2005 - 2007
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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®ionId=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)
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)
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:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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)
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)
Please Do not edit this page!
Please discuss all topics from archives on current talk page.
|
