Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples

Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookecur (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Calvinhuynh2002 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sainiaditya12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ryantakata.

— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"For this assignment, students will be making contributions to Wikipedia specifically designed to correct the well-documented gender, heterosexual, white, and Western bias in this extremely influential resource."

I've never seen Wikipedia associated assignments. Does the selection of this article mean that you believe the article exhibits are the aforementioned biases ? Phantomette (chat) 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nellie massacre

The Nellie massacre is a reverse example and does not belong here. The victims, in this case, were migrants and the perpetrators were indigenous. Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Canadian genocide of the First Nations into Genocide of Indigenous peoples#Canada

There is currently more info on this topic in the overview article. The imbalance should be fixed by merging or summary style. (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. Too little meat for such a big fork ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

yup....support merge Moxy🍁 16:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Very weak oppose, there is probably much more that can be written about this topic than would fit in a section here. But since it presently isn't written, I agree a merge with the redirect tagged {{R with possibilities}} and probably with a see also link to Canadian Indian residential school system (where most of the writing we do have on this topic is) would be appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Canadians originally had a standalone article..... like many other nations..... however they were all merged here many moons ago. I'd rather see everything merged out of here into its own article. As per WP:Does deletion help. Moxy🍁 20:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Would seem to warrant its own article (though perhaps its scope could be extended to Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Canada). Summary style is the solution. Graham (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I could see expanding this into Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Canada but not merging in Genocide of Indigenous peoples, which has a worldwide context. Yuchitown (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this discussion should be taking place at Talk:Canadian genocide of the First Nations. Right now Genocide of Indigenous peoples is beyond 5 times larger than the recommended article length. The information here about Canadian First Nations should be transferred to Canadian genocide of the First Nations and then summarized here. Yuchitown (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose -- this article already too long. Agree with Yuchitown that this article should be split and summarized.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Agreed with both Yuchitown and oncamera. This article is much too large already. It should be split into individual articles where possible and summarized here. --ARoseWolf 14:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

The following text has been added and removed from the article several times over the past couple months. It had been included under the "contemporary examples" section, under the subheading "Israel", and had a {{main article}} link to Palestinian genocide accusation. Should this, or some version of it, be included in this article?

Throughout the extended Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the State of Israel has been accused of committing a genocide against Palestinians. Events such as the Nakba, the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the 2014 Gaza War, and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war have been used as examples of evidence for a genocide committed by Israel. Statements made by Israeli officials have also been described by genocide scholars as dehumanizing the population of Gaza and used as evidence for "genocidal intent."

