Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

the map of indigenous peoples, Paraguay =

According to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay

The population of Paraguay is around 7 Million, of which over 95% of the population is mestizo. yet the map lists indigenous population as less than 5%... should not mestizo count as... some sort of percentage indigenous? Searching for a proxy, Guarani is an official language, and it has on the order of 6.5 million speakers, with the majority being in Paraguay, which would argue for at least half of the population being Guarani speakers. It is hard to see why they would not count as indigenous.

The Mestizo population of Paraguay does not identify as being Indigenous. The standards for being Indigenous there involve living with your tribe and following the cultural norms of your Indigenous group. Defining indigeneity differs greatly throughout the hemisphere, and having a distant Indigenous ancestor does not always qualify a person to be seen as being Indigenous. Yuchitown (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

DNA

Moving Janiclett's post from my talk page to here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please, explain how that section are "very higly disputed", all text is about evidence of the topic, even none text is about another point of view about the topic. Thanks. Janiclett (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the section? Stop edit warring and take it to article talk. Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Janiclett: So, it should stay at the bottom of the article, where it has been, instead of being moved up top and given higher priority than it deserves. To keep moving it up there without consensus is a POV push. Stop revert-warring. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Janiclett:, it's a good idea to cool your jets and discuss this in earnest before continuing to edit war which could have repercussions. Wikipedia operates on consensus: see WP:CON. How about taking some time to read up on some of our policies and guidelines before reverting again to the version you think is "right"? More info here: WP:RULES. There are processes and procedures in place if you cannot come to an agreement, where other editors can weigh in on a content dispute. There is a LOT to learn here, and it will quell your frustration if you take some time to learn more about the culture and community of wikipedia and how it works. Just a thought.... Netherzone (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin has blocked Janiclett for 1 week for this disruption. Janiclett also abused templates, blanked warnings, and engaged in incivility and what I consider to be personal attacks on other editors' user talk. I would encourage others to also go through the long series of edits Janiclett did. There are some odd things in there, like unexplained removals and substitutions of photos that don't really make sense. I'm seeing some kind of POV push there, in addition to the issues already discussed. Cleanup needed. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

European indigenuous peoples and organizations

Are there connections between the indigenuous people in North America and in Europe?

No, indigenous Americans are believed to have migrated from the Bering Land Bridge thousands of years ago, separating from any other group of people since then. Despressso (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "connections." There are plenty of circumpolar organisations that involve Inuit and Sámi governments. And lots of connections formed through global Indigenous organisations. Vizjim (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Indian nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian nation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 17#Indian nation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

in eastern amazon have much native blood e no brasil tem mais indios esse mapa ta errado é que muitos no norte do brasil se dizem mestiços mas seriam considerados indios no resto é como no equador como os lobbies se concentram nos afros os indios tem mais vergonha de se afirmar e se dizem mestiços nao que nao sejam mas o fenotipo é bem indigena o para no mapa aparece sem indios como leste dos eua e br mas é mentira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.211.79.58 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wuirofeo. Peer reviewers: Tanakachingonzo, Cabragg21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ronripley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting sources in Mexico's indigenous population

According to INEGI's 2020 census their indigenous population is 11.8 million, it only counts native language speakers as such, so it can be said it's not strictly a question of ethnicity, you don't need to speak an ancestral language to be considered or consider yourself indigenous. On the other hand, the 2015 INEGI's intercensal poll estimates their number to be 25.7 million, it asked for self-identification, independently of what language did people speak. Which one should be preferred considering they both come from the same official source? Normally I'd prefer the census data because it offers a count as opposed to an estimate, but it's not really the relevant count for the purposes of this article. My opinion is that identification based on language should only be used when reliable self-identification data is not available. Below I link the two sources in question:

https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/doc/Censo2020_Principales_resultados_EUM.pdf#page=49 https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825078966.pdf#page=82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:18:473F:41E1:2B10:7416:6247 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

the 2020 census is not only more up to date but also more specific, on the 2020 census it is stated to be an ethnic census where people who are ethnically indigenous are counted, in the 2015 one it’s just self identify people that have part indigenous blood, in the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article the first sentence mentions it being an “ethnic group” there for, the INEGI 2020 cenus on ethnic indigenous is a better fit for the article.Kaidros (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 census literally says: "Note: Indigenous population is identified as the total population in households where the head of the household, his or her partner or any of their ascendants, declared to speak an indigenous language". Being more specific is the problem here, you don't need to speak an indigenous language to be considered indigenous for the purposes of this table (we are not the Mexican government), the standard being used is self-identification because it makes it comparable to the rest of the censuses being listed. Consider the case of Paraguay for example, Guarani is spoken by millions (70% of their population) but only 117k Paraguayans consider themselves to be ethnically indigenous. Spoken language is not necessarily a reflection of ethnic identity. Mexico is no exemption, people who don't speak an indigenous language might consider themselves indigenous and thus the information provided is incomplete. An idiomatic definition of ethnicity is useful when no reliable self-identification data is available (that you personally consider them to be only "part" indigenous is of no relevance), but that's not the case here because that's exactly what 2015 INEGI's poll estimates and thus it should be prefered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:18:D3E0:3455:8C5:BED9:F3CC (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

yes, in the INEGI report 11.8 million consider themselves ethnically indigenous but only 7 million speak an indigenous language, it’s going by self ethnic classification not just language AND it’s counting people who still ethnically identify as indigenous but don’t speak a native language AND it’s more recent, please read the report and please discourage from over-editing the table repeatedly, that could get the article locked Kaidros (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The 7 million number corresponds to population over 3 years old who speak an indigenous language and the 11.8 million to population in households identified (by the government, not themselves) as indigenous because the head of the household declared to speak an indigenous language. They are two different statistics, none of which deal with self-identification but only language, you are conflating them to try to validate a series of unfounded inferences despite already being informed about the methodological caveats.

In case there's any doubt you can check the 2020 census questionnaire, they did not ask for self-identification, only if an indigenous language was spoken. It did contain a self-identification question, but it was only for afro-mexicans.

https://www.inegi.org.mx/rnm/index.php/catalog/632/data-dictionary/F15?file_name=Personas

You have now been correctly informed beyond any reasonable doubt about what the "11.8 million" stands for, not people who responded affirmatively when asked if they consider themselves to be indigenous (there is no such question), but "the total population in households where the head of the household, his or her partner or any of their ascendants, declared to speak an indigenous language". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:28D:9C94:BA43:2418:CD5C (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Since we are facing conflicting information with the same source, we must take a look at multiple other sources to get a more accurate report.

• According to the Secretariat of Culture (a Mexican government agency in charge of the nation archives) we get a clear cut spreadsheet of all 70 indigenous ethnic groups officially documentented in Mexico by state of origen with information such as Total Population, Distribution of the population in the territory, and Number of localities. This information can be seen at (table=grupo_etnico). This is an archive of all the officially recognized indigenous ethnicities in Mexico and it reports 5,052,447 TOTAL people ethnically belonging in an indigenous group (4% of the population). This information is collected by SIC MEXICO (Sistema de Información Cultural, en: Cultural Information System).

