people of denmark. And just like a blackbird isn't just any black bird.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There are common English-language references (such as [83]) and there are attempts to redefine narrow common terminology to serve narrow political agenda. This article should be retitled into List of indigenous peoples as defined by XYZ, because the definition used is not commonly accepted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, yours is the fringe view. Most countries have some kind of legislation referring to "indigenous peoples" using some variation of the martínez-cobo definition. Dictionary definitions doesn't apply here because the word indigenous is NOT being used as an adjective but as a part of the commonly recognized term "an indigenous people".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
@Humus sapiens: Would you please provide an alternative definition of "indigenous peoples" and provide evidence that it enjoys at least the same level of recognotion in national and international law, by indigenous peoples and organisations, policies of governments, international bodies, NGOs as the Martínez-Cobo definition? --Johannes Rohr 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As Leifern pointed out at the top of this section, that def. is a "working" hypothesis, and there is "no general agreement". The fact that certain political groups use and abuse it (as evidenced in this section) makes it even more questionable. If you are indeed looking for sensible alternatives rather than politicizing the issue, see e.g. [84], which is similar to [85]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? FYI: This is not the List of indigenous plants. Would you please provide an alternative definition of "indigenous peoples" that enjoys at least the same level of recognition as the Martínez-Cobo definition? Personally I have been working with indigenous peoples since app. 1991. I'd be highly surprised if there was anything.
What exactly is the "abuse" you are talking about? How and where are the WGIP, the ILO, the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Sami Council or the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests[86] "abusing" the Martínez Cobo definition?
As to why it is called "working definition", I have already explained the background above. HINT: There is no definition of "people" in international law, either.
Concerning the link to the archeologist dictionary: This is not a comprehensive definition and language like "native people of an area, in contrast to invading or colonizing peoples." is on extremely shake ground. Do I have to elaborate? Further, if this is the response to my inquiry, please provide the evidence, that this definition has the same level of recognition in international law and politics, by indigenous peoples, by development agencies, governments and international organisations as the Martínez Cobo definition. Also please provide evidence, that this web site is more reputable and authoritative, than the named institutions, foremost the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, the United Nation Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organisation.--Johannes Rohr 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the PLO. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I have some difficulties figuring out, how this is supposed to be a reply to my above questions. If you are trying to say, that the PLO has brought the Martínez Cobo definition (or any other similar one) into disrepute, I wonder where and how this should have happened. As said above, I have been a regular attendant to WGIP's sessions since 1995, and I never met anyone from the PLO there (neither anyone from the Israeli government. The only representatives from the region where those of the Negev Bedouins. They particepated several times). Neither am I aware that the PLO has participated in the UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or in any international network of indigenous peoples. I would even make the assertion, that the PLO will have little inclination to identify the Palestinians as "indigenous people" in the political sense, for the same reason for which the Tibetan leadership in exile has always rejected it: Both identify their people as nations under occupation, which is somewhat incompatible with the concept of "indigenous peoples". Indigenous peoples typically do have little prospect of ever achieving statehood. (Go down the list on the article page to convince yourself). Usually their goal is something like internal self-government, autonomy. Nunavut or the Home Rule government of Greenland are among the most outstanding examples of indigenous self-government in today's world. Since the official goal of the PLO remains the two-state solution, rather than becoming citizens of Israel, the whole "indigenous peoples" idea is inappropriate. (Things might be different, if the occupied territories where incorporated into Israel and the Palestians would be Israeli citizens, but even then, I'd tend to call them a national minority, rather than an indigenous people. But that's separate discussion.) --Johannes Rohr 13:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Those websites provide no support for your ideas whatsoever - "indigenous" in ""indigenous plants" does not mean the same as in "indigenous peoples" that is what we have been trying to tell you. "Aboriginal people" may mean the same as "indigenous people" to some people, but most associate that term with australian indigenous peoples and many refrain from using it all together because it they see it as non PC. Let me ask you this Humus Sapiens - under your definition of the term "indigenous people" which of the earths ethnic groups do not constitute an indigenous people?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a specialist in this area and I do not claim to be one, but this section has evidence how your definition is played by some political groups to promote their agenda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The term "indigenous people" is a political term that is true, and yes it is played by some groups to move their agenda because it is a term which assigns a certain protected status to a group when ascribed by a political organisation. This however is completely irrelevant for the present list since the list just lists the peoples that fall under the definition it doesn't assign them any rights or privileges. I agree that it would be better to state explicitly that this article deals with indigenous people recognized as such by the UN, because else the article will become OR. A parallel would be if some one were to make a List of Terrorist organisations without including a definition of "terrorist organistaion" then any political group from FARC to the Republican Party could be listed as a terrorist organisation if someone felt like including them, because they could always argue that they fell under a dictionary definition of terrorrist (it would be a question fo finding the right dictionary). Fact is that if we were to use the dictionary definition of "indigenous people" the list would be meaningless because any people could be included.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI, we do have List of terrorist organisations. On the subject: AFAIK, every ethnic groups considers some territory as their homeland, and there is nothing wrong with having such a list, of course properly WP:ATTRIBUTED. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No of course we can have a list of all ethnic groups. FYI we already have it at List of ethnic groups. Are you proposing we merge these two lists ? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've been offline the past week, so just catching up on the extensive commentary that this RFC has attracted during the intervening period. I don't really think there's much more to add about the intent and scope beyond what Johannes and Maunus have patiently and eloquently been supplying- there are only so many ways the definitions can be explained and recast, if anyone still does not appreciate after these fine efforts the validity of this topic then there's no helping some. Hopefully the respite in edits and commentary the past couple of days signifies the debate over Palestinian / Jewish identity and primacy in these regions is to be moved on to other more relevant articles, an approach I fully concur with. Is there any remaining dissent? --cjllw | TALK 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion criteria for Southern Africa