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• Comment - there can be no reasonable debate as to whether or not Israel's actions in either the current conflict or the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been described by some prominent writers as genocide; we have a whole article about it which currently cites 379 sources. The question I suppose is whether or not Palestinians are considered an indigenous people. I don't know if that question is settled, and/or what the implications are for this discussion either way, so I'm going to wait for more comments before giving an opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning no. Arabs (including the ancestors of the people now using the demonym Palestinian) came in later, meanwhile the Jews (descended of the earlier Canaanite population there) were pushed out of this area for many centuries, with modern-day Israel later being established over the course of ca. 1920-48 through Jewish re-immigration. So, looking at it one way, both of these Semitic groups have a claim to being indigenous in some sense, and looking at it another more restrictive way, neither of them do. So, there is not clearly a case here of a colonial people imposing genocide on an indigenous people (even if there is mounting evidence that something genocidal is happening). It's either a newer colonial group oppressing an earlier but also colonial one; or a former and recently restored indigenous group oppressing an intermediary group that is also indigenous within a modern contextual understanding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: As noted in some of the sources below, this is a flawed assertion. The Arab conquests did not involve significant population displacement in Palestine. The Palestinian population is instead composed of Arabized and Islamicized descendants of all the peoples that went before: Canaanites, Philistines, Israelites, Judahites, Samaritans, presumably with some Greek and other admixtures in there. The Palestinian population didn't displace the ancient Jews; they are the descendants of the ancient Jews that never left, together with the Musta'arabi Jews, who also Arabized but retained their existing faith. Also, AFAIK, the concept of restoring indigeneity 2,000 years later is not a framework that is supported by the academic mainstream. It would be a bit like anyone of Anglo-Saxon descent claiming retrospective bygone indigeneity to northern Germany. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's an oversimplified and mostly incorrect account of history. While some Palestinians do descend from ancient Jews and Samaritans, many are likely descendants of later migrants to the region. Historical records document Muslim migrations into the area, including Arab tribes, Bedouins, Kurds, Turks, Bosnians, Hejazi Arabs, and Transjordanians arriving in recent centuries. Most Palestinians say they come from Arabian origins to be honest. HaOfa (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Arab identity politics and self-identification aside, it doesn't matter how many other groups loped around the area over the centuries unless there's evidence that they had a meaningful impact on the local population. Suppositions of "many are likely..." yada yada are futile unless supported by sources. Below, however, you will find academically published sources attesting the indigeneity of the Palestinian population. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  And this entire side-debate is irrelevant to my actual point: We (WP editors, in wikivoice) cannot declare one of these groups "indigenous" and the other not (and within this context "genocide of indigenous peoples" means and only means genocide of an indigenous people by a non-indigenous one, not conflict between two indigenous ones or two non-indigenous ones) without running badly afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies by picking sides in who gets to count as "indigenous" when there is no overwhelming preponderance of independent RS material declaring Palestinians to be indigenous and Iraseli Jews to not be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Editors aren't declaring anything here. There are sources declaring what the RFC proposes adding. The only OR here is the unevidenced and sourceless false equivalence and false balance that is being argued for in opposition to the proposal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• No - (Summoned by bot) The Israel-Palestinian conflict with history going back to 1947-48 is a political conflict, national conflict, and perhaps an inter-communal conflict. It can't be categorised as a conflict between "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" people. That topic doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Absolutely there is no reason not to include what is neutral, reliably sourced and notable. The fact that the Palestinians are indigenous to the area is undisputed, and so is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Israel's Jews migrated from elsewhere (they made aliyah from other countries). Those who are not familiar with the topic should read Nakba, the Nakba denial and the Palestinian genocide accusation (the second is an eye-opener). M.Bitton (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• No. Neither the population of modern Israel nor the inhabitants of Palestine can be uncontroversially termed as indigenous people. The former started settling down in larger numbers in the first half of the 20th century, being a very diverse group genetically and culturally; the latter were either nomadic Bedouins or similarly descendants of migrants from a few centuries earlier. No modern-day ethnic group can claim to be native to the current Israel-Palestine region IMO, so it would be a bad example for the article. See also SMcCandlish's excellent comment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing those who have always lived there to those who arrived in living memory is rather strange. By that that standard, no ethnic group can ever be described as indigenous to anywhere but Africa (where it all started). M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  But we can find better examples for this article, can't we? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. People who are arguing it doesn't belong because Palestinians "aren't indigenous to Palestine" better start removing the section on Afghanistan, since the Hazaras have Mongol origin (gasp!). Oh, and the Chakma people of Bangladesh "gradually migrated to Arakan and extended their territory to the nearby hills of the Chittagong Hill Tracts", so they're not indigenous to the region either. Oh right, and the Uyghurs, they descend from diverse Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central Asia that settled gradually in East Turkistan, so... they're not indigenous either... Hmmm... Well, why stop there? By y'all's logic the Mongols of Inner Mongolia aren't indigenous either! And the Karen only migrated into Myanmar about 1500 years ago! And Yazidis only emerged in Iraq in the 12th century! Our very own article on indigenous peoples states that "there is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples" but that "the focus has been on self-identification, cultural difference from other groups in a state, a special relationship with their traditional territory, and an experience of subjugation and discrimination under a dominant cultural model, all of which apply to Palestinians in Palestine, as the sources state. There is no justifiable reason to exclude this information. Dylanvt (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Also comment. Here are more scholarly sources that discuss genocide against Palestinians and refer to them as an indigenous people:
  1. Nijim, M. (2023). Genocide in Palestine: Gaza as a case study. The International Journal of Human Rights, 27(1), 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2022.2065261
  2. Rashed, H. & D. Short (2012). Genocide and settler colonialism: can a Lemkin-inspired genocide perspective aid our understanding of the Palestinian situation? The International Journal of Human Rights, 16(8), 1142–1169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2012.735494
  3. Masalha, N. (2015). Settler-Colonialism, Memoricide and Indigenous Toponymic Memory: The Appropriation of Palestinian Place Names by the Israeli State. Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, 14(1), 3–57. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/hlps.2015.0103
  4. Barakat, R. (2018). Writing/righting Palestine studies: settler colonialism, indigenous sovereignty and resisting the ghost(s) of history. Settler colonial studies, 8(3), 349-363. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2017.1300048
  5. Rashed, H., Short, D., & Docker, J. (2014). Nakba memoricide: genocide studies and the Zionist/Israeli genocide of Palestine. Holy Land Studies, 13(1), 1-23. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/hls.2014.0076
  6. Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2014). Human suffering in colonial contexts: Reflections from Palestine. Settler Colonial Studies, 4(3), 277-290. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2201473X.2013.859979
• Is this enough for you all??? Dylanvt (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, technically there probably are no 'indigenous peoples'. Almost everyone, almost everywhere has supplanted an earlier group, so the only practical WP criteria is whether the 'supplanted' are generally seen and referred to as 'indigenous'. Although there clearly are some sources, they don't come anywhere near the number required to make the assertion that the Palestinians - rather than the ancestors of Israeli Jews, are the 'indigenous people'. I commend SMcCandlish's and Ivanvector's summaries of the main issues.Pincrete (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  You commend SMcCandlish's WP:OR on whether Palestinians are considered indigenous, but ignore the 6 peer-reviewed scholarly sources linked right above this that consider Palestinians indigenous? Dylanvt (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would note the following extracts: "Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture." (P.221, 2008. Polity); "Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine.... Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture." (P.700, 2012. "Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians".Oxford University Press); "Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the "conquest of land" and the "conquest of labor" slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian "other". (P.93, 2014. Cambridge University Press). I don't just see sources; I see unequivocal statements in academic sources of the highest calibre. If there is serious academic debate or confusion on this point, I am hopelessly unaware of it and require enlightening. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very sensitive topic, and presenting this detail could be misconstrued as favoring one side over the other. Ideally, encyclopedia entries should strive for neutrality and avoid letting narratives influence factual information. Both Israelis and Palestinians have historical claims to the land, and both can be described as indigienous by some and colonists by others. Because of that complexity, I don't think this info is relevant for this article at all. 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ABHammad (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support the proposed, or something along the same lines. By the assessment of a significant following of human rights and genocide scholars, the Palestinian people have been exposed to genocide. The academic consensus as it stands also proclaims the Palestinian people as an indigenous group – something that sources above attest. The better question, and one which has not been adequately addressed here, is: are there any serious arguments backed up by sources to indicate that the Palestinian people are somehow not an indigenous people exposed to genocide? ... that is, of course, without recourse solely to the type of Israeli historiography works steeped in historical negationism that are warned of at Nakba denial. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The academic consensus as it stands also proclaims the Palestinian people as an indigenous group – something that sources above attest. That claim will need a stronger proof. Talking about historiography, to be honest, Nakba Denial seems to be steeped in another type of historiography itself, doesn't look really encyclopedic but more like narrative, but that's I guess an issue for another day... HaOfa (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is plenty of sourcing for this claim above. What I'm not seeing is any source for any counterclaim. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Support. Many reliable sources agree that Palestinians are Indigenous. Omission gives preferential treatment to a white nationalist point of view.  — Freoh 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Who are you referring to with "white nationalist"? HaOfa (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, Jews are not less indigenous than Palestinians, so I don't see how this is relevant to this page. Sorry. HaOfa (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are the Balkan Jews indigenous to the Balkans? A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Balkan Jews are part of the Jewish diaspora, that is the dispersion of Jews out of their ancient ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel. HaOfa (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't answer the simple question. Please try again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, agree with SMcCandlish and many others here. This isn't a clear-cut case of a colonial power committing genocide against a indigenous population. We're looking at two groups, both with historical ties to the land, both claiming indigenity. Jews have always seen themselves, and were seen by their neighbors all around the world, as being from this area. O.maximov (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OR that contradicts what the RS say carry no weight whatsoever, regardless of how many editors agree with it. Now, are you suggesting that Jews cannot be considered as indigenous to an area even if they lived in it for thousands of years? M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, the statement, aside from being one sided, doesn't belong in this article. One sided because while Israel is being accused of "genocide" for measures taken during war, there is rarely ever any acknowledgement that the people of Palestine have been calling for the total destruction of Israel for generations, and teach this stuff to their school children. Indeed now we are seeing naive college students, most often coached and instigated, protesting and chanting, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America!". As such, it's sort of difficult to take seriously the concern for "genocide" coming from this camp.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The accusations of Genocide are an undisputed encyclopedic fact (backed by solid RS) that cannot be dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "undisputed "?? Sorry, but the accusation needs more support than from one encyclopedia. The term "genocide" is almost always used in a biased capacity and too often is used against anyone winning a war. They typically they take 2+2 and try to make it amount to 100. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gwillhickers: Sorry, I'm sorry to be a buzzkill here, but what's your reference case here for this supposed cynical (and pointless) accusation of genocide? Because it sounds a hell of a lot like OR of the tone deaf variety. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gwillhickers: Looks like you missed the "Death to the Arabs" refrain used by the actual participants in an actual genocide, as opposed to suspect claims of refrains. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "suspect claims of refrains attributed to college kids"? They openly advocate for the destruction of Israel, as do the Palestinians. Sorry. Difficult to take the word of hypocrites very seriously. Also, the article to which you link explains that the term is usually used during the heat of war, unlike the Palestinians who have made it clear that they want the country of Israel and the Jewish peoples wiped off the map. Israel is not calling for the extermination of all Arab peoples. Big difference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gwillhickers: Not sure how your segued from "Death to X" chants to different chains, but regardless, calling for the disassembly of a genocidal apartheid regime is a pretty legitimate position at this point. I'm still not sure how such calls (purely hypothetical ones) bear any relation to the actual topic here, which is an actual genocide in motion. I understand that there's a snowflake-ish vogue right now in the US to view verbal threats as somebody proximate to actual bodily harm, but back in the real world, actual genocide remains worse than threatening sentiments. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Re: the phrase, "genocidal apartheid regime is a pretty legitimate position at this point." "Legitimate" only on its face. This accusatory label, "genocidal apartheid regime", is highly opinionated and obviously biased. Once again, the term "genocide" has been loosely used against anyone engaged in war, esp against those who are winning it. Once again Israel is not calling for the total extermination of anyone, as is Palestine/Hamas, and while we're at it, Iran. They have publicly and openly made that perfectly clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The equation of a genocide attested to be genocide scholars to the story of the little boy who cried wolf, if I am reading that correctly, is just disturbing. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll also remind you and anyone else who happens by here that it doesn't matter how many editors say "No because I feel like it", when around a dozen reliable sources have been provided establishing the fact that Israel has been accused of genocide against indigenous Palestinians. These aren't votes to be tallied, they're meant to be arguments on the merits of the discussion, based in Wikipedia policy. Dylanvt (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Conversely, it doesn't matter how many people say yes, because I feel like it. The attempt to dismiss this RfC because the NO votes are piling up is underhanded. Until such time when it is plain that the Palestinian people are actually being wiped out wholesale, all such claims will remain in the category of biased sourcing, regardless of scholarship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "being wiped out wholesale" – oh dear, it appears someone hasn't got the memo over the past eight months and registered that the crime of genocide is defined as only entailing the destruction of a people "in whole or in part" (my italics), which can involve killing, or "serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" or "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Better to acquaint oneself before pronouncing on a topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  You're free to note that several of the "yes" votes have provided sources that give merit to their arguments – in accordance with Wikipedia policy – whereas the "no" votes continue to provide nothing but WP:OR. The fact that there are many reliable sources making the claim of genocide against indigenous Palestinians is indisputable, and several of them have been provided above for everybody's convenience. Dylanvt (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding this obtuse claim... "genocide is defined as only entailing the destruction of a people in whole or in part"... So by this definition any sort of warfare can get the term "genocide". IOW, when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, killing many Jews and taking hostages, they were committing "genocide". As I've always maintained, the term "genocide" is conveniently aimed at anyone engaged in any sort of warfare, just as we are witnessing of late. Thanks for supporting that idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, only acts of genocide attested to by genocide experts (RS). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rhetoric. it doesn't take an "expert" to determine if the process of real genocide is occurring. If only "experts" are able to discern such matters, then obviously there has to be many variables to consider, many of which are no doubt, at this point, being hyped on the one hand, and ignored on the other. So what else is new in international matters like this? Above we were just told that "genocide is defined as only entailing the destruction of a people in whole or in part" Is that the position of these self anointed experts? i.e.Any deaths during war is considered to be "genocide". Thanks guys. It's becoming more and more clear that Israel is being judged by a kangaroo court. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the sources used in this discussion. The author's names all appear to be Arab. i.e. Nigim, Rashed, Masalha, Barakat, Rashed and Shalhoub-Kevorkian, as are some of the titles, e.g. Reflections from Palestine — Citing a bunch of like minded sources doesn't make their claims undisputed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that scholars with Arab sounding names should be considered as unreliable? M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