• Another non-mexican source we can cite is the Encyclopædia Britannica which in there Mexico report they include a Mexico: Ethnic composition pie chart that states the indigenous population makes up 7% of the population (Mexico/Ethnic-groups), specifically stating “Mexico’s population is composed of many ethnic groups, including indigenous American Indians (Amerindians), who account for less than one-tenth of the total.”

• The CIA World fact book reports Amerindian ethnic groups making up 7% of the population in 2012 (CIA/The World Factbook/Countries/Mexico).

• In an American census in 2010 1.4% of mexicans self proclaimed themselves as Native Indian (The Hispanic Population: 2010)

Seeing these international reports claiming its between 4% to 7%, I see an 11.8 million (9.3%) as being a more realistic report than the 25 million and infact now that I see it I find 7% (8.8 million) is a much more accurate number seeing its being reported by 2 of the most repected international organizations. Kaidros (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing violates wikipedia's policy of no original research. Nearly all sources cited in the table come from censuses conducted by the respective specialized governmental entity, when available they should always be preferred to non-official estimates because they are the most reliable type of statistic. INEGI's database is publicly available for anyone to check, so is their methodology, being a "respected international organization" doesn't make their data comparable, the CIA and Encyclopedia Britannica do not conduct worldwide surveys, they simply quote a third party's estimate without the proper citation. The American census uses the category "American Indian and Alaska Native", American Indian as in indigenous people from the USA, which are not the same groups found in Mexico, regardless what their census has to say about indigenous Mexicans in USA has no relevance to the subject matter (indigenous Mexicans in Mexico) for it is not a representative sample of Mexican population. Finally, the Secretariat of Culture's cites INPI as their source, but their website's information is outdated. INPI's up-to-date own website speaks of 68 groups and their spreadsheet tells of a total population belonging to an indigenous group of 11.1 million (http://atlas.inpi.gob.mx/nacional-2/). However, not all indigenous people belong to an identifiable group, information is also incomplete because it excludes indigenous people who belong to more than one group or that do not know to which specific group(s) they belong but consider themselves indigenous nonetheless, but more importantly, because INPI identifies indigenous groups by language spoken, so it is another language-based statistic instead of self-identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:2E88:5D0C:7328:D1C5:E9DE (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S In case there's any doubt about INPI's statistics (and therefore the information found in Mexico's Secretariat of Culture website) being also about language and not self-identification you should read their own blog-post detailing their sources and definitions: https://www.gob.mx/inpi/articulos/indicadores-socioeconomicos-de-los-pueblos-indigenas-de-mexico-2015-116128

"The source of the information to accomplish this task (offer up-to-date information about living conditions and geographical distribution of the population and indigenous population of Mexico) are the censuses and population and household counts made by INEGI"

"The concept of indigenous household has been defined as such where the head of the household, his or her partner or any of their ascendants declared to speak an indigenous language"

What you are doing is circling back to INEGI's language-based statistics (an older count) as presented by a different governmental entity which is merely (re)publishing their findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:3C4E:6D04:686E:E9D9:322D (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You claim “However, not all indigenous people belong to an identifiable group, information is also incomplete”

HOWEVER if we take a look at the rest of the table in the article we can see

• Guatemala [6,491,199 Total indigenous people (Principales_resultados_Censo2018 PAGE 10)]

In the Census it’s stated “The 2018 Census investigated the pueblo (ethnic group) to which the population belongs by self-identification, that is, the people declared to which pueblo (ethnic group) they belong. The exact question and the response options were: According to your origin or history, how do you consider yourself or self-identify: Maya?, Garífuna?, Xinka?”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Mayan, Garífunan or Xinkan

• Peru [6,009,447 Total indigenous people ([1])

In the Census it’s stated “22.3% (5 million 176 thousand 809) of Quechua origin; 5.9% (1 million 366 thousand 931) — 2.4% (548 thousand 292) of Aymara origin. The Census registered 79,266 people who consider themselves native or from the Amazon; 55,489 people who self-identify as Ashaninka; 37 thousand 690 people of Awajún origin; 25 thousand 222 as Shipibo Konibo and 49 thousand 838 people as part of another Indigenous or Original Pueblo (ethnicity). Likewise, 22 thousand 534 people were registered who, due to their customs and ancestors, self-identify as Nikkei and 14 thousand 307 as Tusan.”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Quechua, Aimara, Awajún, Shipibo Konibo, Nikkei, Tusan, or another indigenous group

• Bolivia [4,199,977 Total indigenous people ([2])

In the Census it’s stated only people “Belonging to Native Indigenous Nations and Peoples” are counted as indigenous

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to an indigenous ethnicity

• Chile [2,185,792 Total indigenous people ([3])

In the Census it’s stated only people “Population that is considered to belong to an indigenous or native nation” is counted as indigenous

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui, Lican Antai, Quechua, Colla, Diaguita, Kawésqar, Yagán/Yámana or a small/ignored group

• Colombia [1,905,617 Total indigenous people ([4])

In the Census it’s stated “The 2018 National Population and Housing Census identified a population that reports belonging to 115 native indigenous peoples”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as one of the 115 native indigenous ethnicities

• Argentina [955.032 Total indigenous people ([5])

In the Census it’s stated “The grafic shows the distribution of the original population according to the pueblo (ethnicity) to which they belong. —-Indigenous population or descendant of indigenous or native peoples in homes by indigenous pueblo (ethnicity).”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Toba, Guaraní, Diaguita, Kolla, Quechua, Wichí, Comechingón, Huarpe, Tehuelche, Mocoví, Pampa, Aymara, Ava Guaraní, Rankulche, Charrúa, Atacama, Mbyá Guaraní, Omaguaca, Pilaga, Tonocote, Lule, Tupí Guaran, Querandí, Chané, Sanavirón, Ona, Chorote, Maimará, Chulupi, Vilela, Tapiete or a small group (only 5,301)

So we can see the clear the common classifier for the indigenous population in each country is the amount of people self-identifying with an indigenous ethnic group. In Mexico we can take a look at the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples which archives the most updated atlas of the indigenous peoples of Mexico and is the designated institution for this exact purpose, they themselves claim 11,132,562 people in Mexico belonging to an indigenous ethnicity with 351,679 of them belonging to a non-specific group (not 14 million)(pueblos-indigenas) and (nacional-2), this study is also not stated to be language based at all. In the INEGI 2015 census it’s not stated specifically but i can be correlated with the 25.1 million figure which refers to mestizos of predominantly amerindian blood (as a racial statistic not an ethnic one, the ethnic portion states 7 million) , this is also stated in the CIA Fact Book.

(Note: As you mention Wikipedia rules I must remind you that WP:AGE MATTERS, If you claim to use INEGI as your source we must take into account the newest report in front of a 7 year old one.)Kaidros (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, INPI uses INEGI's data, it's government agencies, not people themselves doing the identification. According to INPI:

"The source of the information to accomplish this task (offer up-to-date information about living conditions and geographical distribution of the population and indigenous population of Mexico) are the censuses and population and household counts made by INEGI"

"The concept of indigenous household has been defined as such where the head of the household, his or her partner or any of their ascendants declared to speak an indigenous language"

https://www.gob.mx/inpi/articulos/indicadores-socioeconomicos-de-los-pueblos-indigenas-de-mexico-2015-116128

That is how INPI counts indigenous population (the same way as INEGI does because that is where their data comes from), not by asking people if they consider themselves indigenous or with which indigenous group do they identify with (like the rest of the censuses you list), but by asking about spoken language. The 2015 intercensal poll specifically asked:

"By your culture, do you consider yourself indigenous"

https://www.inegi.org.mx/rnm/index.php/catalog/214/data-dictionary/F18?file_name=TR_Persona

They are two very different questions that yield different statistics, no new reliable self-identification data has been produced since 2015, so age is not a concern for it's still the most up-to-date data on self-identification. If you disagree then please provide me with the full report where the INPI states what is their study based on (like I did) instead of just assuming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:3C4E:6D04:686E:E9D9:322D (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

look at all the other sourced for all the other countries on the table. NONE use the metric you are taking into account. they all classify the indigenous population by self-identifying as belonging to an indigenous group.