Hi there, it seems that the Southern African section of the list is overloaded with just about every larger ethnic group in South Africa (except for the white Boers or Afrikaaners. I don't see evidence, that the Zulu, Venda or Xhosa are regarded "indigenous peoples" and would remove them from the list, if there are no objections. A fairly reliable reference is IPACC, the Indigenous peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee. With regard to Southern Africa, they state:

Unlike some other parts of Africa, there is a fairly clear distinction between the first peoples of Southern Africa and Africans who migrated into the region in recent times. The cultural presence of the San hunter-gatherers has been attested to in rock art and archaeology for over 20 000 years. Human occupation of the region stretches back over 150 000 years.
The aboriginal San, and their related herding neighbours, the Khoekhoe (also Khoikhoi), are according to geneticist the people who carry the genetic material which indicates that their ancestors are the ancestors of all living human beings. The San are distinguished rich knowledge of biodiversity and by their extraordinarily complex languages that include a range of click sounds.
San peoples have been colonised first by the arrival of Bantu-speaking Black agro-pastoralists from East and Central Africa, then more aggressively by European settlers. The impact of European settlement in South Africa included an almost complete destruction of San civilisations in that country. Today there are some 100 000 San living in the region. Only about 15 people have graduated from tertiary education, the majority live in situations of poverty and marginalisation.
Certain Khoe peoples adopted sheep pastoralism more than 2000 years ago. They spread throughout the subcontinent and were able to negotiate their relationship with the European settlers somewhat more successfully than the San. In South Africa, many Khoekhoe assimilated into Afrikaans speaking, so called “Coloured” farming society, though the Nama people of the Richtersveld and Orange River managed to keep their language and culture alive. In Namibia, Nama people number over 100 000 and have a degree of representation in government. The largest Afrikaans-speaking Khoekhoe group is the Griqua of South Africa.[87]

...which means that at least all the Banthu-speaking ethnic groups should not be listed.--Johannes Rohr 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Johannes. A couple of months back now a contributor added in a whole bunch of African ethnic groups, without it seems any validation against the criteria. I took out a few of the more obvious ones which mismatched the criteria, but no doubt there's more trimming to be done. Thanks for picking up on those you have changed.--cjllw | TALK 07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the easiest way would be to rely on IPACC (web server currently down, hopefully back soon). The web site provides per-region assessments of who is considered indigenous peoples in Africa and also what that means. In my view they are the most authoritative voice of indigenous peoples in (Sub-Saharan) Africa. --Johannes Rohr 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, IPACC and affiliates, also relevant AU publications, would easily be definitive, but not exhaustive, sources. The yearbook reports of IWGIA would be on a par with these. It might even be an idea to compile somewhere a list of main sources regarded as authorative and unproblematic in the matter of identifying specific indigenous peoples. Thus at least a reasonable number could be "confirmed", while others not mentioned in these can still be considered but would need some alternative demonstration.
At some point it would be best to reformat this list to make the references more explicit, something I'll look to do, but it won't be immediate.--cjllw | TALK 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be highly surprised if any AU publications would mention indigenous peoples. Most African states are openly hostile to the concept of "indigenous peoples". They claim that all Africans are equally indigenous as almost all have been subject to colonialism. See the recent non-action motion brought forward by Namibia at the General Assembly, aimed at scrapping the Draft Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. (More information at [88]). Apart from that, I agree with your suggestions, both concerning the list of acceptable sources (which, in either case should be non-exclusive and open for additions) and the provision of references in the list. --Johannes Rohr 10:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I recall seeing some materials published, or at least commissioned by, the ACHPR and its Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa. Though probably their own instruments avoid providing much in the way of specifically identifying African indigenous peoples by name.--cjllw | TALK 12:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Africa

This seems to be a random list of ethnic groups of East Africa. For a discussion of who might be considered "indigenous peoples" of that region, please see: http://www.ipacc.org.za/eng/easthorn.asp