All that is done is to point out the inherent bias in these sources. Reflections from Palestine?? What would be your reaction if someone listed only Jewish sources? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is that a yes? M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Of course. Avoid the question, even though your unresponsive reply speaks volumes. -- Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• The author's names all appear to be Arab. Eh? What? And? Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Please don't pretend to not get it. It's no coincidence that most, if not all, the Arab nations despise Israel and the war she has waged against Hamas, so of course sources from them are going to hype the idea of "genocide". i.e.Any form of warfare is "genocide". Such hype-speak does a disservice to those who have suffered real genocide. Can you cite one, just one, Arab source that holds that Isreal is not committing "genocide" in their war against Hamas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside this... unusual and slightly disconcerting line of argument, you do realize that articles like these, published in academic journals, always undergo peer review, right? It's not just some random "Arab-sounding" person in an echo chamber. It's a rigorously researched and reviewed scholarly work. Dylanvt (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Also lol... The last author from my list above – Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian – is literally from the School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Faculty of Law, Institute of Criminology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in Israel. Dylanvt (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Wait, you can't even say that Arabs (400+ million individual humans) are like minded nowadays? It's political correctness gone mad. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: does the above (dismissal of the sources based on the subject's supposed ethnicity) ring a bell? M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Empty Rhetoric. Please don't pretend to be naive. Name one Arab source that holds the position that Israel in not committing "genocide". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's ironic that you use Shalhoub-Kevorkian as an example for the acceptance of this theory in Israel. She self-identifies as Palestinian and was recently investigated for questioning the occurence of atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7 attacks, including rape, and calling to abolish Zionism... HaOfa (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alas, an Israeli national, an academic, in Israel, who identifies as Palestinian being "investigated for questioning" something doesn't tell us anything about acceptance levels in Israel. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hundreds of RS are cited in the Palestinian genocide accusation article. Help yourself to what you need. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• You might disagree with this content but it is well sourced and should be included in some form. The no votes have not provided any sources to back up non-inclusion. Support (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, the question of whether or not Palestinians are indigenous is too unclear, and it's likely that Jews have an at least comparable if not older and potentially stronger claim. Per the arguments made above (particularly by @SMcCandlish, inclusion would be improper and lacks broad support by sources that Palestinians are the only one of the two which are indigenous. FortunateSons (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can answer the question that that keep getting ignored:

   Question: Are the Balkan Jews indigenous to the Balkans? A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm providing still more reliable sources to support the inclusion of the information (something none of the "no" votes have managed to do yet):
  1. "The Zionists eventually developed a strong organization with a single-minded focus on Palestine. When it came to that land, the Zionist reference points were all self-centered. That is, they were creating a closed information environment wherein they spoke exclusively of their own needs and “rights” almost solely to themselves and those who supported them. They lacked vital contextual knowledge of the actual situation relevant to the indigenous population, its history, culture, and present aspirations." Davidson, Lawrence. 2012. Cultural Genocide, Rutgers University Press.
  2. "The present genocidal wave has, like all the previous ones, also a more immediate background... Ever since June 1967, Israel searched for a way to keep the territories it occupied that year without incorporating their indigenous Palestinian population into its rights-bearing citizenry. All the while it participated in a 'peace process' charade to cover up or buy time for its unilateral colonization policies on the ground." Pappe, Ilan. 2014. Israel’s incremental genocide in the Gaza ghetto, The Electronic Intifada.
  3. "In the dynamics of Occupation, the indigenous Palestinian population is subject both to management and gradual elimination." Lloyd, David. 2012. Settler colonialism and the state of exception: The example of Palestine/Israel, Settler Colonial Studies, 2(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648826
  4. "This article explores the resurgence of Indigenous/Palestinian solidarity that occurred during the Wet’suwet’en protests against the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in Canada contemporaneously with the release of the Trump Middle East “peace plan” in early 2020... In my use of the term Indigenous/Palestinian, Indigenous refers to the native people(s) of Turtle Island for the purpose of distinguishing them from the Palestinians. I use a forward slash to denote that many Palestinians also consider themselves Indigenous people." Desai, Chandni. 2021. Disrupting settler-colonial capitalism: Indigenous intifadas and resurgent solidarity from Turtle Island to Palestine, Journal of Palestine Studies, 50(2), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/0377919X.2021.1909376
  5. "Vanishment refers to the processes of erasure that rely on the appropriation of the earth’s elements, the removal and replacement of native landscapes, and the erasure of indigenous culture through a system of conditional inclusion. Palestinian lands, particularly the olive tree, figure into the process of eliminating what was deemed to be a characteristically Palestinian landscape—that is, a racially abject and soiled environment in need of colonial modernity’s raking and raping." Sharif, Lila. 2016. Vanishing Palestine, Critical Ethnic Studies, 2(1), 17–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/jcritethnstud.2.1.0017 Dylanvt (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Israel doesn't grow olive trees? No olive trees in Gaza? This RfC forum is not the place to be resorting to Wikipedia:Wall of text and Soapbox. Also, you are suggesting that being "indigenous" somehow endows a people with more rights than those who are deemed not to be, so such a contention is racist at its core. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gwillhickers: Actually, unlike you, they are using properly (I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:TPG). M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not "suggesting" anything, I'm simply providing sources to support the inclusion of Israel's genocide against indigenous Palestinians in this article, something that you have still failed to do in support of your position. It doesn't matter how "well articulated" your WP:OR is; all of it has precisely zero impact on the matter being discussed, since, as you and other no-voters have been reminded repeatedly, Wikipedia relies on sources, not on the opinions of random editors, as Selfstudier eloquently put it below. Dylanvt (talk) Dylanvt (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please. Anyone can assert a slanted point of view by abiding by the rules No one said they couldn't refer to such sources. It was only asserted that the lot of these sources are those who are merely preaching to the choir, and try to pass of any sort of warfare as "genocide", or e.g.make an issue over olive trees, as already explained. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please indent you comments properly and given this edit, I also suggest you read WP:REDACT. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes The provided sourcing clearly justifies inclusion in some form. The no !votes read more as WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions than anything else. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a sloppy estimation of editors who voted NO, for reasons that were well articulated, only tells us that You don't like it, and have to rely on sources who try to pass off any sort of warfare as "genocide". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