Also remember WP:AGE MATTERS,

If you claim to use INEGI as your source we must take into account the newest report in front of a 7 year old one. “ areas like politics—-laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.”

If you are insistent on using the metric in which the indigenous population is measured by people belonging to an indigenous ethnicity AND people who are of majority indigenous ancestry but do not belong to an ethnic group, then please find and replace every other countries information with official sources that take this new metric into account.

Also please provide an INEGI report that claims 25.1 million (or any figure around that scale) indigenous in Mexico from any other year other than the one provided, or any other official governmental census on ethnicity as i have done for the 8 million-11 million figure.Kaidros (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

For the purposes of the table it's not relevant to which specific indigenous group (if any) do people who consider themselves indigenous identify with, just that they consider themselves as such. The fact they might not do so doesn't deprive them of their indigenous identity and in any case it could be said "Indigenous Mexican" (just like "American Indian" in the US census) constitutes a grouping on itself.

The newest INEGI report that uses self-identification is still the 2015 one, had the 2020 used the same methodology it should definitely be the one preferred, but it did not, so it's not really comparable because it's not the exact same statistic. A new Intercensal report will come in 2025.

Self-identification as indigenous (whether from a specific group or not) is the only metric I'm insistent on, there are no other variables but that one. INEGI's self-identification question specifically mentioned "culture", not racial-makeup.

The 2010 INEGI census asked people over 3 years old if they self-identified as indigenous (slide 62, "Ethnicity"). According to it 15.7 million people considered themselves to be indigenous, out of which 6.6 million spoke an indigenous language and 9.1 million did not.

https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2010/doc/presentacion.pptx

There you have it, 12 year old census data based on self-identification shows a higher indigenous population than the latest censal data that identifies them based on language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:3C4E:6D04:686E:E9D9:322D (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The table does matter since all the other countries specify the indigenous groups.

Here I’ll lay it out for you and you can go check all the census:

• Guatemala [6,491,199 Total indigenous people (Principales_resultados_Censo2018 PAGE 10)]

In the Census it’s stated “The 2018 Census investigated the pueblo (ethnic group) to which the population belongs by self-identification, that is, the people declared to which pueblo (ethnic group) they belong. The exact question and the response options were: According to your origin or history, how do you consider yourself or self-identify: Maya?, Garífuna?, Xinka?”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Mayan, Garífunan or Xinkan

• Peru [6,009,447 Total indigenous people ([6])

In the Census it’s stated “22.3% (5 million 176 thousand 809) of Quechua origin; 5.9% (1 million 366 thousand 931) — 2.4% (548 thousand 292) of Aymara origin. The Census registered 79,266 people who consider themselves native or from the Amazon; 55,489 people who self-identify as Ashaninka; 37 thousand 690 people of Awajún origin; 25 thousand 222 as Shipibo Konibo and 49 thousand 838 people as part of another Indigenous or Original Pueblo (ethnicity). Likewise, 22 thousand 534 people were registered who, due to their customs and ancestors, self-identify as Nikkei and 14 thousand 307 as Tusan.”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Quechua, Aimara, Awajún, Shipibo Konibo, Nikkei, Tusan, or another indigenous group

• Bolivia [4,199,977 Total indigenous people ([7])

In the Census it’s stated only people “Belonging to Native Indigenous Nations and Peoples” are counted as indigenous

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to an indigenous ethnicity

• Chile [2,185,792 Total indigenous people ([8])

In the Census it’s stated only people “Population that is considered to belong to an indigenous or native nation” is counted as indigenous

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui, Lican Antai, Quechua, Colla, Diaguita, Kawésqar, Yagán/Yámana or a small/ignored group

• Colombia [1,905,617 Total indigenous people ([9])

In the Census it’s stated “The 2018 National Population and Housing Census identified a population that reports belonging to 115 native indigenous peoples”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as one of the 115 native indigenous ethnicities

• Argentina [955.032 Total indigenous people ([10])

In the Census it’s stated “The grafic shows the distribution of the original population according to the pueblo (ethnicity) to which they belong. —-Indigenous population or descendant of indigenous or native peoples in homes by indigenous pueblo (ethnicity).”

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Toba, Guaraní, Diaguita, Kolla, Quechua, Wichí, Comechingón, Huarpe, Tehuelche, Mocoví, Pampa, Aymara, Ava Guaraní, Rankulche, Charrúa, Atacama, Mbyá Guaraní, Omaguaca, Pilaga, Tonocote, Lule, Tupí Guaran, Querandí, Chané, Sanavirón, Ona, Chorote, Maimará, Chulupi, Vilela, Tapiete or a small group (only 5,301)

Also 15 million is much closer to 11.8 million than 25.1 million if you didn’t realize, may you please provide any recent governmental report where 25.1 million or anything closer to that than 11 million is used?

Finally you mention:

“ it's not relevant to which specific indigenous group (if any) do people who consider themselves indigenous identify with, just that they consider themselves as such.”

And if are so stuck on making Mexico follow this logic then correct all the other countries which use the metric of (Indigenous population=number of people who identify to a certain indigenous ethnic group) with the most recent governmental census that includes this metric you’re making up.

Please make sure this isn’t a case of Well-intended but overzealous or misguided edits

—Kaidros (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@2001:1388:19:28D:9C94:BA43:2418:CD5C: If you do not provide additional updated documentation from another source official or the same source which states your claims of the figure “25.1 million” (as i have for figures ranging from 8 to 11 million) i’m going to have to ask you to stop unintentionally vandalizing the article. I wouldn’t want this to become a WP:Competence issue or have to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators.Kaidros (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not identifying as part of a particular indigenous group doesn't deprive people of their indigenous identity, table doesn't list any particular groups but the total amount of people who identify as indigenous, requiring them to do so in order to be considered indigenous is a new standard you are proposing, one that I strongly disagree with.

I found out the 2020 census did have a self-identification question:

"According to your culture, do you consider yourself indigenous"

https://www.inegi.org.mx/rnm/index.php/catalog/632/data-dictionary/F13?file_name=Personas_CA

(Please note it's not a question about race as you claim, but ethnicity, that's how INEGI describes it.)

The data was not present in the initial report you linked, fortunately it is available at INEGI's database:

https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/ccpv/2020/tabulados/ampliado/cpv2020_a_eum_05_etnicidad.xlsx

According to it 23.2 million people over 3 years old (or 19.41% of that age group) considered themselves to be indigenous.