--Johannes Rohr 10:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terms of reference

I think that this article has some rather serious flaws. The concept is based on an particular use of the term, rather than the plain English use. That would be fine if it was incorporated into the article. But instead, readers are directed to the talk page, which is also troubling. The talk pages are for improving the articles and not an appendix to them. Articles should be self-contained. Beyond that, the inclusion criteria are just those stated by user:cjllw which makes an important part of the article essentially uneditable by anyone else. I suppose that an editor could engage in some sort of debate but that would be too much to ask our readers to follow just to find out the basic premise of the article. --JGGardiner 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria is listed as a reminder for what the article does and does not include for those unfamiliar with the concept. It's an important adjunct to the ongoing improvement of the article. It's certainly educational as well as to the what the concept of indigenous peoples means today in its mostly commonly used application. Many longtime editors of this page, not just cjllw, but also themightyquill, JohannesRohr, and others have made cogent arguments as to what the page is about and why it is restricted to the political definition most commonly in use today. It's to avoid a listoflamosteveryoneintheworld. The Indigenous peoples article itself also clearly articulates the difference between the colloquial and particular meanings of indigenous. Separate claims of indigeneity in the wider sense of the word can be dealt with on individual pages, not in a meta-article with an open-ended definition. With respect. Tiamut 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it all seemed clear in my mind when I was writing it but I can see where I was confusing. =)
My problem is not the use of that concept of "indigenous" but rather how that is explained to readers. This is just one of those things where Wikipedians get caught up in our own procedures and forget that people actually read these things. When I came here, as a Wikipedian, I knew this wasn't a list of everyone because then the list would be over 32kb (gasp!) but I don't think that the average reader makes the same assumptions. I think that readers take our work at face value and need these nuances explained to them where they exist. And a reader should never ever have to look at a talk page in order to decipher the article itself.
Second, I think that the concept, while reasonable for all the reasons that you stated, should be open for discussion. No editor, even an article's creator, should be able to close off part of the article and say that it is settled. I didn't mean to imply that is what cjllw intended that. However, the article's direction to the talk page had that effect by incoprorating the talk page, in particular cjllw's terms, into the article itself. If cjllw, or anyone else incorporated that into the actual article itself, it could be discussed or changed by the community. Right now, the terms are effectively "settled" which should really never be the case for one of our articles. Thanks. --JGGardiner 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point now that you have clarified, but I would leave the floor open to other longtime editors to respond. Perhaps they have strong reasons for having ordered things this way based on previous experiences that should be considered before moving things about. Tiamut 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right JGGardiner, the article's text itself should probably not reference the talk page. This list article was created a while back now when I split it off from the main indigenous peoples article. At the time I thought it needed some way to clarify what the terminology meant and to give guidance to future editors on its purpose now that it was disassociated from the main article, but that was early on in my wiki-career and I was not that sure on the appropriate way to go about it.
Insofar as it being a pointer intended for editors, it should probably be made into a <!--comment-->. Some words in a lead para or two (maybe taken from the main article and refined a little bit) should prob also be inserted to make clear in just what sense of the term this list is referring to, for the readers' (and editors') benefit.
The 'concept' of specific indigenous peoples is not mine, but for all the good reasons given above and elsewhere merely a reflection of a real-world concept which is defined and recognised in very many quarters. Unfortunately it seems that owing to I guess general unfamiliarity with indigenous peoples' rights and concerns there are folks, readers and editors alike, who confuse it with the (valid) common adjectival usage of indigenous X. The problem is, there's no real scope for an article on peoples in general by this adjectival sense (just about all peoples are indigenous to somewhere), so it can't simply be treated in a usual disambiguation fashion.
The 'guidelines for inclusion' above (which are an innovation of mine) are really more properly a suggested methodology to assist in determining who should be identified here. In addition to the Martinez-Cobo definition and other widely-recognised real-world formulae, these guidelines annotate the "types of evidence" one would expect for indigenous peoples' identity- so, instead of editors subjectively deciding whether any given group meets the Martinez-Cobo definition, it calls for the more objective display that the group participates in the real world as an indigenous people. It's not a perfect formulation and there's scope for improvement, and there will be degrees of matching with the criteria which will still call upon editorial consensus decision-making. It can be amended if someone's got a better way of putting it, but it has served reasonably well up to now.
I certainly don't mean to give the impression that no further correspondence will be entered into on the definitions, although I think few would genuinely dispute that the concept of indigenous peoples as used here is a valid and encyclopaedic topic (once they understand it). There have been quite a few discussions, here and elsewhere.--cjllw | TALK 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, cjllw. Like I said, my problem isn't the formulation, just the way that is incorporated into the article. I see that there has been quite a lot of discussion. With the current situation that just makes things more difficult for readers so I look forward to whatever imporvements are made. --JGGardiner 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_indigenous_peoples_4eb0.html"