WP does rely on sources last time I checked and not on the opinions of random WP editors. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• TIME TO STEP BACK. — The issue is whether or not to include the passage in question.  It doesn't matter if the passage can be cited with sources; it's already assumed that it would be. Consensus has maintained that the passage doesn't belong in this article, and flooding this RfC with endless talk doesn't change that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What consensus? Dylanvt (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that you're still struggling with the indentation. Anyway, do you realize that consensus is being built and that the !votes that are not based on policy carry no weight whatsoever? M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 9 NO votes and only 4 yes votes. The issue is whether to include this material in the article. You can have a list of sources, it doesn't change the issue. And by the way, as already explained, advancing a slanted POV, regardless of how popular, raises neutrality issues. All your sources are pro Palestine. Until such time when we can include an appreciable amount of Jewish sources, and other sources, we can take up POV matters, but the issue remains, this RfC is over whether ot not to include the passage. if you feel that the NO votes are in violation of some policy, take the matter to a Noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

!Votes that are not based on policy don't count. You should know the rules. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

. If you assume nine editors are in violation of some policy take it to a noticeboard. No sense in beating a dead horse. Good luck-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for your what you assume (you take you responsibility for that). What I said (the !votes that are not based on policy carry no weight) stands and if you don't like it, ANI is thataway. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to provide any further sources at any point (though the presumed ethnic identity of their authors remains, as ever, irrelevant). As it stands, there appear to be exactly zero arguments grounded in sources in opposition to the proposal. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As already explained, no one is contesting that the passage is not sourced, only that it doesn't belong here. We could have a piece about Napoleon's war tactics, cited with a string of the best sources, but one doesn't have to cite any sources to hold that it wouldn't belong in this article. Again, if you are going to try and dismiss votes because they don't cite sources then you, and/or M. Bittton, will have to pursue the matter at ANI. You can continue to carry on here, but what you are trying to advance would, again, be a matter for ANI. Again, good luck. I'm done here.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

only that it doesn't belong here based on what policy? Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't belong here that is the definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2024

Genocide of Indigenous peoples → Genocide of indigenous peoples – "Indigenous" is only a proper name when adopted as conventional for a particular ethnic group, and when applied to the specific groups who have done so. As a general, global adjective it is not and cannot be a proper name (any more than the opposite, "colonial"), so should not be capitalized. See in particular the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS: WP does not capitalize that which is not capitalized consistently across nearly all independent reliable sources, and "indigenous peoples" is not so capitalized (indeed, it is overwhelmingly lowercase [1][2], except in highly retrictive contexts that refer to specific populations who have adopted the term self-referentially as a name in English). This same situation is true of all such terms such as "native" and "aboriginal". "Aboriginal" is capitalized in reference to autochthonous Australians, and "Native" is capitalized in "Native Americans" in reference to the autochthonous peoples of what is now the US and sometimes (in mostly US usage) all of the Americas. But "native" is not capitalized (by the preponderance of modern reliable sources) in reference to Australians, nor "aboriginal" in reference to Americans, and neither is capitalized in "the native (aboriginal) peoples and languages of Siberia and Central Asia before the Soviet Union", etc. PS: There may be other over-capitalized articles of this sort, but perhaps take them one at a time, since some might pertain more narrowly to groups that have taken on "Indigenous" as a self-referential name/label.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC); revised 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - per nom, who left nothing in need of saying. Primergrey (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Primergrey (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support – Per above. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Psychastes (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I was thinking the same thing, SMcCandlish beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have to change to oppose after thinking about this some more. The style guides that were posted below by Yuchitown are pretty convincing, for one thing. I don't disagree with SMcCandlish, but I think there's confusion with the part of speech that the word represents in this title. Take for example the phrase, "The Indigenous Peoples of Canada are the people who are indigenous to the land now known as Canada", which I believe is correctly capitalized. The first "Indigenous" here is part of a proper noun referring to specific groups of people, which would be capitalized in any context. The second "indigenous" is an adjective, describing a property of its subject ("the people"); the style guides are in disagreement or ambiguous as to whether the word should be capitalized in its adjective sense. But that's irrelevant: "Indigenous" in the title still refers to specific groups; even if the specific group is "all Indigenous Peoples" it's still a group, and therefore it should be capitalized. The style guides are also ambiguous as to whether or not "people" should be capitalized in this context, but I think we're fine to leave it as is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your reversal is a misunderstanding of every applicable guidleline, as well as a linguistic misunderstanding. By that reasoning we would have to write Universities and Republic and King and Oceans and River and Counties and Court and Clans and so on at every generic reference as well. When a term is (or is part of) a proper name (or something conventionally treated as a proper name by capitalizing it; we need not wander into the WP:PNPN minefield of trying to use conflicting philosophy-sector notions of what "proper name" means, as this is entirely about typography) within a particular context, it does not transmogrify into a captalized proper name in another context, including a genericized one that happens to be inclusive one of or more things to which the proper-naming capitalization might more narrowly apply. It's Harvard University and Oxford University, but two "universities" and pursuing a "university" education. King Charles III of England and King Mswati III of Eswantini are two kings not "Kings". Clan Buchan (headed by Chief Charles Buchan of Auchmacoy) and Clan MacGregor (headed by Chief Sir Malcolm MacGregor of MacGregor) are two Scottish clans not "Clans", with clan chiefs not "Clan Chiefs" – no matter that some non-encyclopedic writing can be found here and there that over-capitalizes in all these ways.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Graham (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. See WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS. Indigenous is capitalized when referring to human beings, as per WP:MOS, as well as AP style, Chicago style, APA style, etc. Absolutely no good reason to go against the well-established styles in scholarly literature, mainstream news, and Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  That WP:INDIGENOUS material only applies to Native Americans (and by extension to another specific group that has also explicitly adopted the term as a proper-name form of reference). It absolutely does not imply capitalizing this term at every generic-usage instance. Please actually read guidelines before pasting in shortcuts to them.