That effectively makes this statistic the newest data available on self-identification, so I'm replacing the 2015 source with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:579D:19D2:43A0:922C:D076 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The link you sent did not show me what you said, may you please check or the link is correct?Kaidros (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The link downloads a spreadsheet, you can check pages 01 or 02 where you will find "19.41(%)" under "Condition of indigenous self-classification" and 119 692 898 under "Population 3 years and older" in the first row. The result is 23 232 391. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:579D:19D2:43A0:922C:D076 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

: @2001:1388:19:28D:9C94:BA43:2418:CD5C:

This source reports “119,692,898” for total population

2020 INEGI reports “126,014,024” for total population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaidros (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In page 2 of this source reports “2.05%” understanding an indigenous language

2020 INEGI reports “6.6%” speaking an indigenous language

May you explain the inconsistencies Kaidros (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There are no inconsistencies, it's not total population but population 3 years and older (the ones able to respond to the self-identification question). That 2.05% corresponds to "population 3 years and older who DOES NOT speak an indigenous language" but understands an indigenous language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:579D:19D2:43A0:922C:D076 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my final explanation on this topic, I will now layout my position; if you still find an issue with my argument we can contact an administrator.

• 'Part I. The different figures in question

The two figures being discussed today are: the self-ascribed the ethnic belonging

The self-ascribed: very short public questionnaire

The ethnic belonging: long survey period with greater academic profile of the interviewer (NOTE. THIS IS NOT LANGUAGE BASED)

• 'Part II. The problem with the self-ascribed figure

for this section i will source a published piece by the Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo. “ The self-ascription Indians of Mexico in the 2010 Census: ethnic revitalization or census overestimation?” 1

The objective of this work is to expose the great differences in the enumeration of the indigenous population that derive from the questions of belonging by self-ascription of the 2000 and 2010 censuses and highlighted the reason for this overestimation of the indigenous population where it went from 5 million in 2000 to 15 million in 2010

The hypothesis that they point out is that the phrasing of the question asked in 2010, in relation to that of the 2000 census question, largely explains the increase in the resulting numbers and it is not that in Mexico a process of revitalization of the ethnic as has been achieved.

The question of belonging by self-ascription applied in the extended questionnaire of the 2000 and 2010 census changed significantly. Meanwhile, in the 2000 census, each person five years of age or older was asked: Is (NAME) Nahuatl, Mayan, Zapotec, Mixtec, or from another indigenous group? For the year 2010, the expanded questionnaire included the following question addressed to people three years of age or older: According to the culture of (NAME), does she (he) consider herself indigenous? This questions included a vague classification and did not ask of specific ethnic groups and does not specify the world “culture” which could be referring to overall regional mexican culture where people do practice or form part of indigenous culture without actually being indigenous.

Precisely, this essay demonstrates that the word "culture" induced ethnic overdeclaration, which can only be verified by contrasting the results of the two questions (ethnic belonging in 2000 and ethnic self-ascription in 2010, 2015 and 2020).

Belonging to an ethnic group and feeling like you practice indigenous culture are two different things.

In the following data spread i will show you the inconsistancy of the self-ascribed figure in comparison to the constant Indigenous-speaking population which is another frequently used figure to point out the indigenous population in Mexico.

INEGI self-ascribed indigenous- 2000/5 million...2010/15 million...2015/25.1 million...2020/23.2 million DATA (gaining 10 million in 10 years then 10 million in 5 years then losing 2 million in 5 years)

Indigenous-speaking population- 1990/5,282,347...1995/5,483,555....2000/6,044,547...2005/6,011,202...2010/6,913,362....2015/7,382,785...2020/7,364,645 DATA

When we go to the actual Atlas of Indigenous Peoples of Mexico we can clearly see the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (The designated institution for indigenous people) only takes into account people who actually belong to an indigenous ethnic group rather than the vague questionnaire of if someone considers themselves indigenous from their culture.

The Mexican Government also only takes into account the people who actually are registered as belonging to an indigenous ethnic group rather than the vague questionnaire of if someone considers themselves indigenous from their culture.[11]

the figure would be (at best) a reference for the indigenous cultural identity in Mexico, or (at worse) a faulty questionnaire with low validity in official reporting. INEGI seems to choose the latter since the most recent numbers for this figure were not reported in their 2020 official census, but instead just archived and it is also no use of this number in any government reports.

The self proclamation of practicing indigenous culture is not equivalent to being ethnically indigenous

• 'Part III. Context in the article

The common denominator in the rest of the article is Indigenous population = number of people identify with an indigenous ethnic group which could also be called The ethnic belonging figures.

-Guatemala [([12])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Mayan, Garífunan or Xinkan

-Peru [([13])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to either be Quechua, Aimara, Awajún, Shipibo Konibo, Nikkei, Tusan, or another indigenous group

-Bolivia [([14])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying to an indigenous ethnicity

-Chile [([15])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Aymara, Rapa Nui, Lican Antai, Quechua, Colla, Diaguita, Kawésqar, Yagán/Yámana or a small/ignored group

-Colombia [([16])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as one of the 115 native indigenous ethnicities

-Argentina [([17])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Mapuche, Toba, Guaraní, Diaguita, Kolla, Quechua, Wichí, Comechingón, Huarpe, Tehuelche, Mocoví, Pampa, Aymara, Ava Guaraní, Rankulche, Charrúa, Atacama, Mbyá Guaraní, Omaguaca, Pilaga, Tonocote, Lule, Tupí Guaran, Querandí, Chané, Sanavirón, Ona, Chorote, Maimará, Chulupi, Vilela, Tapiete or a small group (only 5,301)

-Venezuela [([18])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people by declaration of belonging to an indigenous pueblo (ethnicity)

-Honduras [([19])]

Indigenous population counted by the amount of people self-identifying as Maya -Chortí, Lenca, Misquito, Nahua, Pech, Tolupán, Tawahka, Garífunaa

Mexico actually has this statistic available which is Atlas de los Pueblos Indígenas de México (Atlas of the Indigenous Peoples of Mexico) which clearly point out 11.1 million people self-identifying as Amuzgo, Awakateko, Ayapaneco, Ch'ol, Chatino, Chichimeco jonaz, Chinanteco, Chocholteco/Chocho, Chontal de Oaxaca, Chontal de Tabasco, Chuj, Cora, Cucapá, Cuicateco, Guarijío, Huasteco, Huave, Huichol, Ixcateco, Ixil, Jakalteko, K'iche', Kaqchikel, Kickapoo, Kiliwa, Kumiai, Lacandón, Mam, Matlatzinca, Maya, Mayo, Mazahua, Mazateco, Mixe, Mixteco, Náhuatl, Oluteco, Otomí, Paipai, Pame, Pima, Popoloca, Popoluca de la sierra, Pápago, Q'anjob'al, Q'eqchi', Qato'k/Motocintleco, Sayulteco, Seri, Tarahumara, Tarasco/Purépecha, Teko, Tepehua, Tepehuano del norte, Tepehuano del sur, Texistepequeño, Tlahuica/Ocuilteco, Tlapaneco, Tojolabal, Totonaco, Triqui, Tseltal, Tsotsil, Yaqui, Zapoteco, ZoquePOBLACIÓN INDÍGENA A NIVEL NACIONAL

• Part IV. COI

I hope you as a user do not hold a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as a user : being a Peruvian user (Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous) and being adamant on the Mexican data but your Peru’s information is also incorrect.

