Talk:Lands inhabited by Indigenous peoples

Russia.

I don't really see why only the Autonomous okrugs in Russia are mentioned, but not the Republics. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal, Ancestral domain

I propose that the new page Ancestral domain be merged into this one. I'm proposing this instead of requesting deletion of the new article under WP:CSD#A10 because it has useful content to supplement what's here. See WP:Merge. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose merging Ancestral Domain into "Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples". Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples is not a legal term. I explicitly created this page as a stub about Asian law. By all means copy some of the content across to the "Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples" page if you want to have more content there. But a separate article for ancestral domain is warranted given its increasing role in international and Asian law. I see the request to merge this page into 'lands identified by indigenous peoples' as a demonstration of systemic bias, given that for example details of U.S. state laws eg. California Fair Employment and Housing Act are given their own article, rather than merging such things into for example "Housing inhabited by disadvantaged people in a U.S. state". Ancestral domain is an established legal idea in legal systems for 350 million people in two countries, whereas Californian laws, for example, are for 38 million people. Alixos (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Alixos 11:29, 11 October 2013 (ICT)

Following reflection, I changed the stub to international law and added history. Alixos (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've gone right ahead and characterized my proposal as "a demonstration of systemic bias", as though you just assume that every one shares your understanding about the specificity of the term "ancestral domain", and that pointing out to you that there an article on the more general topic of which this is a subset is an affront.

As you note with your California example, it's not only acceptable but a prevailing practice to spin off a subtopic of an existing article into its own page (see WP:SPLIT), expanding on less detailed material in the general article (compare Vanuatu#Politics and Politics of Vanuatu) or standing in for it entirely (compare Vanuatu#Sports and Sport in Vanuatu). However, your article (don't misunderstand this phrase: see WP:Ownership of articles) doesn't seem to be fulfilling the purpose of spinning off a well-defined subtopic:

• You've clarified that the term, let alone the concept, is neither common across all Asia (this would be surprising, since English is not generally their official language) nor limited to Asia, so the title of your article doesn't align with the distinction you're making for your article with respect to this more general one.
• Your text covers only two Asian countries.
• The scope of the international convention to which you refer is worldwide, not specific to Asia.
• The convention has been ratified by only five Asian nations, and not by either of the two countries you then proceed to address.

As it is now, your article overlaps this one without covering a well-defined subtopic of it, in the manner of your California example. You state that it's specifically about indigenous lands as they are treated in Asia, but neither the title nor the article is consistent with your stated intent, and belies the final phrase of your lead sentence, "particularly in Asia". Therefore, I recommend that either your content be merged into this article, or else that it be altered and that this article be organized in a way that a well-defined {{Main article}} link can be added to a section of it, leading to a page that is squarely aligned with the scope implied by that link. I have already gone as far as changing your lead sentence so that the entirety of "lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples" is linked to this article.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd meant to add: In the case of maintaining the separate article as the Asia branch of this article, the material from this article that pertains to Asian countries should be reflected there and, ideally, expanded there as well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to add content from here to the Asian section of the "Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples" article, and apologies if you found highlighting this discussion as related to systemic bias confronting. In the context of Wikipedia, I think putting "ancestral domain" under "lands inhabited by indigenous peoples" is a form of ghettoizing indigenous peoples' human rights. I think adding content about why certain countries have or haven't ratified international laws related to ancestral domain at national levels would benefit Wikipedia more than subsuming the topic. I agree adding content from other continents beyond Asia would improve the article. Alixos (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ghettoizing"? I proposed merging. Ghettoizing is segregating, the opposite of merging, and is what you've done. Regarding your sentence "I think adding content ... would benefit Wikipedia more than subsuming the topic", which makes it sound like an "either/or": whether the articles are merged or not as no effect on the value of added content. I haven't questioned the addition of content. But now you've created yet another way in which your article lacks coherence, in terms of correspondence between its title and its content. If your intent is that this specifically be an article about the topic "why certain countries have or haven't ratified international laws related to ancestral domain at national levels", then the title "Ancestral domains" is wrong. That title says to the world, "This is Wikipedia's article on ancestral domains", not "This is an essay I've chosen to write on one particular aspect of ancestral domains in two Asian countries with respect to a particular international convention." —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

After all this, and after merging some of your material into this article, I realized this isn't actually the ideal article into which the merge ought to occur. The appropriate target is Indigenous land rights. So I've undone my edits here and I'm merging into that article instead. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion, as User:Alixos contacted me by email for pointers on getting started contributing to Wikipedia in her area of expertise. I think it's unfortunate whenever two people with knowledge and time to share (clearly the case here) end up in a standoff. While I do not have enough knowledge to have a strong opinion on the merge proposal, there are two things that I think need to be called out:

• I agree with what Largo said about the claim of systemic bias. While I share Alixos' general concern about systemic bias on Wikipedia, I do not think it's possible to make a claim like that without violating Wikipeidia's policy on civility. Or at least, it should be done only after very careful consideration. Maybe this is an instance of systemic bias and maybe not, but even if so -- does calling it out move things forward in any appreciable way? In my view it has done the opposite, by detracting from the collegial atmosphere Wikipedia ought to have.
• Largo, your edits to the Indigenous land rights article are problematic. As a contributor with an edit history similar to my own, do you not see that this is both a copyright violation and an instance of biting the newcomers? I'm reverting those additions until a better agreement can be reached. -Pete (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. I've added another country context, based on Largo's feedback. I've also added links about how this idea of ancestral domain is distinct from land rights, given it's about peoples' relationship with land as much as property ownership. Perhaps I could have been more clear about this at the start. I'd welcome this topic being added into the indigenous peoples sidebox, but I note the indigenous peoples article itself is not yet incorporated into the sidebox either, so there's a lot more work to do linking together content. I don't have the markup knowledge to do that yet. I maintain it's important not to merge this article into one about rights to habitation, because many indigenous peoples, such as explained in the quote I added, want other peoples to respect and value relationships with environment that go beyond titles, property and material resources. This is slowly happening, hence it's increasingly relevant in international law. Alixos (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pete, I appreciate your input. I think my merger proposal was fine and not an example of biting the newcomer, except that I realize my wording in my initial remarks above were bureaucratic and didn't emphasize that I began with my appreciation for Alixos' contributions but that I also was attempting to guide the direction of our contributions into the existing framework.

However, as far as copyright is concerned: Copyright? WP:COPYVIO is about adding copyrighted content to Wikipedia. I wasn't contributing to Wikipedia copyrighted material from the outside. The governing article on copyright of material that has been contributed to Wikipedia is WP:Copyrights: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License. unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts." Not only can any Wikipedian copy or move content within Wikipedia, everybody on earth is licensed to copy it anywhere, subject to the terms of the cited licenses. Whatever else you may have thought about my relocation of the content (which I did because I did appreciate the value of the content and wanted to see it preserved in the event that Alixos' article were to be deleted), copyright doesn't come into it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Pete was referring the policy about proposing a merger, specifically copying within Wikipedia. Alixos (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, very different from WP:COPYVIO. Indeed, I confess I was unfamiliar with this article. On the other hand, it does expressly say material may be copied within Wikipedia, and I did conform to the proviso for that regarding attribution: I indicated in my first edit summary that I was bringing in material from Ancestral domain. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, copying within Wikipedia is a much better link -- thanks for finding that. The problem in this case is if the AfD you initiated were to go forward, Alixos' edit history on the content would no longer exist, so the attribition requirement would no longer be met. If the content is to be moved to a different article, ideally that should happen with Alixos' explicit buy-in; just because things got off to a rocky start doesn't mean that we can't come to consensus on the best path forward.

Getting back to the main point: in the short term, while the merge discussion is going forward, is there an appropriate way to summarize and link this content at both Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples and Indigenous land rights? -Pete (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merge (Based solely on what I've read in the two articles; I don't have much outside knowledge of the topics.) Ancestral domain appears to be a broader topic than lands inhabited by indigenous peoples as ancestral domain includes more than land. (I would think that people would not have to actually inhabit their ancestral land for it to be part of their ancestral domain, yes?) Also, Ancestral domain is a prose article, while Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples appears to be a list, and it might be difficult to reconcile the two styles in the same article.
Ancestral domain does need to be formatted into sections. I mention this partly for general improvement, and partly because there's a lot of coverage of indigenous land rights, which is a separate article. Coverage of indigenous land rights is appropriate, as they are related topics, but having a separate section on indigenous land rights would help clarify that ancestral domain is a broader topic.
As I've said, most of what I know comes from reading the articles. This could easily be superseded by information from reliable sources.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is entirely my fault, but I realized belatedly that the article where this would have made more sense is Indigenous land rights. I agree, oppose merge to this page.

As for ancestral domain being a broader topic than indigenous land rights", I agree that that's true, and Alixos has now added content that expands the article's scope to be consistent with the breadth of that topic. On the other hand, the bulk is very specifically about land rights, and I question whether its best location is here rather than in the existing article on land rights that ought to have that information.

Pete, I see you removed the Afd template from Ancestral domain. A bot restored it. FYI, it's considered a violation to remove an Afd template until the discussion has been closed, and in any event you can't keep the bot from reverting your change. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained that here. I (perhaps overly hastily) removed the AfD because it appeared to me that you had abandoned it in midstream. The "this article's entry" link was a redlink, and there was no nomination that I could easily find. Perhaps the bot fixed some technical glitch when it restored it? Regardless, it's not my desire to close that AfD out of process, I'm fine with seeing it run its course. (I do think that having an AfD and a merge discussion going at the same time is a little confusing and maybe unnecessary bureacracy, but I can live with it!) -Pete (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Largo, since as the original nominator you now oppose the merge into this article, and nobody else has supported that idea, it seems wise to remove the merge notice. I do see that you are now advocating that it should be merged into a different article -- I'm of course not opposed if you feel the need to start up that discussion. But it does seem like this specific discussion has probably run its course. Any objection to removing the current "merge" tag, without prejudice toward a possible new merge discussion, on a different talk page? -Pete (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the template, I assume since there's no response in more than a week that this is no longer an active concern. Of course, if I'm in error, and there's still a need for a merge discussion, please start a new one. -Pete (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Basque country

I really don't understand why is basque country there, as it's not any kind of indian reserve, and it's inhabited for as many natives as almost any other region in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.175.101.195 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120729122750/http://www.costaricaspanishschool.com/index.php/blog/184-guaymi-indian-reservation-in-costa-rica.html to http://www.costaricaspanishschool.com/index.php/blog/184-guaymi-indian-reservation-in-costa-rica.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)