  Next, WP considers external style guides in the course of building and refing our own, but is not beholden to any of them in particular. AP Stylebook is essentially meaningless for us; WP has taken virtually nothing of any kind from that or any other journalism style guide, and WP is not written in new style as matter of policy; it sharply diverges from encyclopedic writing in many ways.

  The CMoS blog is an opinion piece written by someone offering their interpretational and rather extrapolational advice; it is not a style guide or other reliable source (even on CMoS own actual usage advice, as I'm about to demonstrate), and is a primary op-ed source. The actual current edition of CMoS (17th) does not address this term at all, so that blogger is just making up their own personal opinion.

  1. What CMoS does say is to defer to "an up-to-date encyclopedia or other trusted resource" with regard to ethnicity terms (§7.10), i.e. it is depending on Wikipedia and its ilk to tell CMoS and its readers what to do, not vice versa. At §8.38, it says "Names of ethnic and national groups are capitalized. Adjectives associated with these names are also capitalized." But "indigenous" in the generic sense does not qualify as either. (Even one that unambigously does in most cases and ways, e.g. "French", still takes lower-cases, in CMoS's view, when divorced from its specific-referent context, e.g. in "french fries" which aren't actually French.) This section also leaves it to publisher preference whether to capitalize things like "black" in an ethno-racial sense. The most recent editor of that section seemed to refer "Aboriginal" being capitalized even in a generic sense, but there is no "rule" stated to do that there, and it does not address other generic terms such as "indigenous" and "native" (outside the specific term "Native American") at all.
  2. Worse for this isolated "Aboriginal" blip and the CMoS blogger, capitalizing things like "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" in a generic sense is directly contrary to the advice at §8.61, to lowercase terms derived from proper names when the proper-named referent is not the literal meaning. (That is, if one wants to take the tack that "Indigenous" for specific groups has become a proper name, CMoS's main section on such matters would not have it capitalized when not refering to such a group in particular.)
  3. This principle is restated at §8.1, on proper names in general, and refers to over-capitalization of generic uses of terms, that in some contexts are (or are part of) proper names, as a journalistic style and "non-academic". This section also declares CMoS's default to be "down-style" (i.e., lower-case when in doubt, what it calls "sparing use of capitals").
  4. §8.79, on capitalization of cultural matters generally, leaves it to editorial discretion again, and suggests consistency over exception-making.
  5. CMoS lacks a specific section on lower-casing of [sometimes-]proper names when used in an out-of-context manner or when pluralized or genericized; instead, the entire work is consistently against such capitalization, as can be found again and again in specific sub-sections on what to capitalize and why and when (e.g. §§ 8.62–8.65 inclusive, and many others).
  6. In short, it appears that one or two people with some editorial input at CMoS and its associated blog would like to shift toward generic "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal", but this is contrary to a lot of other and longer-standing material in CMoS and there is certainly no new rule to do it.

  Your third supposed smoking gun: APA Publication Manual (which is not what you cited, but another blog) is that of a particular American journal publisher in a particular field (psychology, which is not cultural anthropology or even related to it other than they're both classed as social sciences). APA's actual manual could in theory be used to try to support this "always Indigenous" thing, but it is highly divergent, especially on capitalization, from encyclopedic writing style. E.g., it uses jaw-dropping constructions like "The manner of citing Traditional Knowledge or Oral Traditions (other terms are “Traditional Stories” and “Oral Histories”) of Indigenous Peoples varies depending on whether and how the information has been recorded—only certain cases use a variation of the personal communication citation." And they want to apply this even further to any "terms related to Indigenous Peoples", and provide further exmples like "Vision Quest" and even "Elder". (7th ed., pp. 397–398 in the PDF e-book edition) This is absolutely not how WP would write (per MOS:SIGCAPS, MOS:DOCTCAPS, and more), nor how much of anyone else would write. It doesn't even match other such material in their own book, and is clearly an advocacy injection by someone who had little regard for either the rest of the publication's advice, nor actual academic publishing norms. Later in the same material it is made clear that the intent of this is "demonstrat[ing] respect for Indigenous perspectives" in the specific context of patients and research participants; i.e., it is intended to make specific individuals comfortable with being psychologically probed (and that probing being written about), and has nothing to do with how to communicate encyclopedic-style information to a general audience. Regardless, APA is ostensibly reliable for particular style matters within its subject field (how to spell and abbreviate pyschology terms, for example), but it is not a reliable source on general writing of the English language.