According to the INEI 2017 census 25.6% of the population identified with a SPECIFIC ethnic group (NOT CULTURE) which is 8 million people (31,440,000 population in 2017) of not 5.9 million (https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1642/cap02.pdf)

Kaidros (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please point out what were the questions asked to determine "ethnic belonging" just like I did for self-identification. The questions used to determine "ethnic belonging" can be found in the basic questionnaire (they were both about language), the self-identification question can be found in the extended questionnaire, both were administered by INEGI staff. The false narrative of one being administered by more competent interviewers is not only baseless but in any case the ones administering the extended questionnaire did require more training than the ones only administering the basic one.

While it could be said that self-identification may cause overestimation, conversely it can be argued counting only indigenous speaking population leads to a sub-estimation. It boils down to who gets to define who is indigenous and who is not: the academia, government or people themselves? I think my position on this matter is evident.

The general context of the table is self-identification, that's why Mexico should not be the exemption, all the census you list asked people to self-identify themselves either as simply indigenous, as belonging to a specific indigenous group, or in some cases both. You can see for yourself what was the question(s) was asked on each country, but in Mexico's case you keep claiming the statistic you cite is not language based yet you remain unable to provide the relevant self-identification question asked. So far your argument is that the interviewers know better, that's not self-identification.

Again, you fail to understand the statistics you are citing, in Perú's case the population surveyed were people over 12 years old (the ones who answered the self-identification question), not 31 million, but just 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:579D:EC75:CCE0:E344:A7E8 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

”Please point out what were the questions asked to determine "ethnic belonging" just like I did for self-identification. The questions used to determine "ethnic belonging" can be found in the basic questionnaire (they were both about language), the self-identification question can be found in the extended questionnaire, both were administered by INEGI staff. The false narrative of one being administered by more competent interviewers is not only baseless but in any case the ones administering the extended questionnaire did require more training than the ones only administering the basic one.”

I will explain to you how the 2020 INEGI census estimated the indigenous population since that’s the source i am going to use. For ethnic belonging, INEGI used Indigenous homes census, the way this data is collected is if one person in the household is registered to speak an indigenous language the entire members of the house are counted as indigenous, this is an extended census on indigenous people not a one question survey. You should note indigenous households are the main data source for inegi, they even collect data for Household composition and income, Characteristics of the household head, Characteristics of household members 1. ALSO you should note the self-identification data was very similar and on par with the language data up until 2010 when the whole questionnaire was reworded. As I have pointed out...the data:

INEGI self-ascribed indigenous- 2000/~5 million...2010/~15 million...2015/~25.1 million...2020/~23.2 million DATA (gaining 10 million in 10 years then 10 million in 5 years then losing 2 million in 5 years)

Indigenous-speaking population- 1990/5,282,347...1995/5,483,555....2000/6,044,547...2005/6,011,202...2010/6,913,362....2015/7,382,785...2020/7,364,645 DATA

”While it could be said that self-identification may cause overestimation, conversely it can be argued counting only indigenous speaking population leads to a sub-estimation. It boils down to who gets to define who is indigenous and who is not: the academia, government or people themselves? I think my position on this matter is evident.”

Correct, that’s why that’s not the only metric they take into account. According to the INEGI report 7 million people speak an indigenous language but counting all their registered family members the number goes up to 11.8 million indigenous people even if they don’t speak an indigenous language.

”The general context of the table is self-identification, that's why Mexico should not be the exemption, all the census you list asked people to self-identify themselves either as simply indigenous, as belonging to a specific indigenous group, or in some cases both. You can see for yourself what was the question(s) was asked on each country, but in Mexico's case you keep claiming the statistic you cite is not language based yet you remain unable to provide the relevant self-identification question asked.”

Correct, the general context of the table is self-identification, but to what? (Answer: self-identification to a specific ethnic group recognized by the government). Now tell me, why should Mexico be the exemption? (Answer: it shouldn’t). The source you want Mexico to follow is that of questionnaire which explores self-ascribed cultural perception when you can EASILY find data for the population which self-identifies to a specific ethnic group recognized by the government.

”So far your argument is that the interviewers know better, that's not self-identification.”

No, my arguement is that your are using a figure which comes from a one question survey asking people if according to their culture, do they consider themselves indigenous, instead of the data which takes into account people who actually identify with an ethnic group and their household. 23.2 million people in mexico do not ethnically belong to an indgenous group, this article is on ethnically indigenous peoples you are citing a cultural survey. Kaidros (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What you are pointing now is what I had already quoted and explained. You speak of an extended census but I fail to see what makes is extended as the one question they ask can be found in the basic questionnaire (as opposed to the extended one where the self-identification question is). If they are asking any more questions other than the one about spoken language then please quote them. I insist you do. Also you should note the 2000 self-identification data correspondes to a target population aged 5 years and older, the following years they targeted 3 years and older, it's not statistically comparable to the rest.

By counting an entire household as indigenous because of the answer of one member (to a question about language) what they are doing is assigning them indigenous identity, that is not self-identification, that's not what any of the other censuses did. The census forms from the countries you list either asked people directly if they belonged to one of the listed indigenous groups (Guatemala, Peru) or asked first if they considered themselves indigenous and then, if the answer was positive, to which specific group (if any) did they identify with (Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras). Mexico did not ask a follow up question, but that doesn't invalidate their answer, for only one question is enough to determine self-identification as indigenous which is what this table lists.

It is irrelevant if not all indigenous people in Mexico belong to a specific indigenous group, being indigenous along is enough to merit listing, not belonging to a specific group doesn't deprive people of their indigenous identity. It is a table about indigenous peoples, not indigenous peoples who belong to a specific indigenous group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:7900:A59C:D42B:998F:BBE0 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct in Mexico the way in which indigenous people are censed is messy since the change in 2010 but let’s put everything aside and look at the simple fact that, the source you’re citing is a CULTURAL survey, you can have indigenous culture and not be ethnically indigenous, the first sentence of the article is literally “ The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are the inhabitants of the Americas before the arrival of the European settlers in the 15th century, and the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples.” did 23.1 million identify themselves with those peoples ethnic groups? no, they answered yes to a cultural question, culture and ethnicity are not interchangeably. only 11 million ACTUALLY fit into the description of the article.

But if you think merely practicing indigenous culture makes you indigenous then find a cultural survey for all the other countries because they’re all ethnic data based. If you are unable to do that is clearly the wrong metric to go by when trying to identify an ethnic group.

also you say language isn’t a good metric to gage the indigenous population but let’s take a look at a couple other countries and compare: guatemala

~5.2 million indigenous language speakers

6.4 million ethnic indigenous

peru

~5-6 million indigenous language speakers

~6 million ethnic indigenous

bolivia

~4-5 millions indigenous language speakers

~4.1 million ethnic indigenous

please explain how this is a worse metric than a one question culture survey? and explain with numbers and sources not just “because i think so” arguments.

Also please explain how in Mexico 23 million people are “indigenous” and only 7 million speak and indigenous language? when in every other country these numbers correlate and they even correlated in Mexico before 2010 when the questionnaire actually straight up asked if they belonged to an indigenous ethnicity?

Kaidros (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2010 INEGI census titled the self-identification statistic as "ethnic belonging", in the 2020 census database the variable is called "Indigenous belonging", the spreadsheet is titled "ethnicity". INEGI has consistently called it ethnicity, so that's what I'm going by.

Unlike Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia didn't ask about spoken language when determining ethnicity, neither does the table list their number of indigenous language speakers, whatever correlations or discrepancies you might find doesn't change the fact that they are fundamentally different statistics and therefore not comparable. Also Guatemala, Peru and Bolivia have 4 million, 4.4 million and 2.7 million indigenous language speakers respectively, all according to their latest censuses.

I already pointed out to the example of Paraguay, please don't make me repeat myself. Chilean Mapuches (their most numerous indigenous group) can be considered an example as well, only 10% of them can speak Mapudungun (https://news.un.org/es/story/2019/04/1454571). In Colombia only 50.8% of people who self-identified as indigenous were able to speak the indigenous language of their people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to make you IMAGINE something, i’ve already shown you past data which proves there being a similar number of indigenous speakers and indigenous self identification before the question was changed to cultural identification, you can go back on the thread i’ve given you the figures all the way from 1990, it is already statistically proven the number of people who spoke an indigneous language in Mexico and the number of self-identifying indigenous are correlated, also you yourself already repeated a hundred times before the question was regarding culture, don’t purposefully leave out information, it never just asked "do you consider yourself indigenous" it asked in agreement to their culture.

Also i’m not asking you what it’s titled i’m telling you what it is, the question is asking with regards and connection to culture, just having indigenous culture doesn’t make you an ethnic indigenous person which is what the wikipedia article is about and is the metric for all the other countries, a mexican can celebrate day of the dead, eat a tlayuda and wear a huipil, their culture is indigenous but they necessarily aren’t ethnically indigneous.Kaidros (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever similarities you might find are irrelevant for this table doesn't list indigenous language speakers, but people who explicitly self-identified as indigenous. There was only one self-identification question asked and only one figure that came out of it, no matter how many correlations can you draw it doesn't change the fact "what indigenous language do you speak?" is not a self-identification question but a language one, it doesn't matter if you think language is proven to be a better proxy for ethnicity than asking people themselves what their ethnicity is, the best proxy is not what this table lists, that is not what the other censuses did and therefore the self-identification data should be preferred.

I'm telling you what INEGI calls it (ethnicity, ethnic belonging, indigenous belonging), I'm unconcerned about what you think it is or what do you consider an acceptable self-definition of indigenous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not just going by language, if i was i would be putting 7 million not 11.8 million, the statistics are on indigneous homes, ever since 2010 the self identification to ethnic indigenous was taken off and replaced with self identification to indigenous culture, no other country goes by a culture identification survey, they go by actual number of people who self identify to a SPECIFIC ETHNIC GROUP, i don’t understand why you’re trying to make an exception for Mexico when the self identify to a SPECIFIC ETHNIC GROUP data is there, data where people are literally asked what language they speak and what ethnic group they belong to then later asked to do an extended study on their household, it’s not just a one question survey asking people if consider themselves indigneous based on their culture. Why do you think the short culture questionnaire isn’t actually reported on in official reports in 2020 by government institutions? Kaidros (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The statistic on indigenous homes is based on a language question because that is how they determine if a home is indigenous or not (by asking the head of the household if he speaks an indigenous language) and then proceed to assign indigenous identity to all its members, that is not self-identification which is what the other censuses asked for. It is also false to say that in Mexico people self-identified with a specific indigenous group, no such question can be found in the basic or extended questionnaires, what can be found is another question about language "what indigenous language do you speak". Please point me to the relevant question where people were asked with which specific ethnic group did they identify with, you'll find there is none, that is not self-identification, that is assigned indigenous identity (and ethnic group) based on language. I understand you think it is more accurate for a number of considerations, but the table remains a list of people who self-identified as indigenous, not of people who were classified as such by their governments based on the language a single member of their household spoke as is the exceptional case of Mexico.

They don’t “assign indigneous identity” they don’t assign anything, they just classify people with indigenous ethnicity based on their family, which if your parents are ethnic indigenous people, you as a child are also an ethnically indigenous person. Also they did ask people to self-identify with a specific indigenous group, before the 2010 census the literal question was “ Is (NAME) Nahuatl, Mayan, Zapotec, Mixtec, or from another indigenous group?” and Now if you go to the atlas you can find this same information from 2020, which if you can infer for one second means this information is still being collected. You must also note some (usually the largest) indigneous ethnic groups in Mexico are actually language based ethnic groups, nahuas are all the small ethnicities which speak nahuatl, mayans are all the small ethnic groups which speak mayan, this is a similar classification as saying “arabs” or “hispanics”, a lot of ethnic classification in Mexico done language based because of the ethnographics of the country, hence why this method is used in the country.Kaidros (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, please point to the question that was asked to determine the indigenous ethnicity of the head of the household (and as a consequence that of the rest of its members). If it's a question about language then they are exclusively classifying indigenous language speakers and their families as indigenous, it's the government doing the classification, not people themselves for they were not asked if they self-identified as indigenous, whether it be just as indigenous or part of a specific indigenous group. I don't have to infer anything, you can either demonstrate (like I did) the self-identification question about ethnic groups is still being asked or not, the question you speak of can be found in the 2000 extended questionnaire, whereas it is absent in the 2020 extended questionnaire. Where you assume I can quote INEGI's and INPI's (formerly CDI) Socieconomic indicators of the indigenous peoples of Mexico (2015): "(It is) by differentiating indigenous households according to indigenous language that the peoples with the highest population are: Nahuatl....". Meaning people were classified (not self-identified) as belonging to a specific indigenous group according to the indigenous language spoken by the head of their household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