  In closing: Cherry-picking a trio of outlier publications that seem to agree (to disparate degrees) with your preferences does nothing of any kind to dispel proof that actual usage, including in very recent publications, is very strongly lower-case for this sort of generic phrasing [3][4]. Even if a whole bunch of other style guides (actual style guides, not blogs making sometimes incorrect claims about style guide content) moved in a capitalizing direction on this, it would still take time for that change to propagate into predominant real-world usage, if it ever did. (No guarantee of that; e.g., New Hart's Rules, the dominant British English academic style guide, made numerous questionable changes between the last two editions, and virtually none of them have demonstrated a measurable effect on actual published output, despite the last edition coming out just shy of a decade ago; reviews of it are predominantly negative. WP's MoS is based on the edition before that and to some extent the one before that, as Oxford Style Manual, along with many other academic style guides that are not radically divergent; WP has picked up virtually nothing from the 2014 New Hart's edition, because there's no evidence the real world is following it.) WP does not engage in language "reform" advocacy, or bow to it, much less act as the champion of some particular organization's preference, be they a specific journal publisher or a certain university. We write English the way other contemporary academic-leaning reliable sources write English, and for this it is proven lowercase almost all of the time. Here's that proof again, in case anyone missed it: [5][6].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, goes against Wikipedia policy perWP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. Only applies to Native Americans (and by extension to another group that has adopted the term as a proper-name form of reference). It does not call for capitalizing this term at every generic-usage instance in which humans are the referents. And it is not a policy, it's a guideline with no more authority than MOS:CAPS (and far, far less consensus acceptance than the latter).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose changing/moving Indigenous (upper case) to indigenous (lower case). When Indigenous is used to describe human beings, communities, individuals (rather than things like plants or rocks) it should be capitalized (this also goes for citizenship, tribes). Per WP's own guidelines WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS in addition to the: APA Style Manual which states: "Capitalize 'Indigenous' and 'Aboriginal' whenever they are used.; the Chicago Manual of Style which states: "We would capitalize 'Indigenous' in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase 'indigenous' would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species."; and the the Associated Press 2019 Stylebook states: "The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place.". The Indigenous Journalists Association (formerly the Native American Journalists Association) also follows the AP stylebook.[7]. Netherzone (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Not persuaded by the opposing votes and I find WP:INDIGENOUS vague and excessively Americacentric. The article covers indigenous group all around the world and should be seen as an umbrella term in the title, not something referring to individuals and their citizenship. Killuminator (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support per my comment here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support WP:INDIGENOUS is incredibly US-centric and doesn't deal with the use of indigenous in this global sense. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is not US-centric in intent; it accurately records that for a particular ethnic group, "Indigenous" is treated as a proper name. It should probably be expanded with additional groups for whom this is provably the case with reliable sources. But that does not magically turn into a new principle, against all our other relevant guidelines and against the clear intent of that guideline, to always capitalize evry occurrence of the word "indigenous" in relation to humanity. If you want to work on improving that guideline in having updated coverage, with good sourcing, the place to do that is WT:INDIGENOUS, not by trying to impede the applicability of the guideline just because you don't like its present wording. WP doesn't work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - The title in question it is part of the proper noun. We can have separate argument whether Indigenous should always be capitalized when describing people because it is always part of the proper noun but in this case it absolutely is and should be kept how it is. I don't see a compelling argument made here in support based on MOS or policy. The only argument is it being America or US-centric but that is not a policy based argument. It is an opinion based argument and entirely subjective and somewhat overplayed.WP:LOCALCON come into play here as well. --ARoseWolf 12:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Indigenous isn't even consistently capitalized in this article, it shows a cultural disconnect between editors. Killuminator (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Google Scholar results from 2020 onward overwhelmingly capitalize Indigenous when referring to people. The capitalization of Indigenous in Canada is even stronger than in the United States. Example style guide from UBC: "Following Principle 13, terms for Indigenous identities; Indigenous governmental, social, spiritual, and religion institutions; and Indigenous collective rights should be capitalized." As Comeson College in British Columbia states: "Indigenous style uses capitalization to acknowledge or demonstrate respect for Indigenous identities, institutions, and collective rights." Encyclopedia Brittanica also capitalizes Indigenous (example). Example from Oxford University Press. Example from the Australian government. As in New Zealand—example from the University of Auckland. This is a Wikipedia style already, in keeping with style guides the world over. There is no good reason to exert the effort to deviate from this. Yuchitown (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  In all these links, the term is used as a proper noun for predefined ethnic groups. But here, like, we're not talking the Moon; we're talking moon (natural satellite) in general. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, they are very clear that it gets capitalized when referring to anything to do with Indigenous peoples, same as this article title. Yuchitown (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Kashmiri is correct; the first is about Aboriginal Australians, the second about Indigenous New Zealanders (Maori), and the third about Indigenous Australians as a blanket term for Aboriginal Austalians [mainland] and Torres Strait Islanders; these are all probably established-enough usages that a case can be made for capitalizing them when say, "pre-Celtic indigenous people of the British Isles" would not take a capital I. Regardless, no amount of cherry-picking a few examples of writers who like to capitalize can possibly do anything to contradict the proof that these terms in the generic use we are employing in this article title is provably and alreaby proven [8][9] almost always lower-case, including in very modern RS material. No one has disputed or doubts that some people do exist that like to capitalize these things at every opportunity. That is not what is at issue here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. And reflect this in the various essays and conventions where the projects have pushed for over-capitalization in even generic contexts. Yuchitown says "no good reason to go against the well-established styles in scholarly literature, mainstream news, ...", but the evidence shows that style is not really that well established; lowercase is still very common, as nom showed; lowercase certainly dominates in scholarly literature. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've actually furnished links as evidence. The style change may be recent (2020s) but it is sweeping. Yuchitown (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Capitalized seems a lot more common these days, especially among specialist scholars and actual Indigenous people.  — Freoh 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Except I've already demonstrated it is not. You provide no evidence of any kind for your assertion, much less evidence that proves my evidence is somehow wrong. But let's go over this again more narrowly, constraining results to post-2019 journals [10] and post-2014 books (since the book n-grams cap at 2019) [11]. Still overwhelmingly lower-case in this generic sense and capitalized conventionally only in reference to some specific ethnic groups who have adopted it as a favored term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems like a fast decision is about to be made with far-reaching ramifications. There are certain places, like North America, where it seems proper to capitalize Indigenous when referring to people, and always when referring to the name of a group of people. There are other places where indigenous refers to any original people of the land and should not be capitalized. I think more research is needed to determine if there really is one worldview. It will effect other articles about Indigenous/indigenous people, like Indigenous people and Indigenous people of Canada and other related articles. In the case of Canada, Indigenous people is an inclusive term for several groups of people, so "Indigenous", should always be capitalized. The style guide comments are very compelling, particularly where they are regularly used (Aside from the U.S., I am not sure where that might be).–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Quick edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose. The more I think about this, it IS a strong oppose for now. Nothing should be done until it's thought through. I don't think this is the kind of situation where the most votes should quickly "win".–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your oppose sounds invalid - the reason you quoted is that you need more time to think this through. So please take your time before voting! — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  In terms of research, does anyone know whether or not "Indigenous" is capitalized for people around the world? Does anyone know what style guides used around the world say about capitalization of Indigenous? If not, IMO it's too soon to take a vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) For style guides by country / international, see List of style guides.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Google query of use of the term around the world here. Both will take time, unless someone knows of a quicker answer somewhere - UN? Top 15 NGOs in the world? Other?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  So far, what I am finding supports capitalization of Indigenous - and I keep Strong Oppose. Here's one of similar explanations:

  "Starting in the 1970s, it became a way for Indigenous peoples to articulate the common challenges they faced as communities impacted by colonialism, settler governments, displacement, and exploitation. This new understanding of the term offered a way to describe contemporary realities and an orientation for fights for self-representation, recognition, and rights. So, why capitalize 'Indigenous'? ...we thus capitalize Indigenous when referring to people so we clearly point to this more recent definition that accounts for political and historical realities."[12] This isn't thorough research, but the article also says "Indigenous activism helped shape understandings of “Indigenous” that were later adopted by the United Nations."–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) The magazine, Sapien, writes about people around the world. I can keep doing research if someone wants more info, but I don't need it. This does it for me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  ...capitalized for people around the world? Nearly half of the world's population use scripts that have no concept of capitalisation. Of the remaining half, the vast majority use languages other than English, where the term is not capitalised[13][14][15][16]. A minority of countries use English to discuss their populations. Of those using English, most publications about indigeneous peoples come from the US and Canada where the term Indigeneous is used predominantly as an ethnonym for local groups.

  By the way, essays are not a reliable source for Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It has nothing to with "most votes" or "strong" feelings, only to do with source usage. The preponderance of independent reliable sources shows this generic usage is overwhelmingly lowercase, and capitalization is conventional only with regard to particular ethnic groups such as Native Americans, which exactly matches our own guidelines. Trying to capitalize it in every instance is activist "language reform" PoV pushing. There is nothing further to this, of any kind. The couple of editor above trying to opponse on the basis of WP:INDIGENOUS clearly did not even read the guideline they are linking to, which has us capitalize this term in reference to Native Americans in particular, not everyone on the planet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  "it seems proper to capitalize Indigenous": There is no such thing as "seems" here. This is not a language-reform advocacy, opinion, and preference farm. Either you have evidence to present that the capitalization actually is used "consistently in a substantial majority of independent reliable sources", for this generic-usage sense in particular (and evidence which trumps the strong evidence to the contrary already presented [17][18]), or you do not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Amnesty says "The UN now uses the capitalized ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in response to demands from Indigenous representatives. It’s intended to act as a recognition of their status as peoples in international law and the right to self-determination." Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP has its own style guide, and is not written to the UN style guides (which both vary widely between UN agencies, and are divergent from publishing norms in natural dialects of English like British and American, on various points). We have our own style guide for a reason, and how we write here is not dictated to us by particular external third parties. And, further, the UN rationale for doing this is a highly specific matter of parity of political address within a legal framework, and has no relation of any kind to how to write encyclopedic English for a general audience. Unless and until the overwhelming majority of independent sources consistently write "indigenous" in a generic sense as "Indigenous", then WP has no business doing the latter, and doing it is against multiple of our guidelines, especially the lead of MOS:CAPS, MOS:SIGCAPS, and WP:NCCAPS, as well as both the clear intent and the actual specifics of WP:INDIGENOUS which are about a particular ethnic group (and should be extended to include some additional specific ones), not generic usage of the word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hope everyone agrees that Amnesty's justification is laughable. Will they now capitalise everyone whose rights are being violated? Next what – Refugees, Migrants, Women, Children, the Disabled? — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Amnesty's justification is fine for Amnesty's purposes. Amnesty is an advocacy organization, and it chooses its writing style to promote its goals, which are different from Wikipedia's goals. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support—I absolutely agree with SMCandlish on this. Same as President Johnson, but three presidents since 1992 have ...". In Australia "Indigenous" refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But indigenous plants are being wiped out by logging would never be be capped in sentence case. Tony (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support – in this title, the word in question is used to establish a broad category, not an identification of a specific group such as a demonym or ethnonym. Similar good arguments have been put forth well by several other supporters above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support: When indigenous is used as an adjective to describe a kind of people, it should be lower case. If there was a culture which has taken on the name Indigenous People, that should be capitalized, but that does not appear to be the case. Indigenous people around the world have an important shared experience and that is part of a shared identity, but that does not make them a group with a proper name. The same could be said of other groups which have shared experiences but not a group identity. I would not want to capitalize colonists. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Imo, Indigenous Peoples (both words capitalized), is a proper name per WP:NCCAPS (like White House), with a definition as per the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, used for example by the United nations and not just in one or other geographical location. The modern trend is to capitalize, many style guides now recommend the capitalization of the word Indigenous (and Peoples), I see no good reason why WP should not do the same. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

@Ivanvector and Dylanvt: I just wanted to let you know that the same editors have been removing the perfectly sourced and neutral section for no reason whatsoever (the cited ONUS is obviously BS). M.Bitton (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@האופה: WP:ONUS is neither an explanation nor a valid reason for you to edit war over the content that you want to keep out of the article. Feel free to provide one (if it exists). M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm ignoring them, no edit warring. I started an RFC instead a few sections up; you and they are free to comment. (@ABHammad, O.maximov, and האופה: courtesy ping) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the page, because the edit war is speeding up. Hopefully by then consensus will be reached. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)