INEGI hasnt done a self identification by ethnic group in 20 years, they switched to cultural identification and linguistic identification, the final overall population is calculated using the a household study which takes into account linguistic identification, the last self identification by ethnic group figure was 5 million, back when the linguistic statistic was also around 5 million, In 2010 the census metric changed to help in the “Program for the revitalization, strengthing and development of national indigenous languages (2009-2012)”. If you want a 2020 self identification (based solely on ethnicity such as the 2000 one) study you will not find what you’re looking, it was never conducted, and you can’t just take the cultural indigenous survey and assign everyone with indigenous ethnicity when they never said yes to being ethnically indigenous, you are doing what you’re accusing the government of doing. either you take INEGI’s estimations on ETHNIC indigneous people or you assign 12 million people indigenous ethnicity based on a survey regarding their culture. So you can understand better i’ll give you an example, it would be like taking a questionnaire that asked “based on your culture are you european” and then just assigning everyone who answered yes with european ethnicity when that’s not the case, someone can feel culturally european but that wouldn’t automatically make them ethnically european, you don’t have to be ethnically celtic to feel like you have irish culture, you don’t have to be an ethnic slav to feel like you culture is russian. do you understand the difference between ethnicity and your self perceived cultural standing? ethnicity takes into account things that culture doesn’t, such as ancestry, history, language, race therefor using a culture based survey is not an accurate way to get the actual number of people in an ethnic group since culture is a wider spectrum of social behaviors hence why the numbers are so far apart when asking about ethnicity and when asking about self perception of one’s culture. another example, an asian person can grow up in a predominantly quechuan environment and feel like his culture aligns with quechuan culture but he isn’t necessarily ethnically quechuan and he should not be counted as belonging to the ethnic group, his cultural views don’t change his ethnic background. you are using two things interchangeably when they aren’t. Kaidros (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It is sufficient for the purposes of this table for them to have said "yes" to being "indigenous" without naming the specific group they belonged to, for not belonging to one such groups doesn't deprive them of their indigenous identity. Europe is a place (a continent to be more precise), "indigenous" an ethnicity on itself (just like afro-mexican is an ethnicity without having to precise if yoruba, zulu, oromo, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Answering yes to a question regarding your culture does not determine your ethnic background, europe being a continent is irrelevant when talking about examples on ethnicity and culture, you said they don’t have to belong to any ethnic group but that’s literally the metric being used by all the other countries (indigneous population=amount of people who identified with an ethnic group), In peru you must be Quechua, Aimara, Awajún, Shipibo Konibo, Nikkei, Tusan, or another indigenous group to count as indigneous, how many people that practice indigenous culture are being deprived of their identity? see how the logic doesn’t work, if you’re going to use that logic for mexico to find a cultural survey for all the other countries.Kaidros (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they don't have to belong to "any ethnic group", for "indigenous" is an ethnic grouping on itself, but to a "specific group" (such as the ones already mentioned). In Bolivia, for example, "indigenous" was considered a valid answer when asked to which group did indigenous people belong to. In Costa Rica, "No peoples" was one of the listed possible answers for people who self-identified as indigenous. In Chile, responding "People ignored (unknown)" still got you counted as indigenous. In Colombia "Indigenous (from) Mexico" are considered an ethnic group (only 5 members though). So it's demonstrably false that, as you claim, in every case you had to belong to a specific group in order to be considered indigenous.

Belonging to an ignored, foreign or unspecific indigenous ethnic group is still counts as belonging to an indigenous ethnic group, in the atlas of indigenous pueblos of mexico under the Indigenous Population At The National Level table they do a similar thing where they have an option for “insufficiently specified” for people with very little specificity on their ethnic group, and it’s actually the 9th most common option, thus they actually do take into account people lacking specific details but still are ethnically part of a indigenous “pueblo” like chile and colombia and all the other countries in the article 1.Kaidros (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

“Insufficiently specified” for who? For the people themselves when asked about which group did they belong to (which brings us again to which question was that? what was their "insufficiently specified" answer?) or "insufficiently specified" for the people in charge of classifying them? There remains the fundamental difference between self-identification and classification.

Every country has their main indigenous pueblos which they research and keep data on, they are the ones that make up usually 95%+ the indigenous population, being unspecific, ignored, “unknown” just means the data on them is very limited, in peru it’s 24k, in chile 67k, in colombia they aren’t even registered, in argentina it’s around 5k, and in mexico it’s around 350k, if you look at all the countries these unspecified groups usually only make up 0%-4% of the indigenous population, never 50% like you claim with the 23 million cultural identification figure, that’s impossible (or are you going to tell me there’s 12 million people in mexico with specific traditions, history, language, ancestory but no data on their ethnic group? meanwhile the government literally has data on an ethnic group with only 57 surviving members and even considers them a national ethnic pueblo?), those people aren’t actually claiming and never claimed to be ethnicity indigenous you’re just assigning them that title, do you understand? Kaidros (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm telling you is that in the case of Mexico we just don't know because there was no follow up self-identification question about specific indigenous groups, the other possibility is that every existing group (as classified by INPI based on the language spoken by the head of the household) increases their population. Knowing they self-identify as "indigenous" is enough to include them in the table whatever your objections might be, for it's not you who gets to determine what were they "actually claiming".

I’m not determining, nobody in that survey was asked on their ethnic background, that’s the fact, the wikipedia article is about “the ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples.” and the data we have for the “ethnic groups who now identify themselves with those peoples” in Mexico is the 2020 indigenous household research, the culture questionnaire does not fit into that description and it is never used actually determine the indigenous population, INEGI uses the household data for their final results report and the INPI did too, what else do you want? (also do you realize those 68 “languages” that an indigneous person is able to classify as, are actually ethnic-linguistic families that have 364 language variants, a person who self identifies as mayan is actually identifying into an ethnic group since the mayan ethnic group family actually has 21 possible languages, nobody just speaks “mayan”, all the “languages” are actually groups which share a a common branch but they don’t necessarily speak the same division of language. Someone who identifies as Zapotecan can speak a one of 50 different zapotecan languages, this is how indigneous people are divided in Mexico, closely tied ethnic groups with a common language family)Kaidros (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Considering yourself "indigenous" is an ethnic background on itself, just like saying you are "afro-mexican" is. You are not entitled to strip people of their indigenous identity by limiting it to indigenous people who claim to belong to a specific group or are able to speak an indigenous language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

False, your cultural alignment and ethnic background are separate concepts, you’re not entitled to assign people an ethnicity from a question they answer in respects to their culture, also i’m not limiting anything that’s how data is gathered for every country, if you self categorize into an indigenous ethnic group you are indigneous, in peru the majority of people are culturally and racially indigneous but the ethnic indigenous is very low in comparison, because that’s the reality of the data and metrics used, stop trying to make exceptions for mexico based on personal motives. Kaidros (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, what was the question used to determine what you describe as "ethnic background" in Mexico? Could we speak of linguistic alignment then? What makes it right to assign indigenous identity to an entire household based on a language question answered by one of its members as opposed to asking each person if they considered themselves indigenous? Mexico didn't ask people to self-categorize into an indigenous ethnic group, they were categorized into them by their government based on another language question ("what indigenous language do you speak?"), in that respect Mexico is the exception for no other country follows that methodology. Fortunately a comparable self-identification statistic can be found at INEGI's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well you see it’s actually more than just a language, for example Mayan and Nahuatl are actually ethnic groups with 20+ language variants, the Zapotecan ethnic group can speak 50+ different dialectical languages, these “language groups” are actually large ethnic categories, the organization is by common linguistic branch/ethnic family just like every other country, but without having an understanding of the methodology or ethnographics it might not makes sense, also nobody is being assigned indigenous identity, not sure where you’re getting that terminology, the household is being recognized as an ethnic indigenous home based on the heads of the house, that’s literally how ethnicity works.Kaidros (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's all very interesting but I still fail to see how does that preclude someone who doesn't speak an indigenous language (or live in a household where at least one of its members does) from self-identifying as indigenous and therefore fit to be listed in the table. It is not a table about who the Mexican government recognizes as being indigenous but of people who self-identify as such.

INEGI isn’t the mexican government, if you want the whole article to revolve around self identification surveys based on culture, find me one of peru, i’d love to see those numbers, cause the only numbers im seeing are people who belong to ethnic groups (which actually is a figure very similar to indigenous language speakers in peru, wow what a coincidence those two things have nothing to do with each other right?).Kaidros (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

INEGI is an institution of the Mexican government. People in Ecuador responded to a similar question to identify themselves as indigenous: "How do you identify according to your culture and customs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:A3D9:3573:352B:4162:873A (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In Ecuador there are 18 indigenous pueblos and and 14 indigenous nationalities recognized by the state in which people are classified: Chibuleo, Karanki, Kayambi, Kañari, Kisapincha, Kitukara, Natabuela, Otavalo, Paltas, Panzaleo, Pastos, Puruwá, Salasaka, Saraguro, Tomabela, Waranka, Huancavilca, Manta, Achuar, Andwa, Awá, Chachi, Cofán, Épera, Kichwa, Amazonian Secoya, Shiwiar, Shuar, Siona, Tsáchila Waorani and Sápara. The INEC identifies them as "a set of ancient and constitutive peoples of the Ecuadorian State, who define themselves as such, who have a common historical identity, language, and culture, and also live in a determined territory through their institutions and traditional forms of social, economic , legal , political organization and exercise of authority.”, in Ecuador it’s actually even more specific than normal, taking into account language, ethnic group, culture, territorial dispersion and political institutions. Kaidros (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's all very interesting but the data in the table does not list people who self-identified as Chibuleo, Karanki, Kayambi, etc, but people who self-identified "by their culture and customs" as "indigenous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:A3D9:A4CD:ACDE:B867:7363 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not start by explicitly recognizing that "Indigenous" has multple meanings and so has no specific meaning unless accompanied by the source, definition and context information such as you describe above. And then provide that info/ attribution with ny such statements? North8000 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RCD

i negotiate a truce/ propose a compromise, since both figures are data, the table can include both, “7 million - 23 million” Kaidros (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I rather have an admin settle for one figure only, whichever it might be.

an administrator isn’t going to make a binding decision on a minor content dispute, for content disputes, it’s either a 3rd opinion or a mediator, the role of the mediator is to guide discussion towards the formation of agreement and a 3rd opinion is just a voluntary, nonbinding and informal process; it’s your choice.Kaidros (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I rather toss a coin then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:A3D9:A4CD:ACDE:B867:7363 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, if context information is required (i.e. it's not a slam dunk fact withouut it) IMO it really shouldn't be put in a place that doesn't allow it such as an info box. In short, my opinion is that you should completely remove indigenous populations from the info box. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That works for meKaidros (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think further context information is required, that's what citations are for. The info box almost exclusively lists census figures which is publicly accesible information of the highest reliability, all the relevant context can be found online, it's not some obscure author whose book you have to purchase. By that standard then we should completely remove "population" (forget about indigenous) from every infobox on every wikipedia page about a country.

you didn’t understand what he said, infoboxes are there for clean cut info, if the info requires context to understand it should be in the article portion with explanation not infobox.Kaidros (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I consider the figures in the infobox to be clean cut. They show people who self-identified as indigenous in all but a couple cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

it’s not up to your consideration, you can’t have clean cut statistics with different methodologies being conducted, my compromise proposals are already in the table, ranged figure to express there being different modes of classification or taking the figure out of the infobox, if you have another compromise please name it or choose which fits you better.Kaidros (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, going by that logic wikipedia shouldn't publish any data on population at all (not just indigenous one) for each country follows a different methodology to calculate the total population usually detailed in separate technical document. If that's the standard you think we should abide by then this infobox is a minor concern, start by deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia doesn’t “publish data”, people voluntarily contribute to the site based off external info, i ask you to focus on the article in question, what is your compromise for the resolution of this dispute?Kaidros (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"On January 23, 2020, the English-language Wikipedia, which is the largest language section of the online encyclopedia, published its six millionth article."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Current_state

What does that blue button below you will click to reply says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Don’t use straw man fallacies, i’m clearly saying wikipedia as an entity doesn’t collect or publish data, it’s people voluntarily providing it, now what’s your compromise?Kaidros (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is but a collection of data, what you mean is that we don't do original research, but Wikipedia does (re)publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My point was where there really needs a sentence to make a good statement, it shouldn't be in the info box because it doesn't allow that. The info box is basically a categorical statement due to it's brevity. So if the reality is 100 self-indentify as Indigenous, and 50 are Indigenous based on official government standards then IMO it needs to have those sentences in the body of the article and no "Indigenous = xx" in the info box. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay we can do that, take the infobox figure for mexico out and instead have contextualized information in the article.Kaidros (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see a reason why every other country listed in the infobox should abide by Mexican government identification standards or why Mexico should be the exception in a list that goes by self-identification when a comparable self-identification figure also from the Mexican government is available. You can expand the subject matter in the article (that's what it is for) including other available figures, but that is no reason to delete data from the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On a different note, putting large lists in the infobox is not the norm, to put it mildly.

Why not take them all out? Or an in-between solution would be to move them to a table, which has at lease a little more flexibility to include important explanatory wording? North8000 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason it might need explanatory wording is because Mexico has two ways of counting their indigenous population, one that needs explanatory wording for it's unlike that of any other country, and one that doesn't, for it's just like those of every other country with census data being listed.

yea the figure that’s like the other countries that been being used since the 19th century is 7-11 million, the figure which is new and cultural dependent (23 million) would need explanation, what’s your compromise?Kaidros (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The 19th century is the 1800s, frankly, if you can't even get that right I doubt you are competent enough to be editing Wikipedia.

“In the Mexican census history, the identification of the indigenous population has been carried out through the linguistic criterion, which considers indigenous people to be those who speak an indigenous language, and has been used in the 13 population and housing censuses from 1895 to 2010” - INEGI 2010, what is your compromise?Kaidros (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For example, the infobox here says 2.9 million for the US, the source given lists several different ones with explanations, and a wiki-editor seleteced the 2.9 from amongst them. And the lead of the native americans in the US article gives various numbers with explanations for each, ranging up to 9 million. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes i believe the USA stat is a bit misguiding, further context should be provided there too.Kaidros (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad you finally admit it's the "linguistic criterion" what Mexico uses, unfortunately that not what the other countries censuses are using, they go by self-identification and for the last 20 years Mexico has been collecting that data as well. So that's the data that should be in the infobox.

The 2.9 million figure corresponds to "American Indian and Alaska Native alone", meaning people who self-identified only as "American Indian and Alaska Native", where a possible answer was a combination of two or more races/ethnicities such as "American Indian and Alaska Native; White; Black or African American". Again, the documents linked provide sufficient guidance for understanding their figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

im quoting 2010, 2020 uses indigenous homes metric for final count, other countries use self belonging to ETHNIC GROUPS which is not the same as cultural survey, “7 million -23 million” or take it off and have contextual information on article.Kaidros (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The indigenous homes metric (based on a language question) is also exclusive to Mexico, the questions used to determine indigenous identity were separate from the ones used to determine specific indigenous groups. In the USA for example: "The American Indian and Alaska Native population includes people who marked the “American Indian or Alaska Native” checkbox or reported entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups."

Keyword being "or" not "and".

So in conclusion what you’re saying is, mexico has specific metrics different from the rest of the countries on the table, so from that, it should either have a ranged figure or not be confined to a table which it does not follow the mythology of and instead have contextual writings in the article, i’m good with either, your choice .Kaidros (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Mexico offers two metrics, the one that is most like those of the other countries is the one that should be listed in the infobox. The common denominator is that all those figures were obtained by asking a self-identification question (such as "do you consider yourself"), Mexico has that. The article can expand the information on the other metrics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

They’re all by self identification, the difference is that one is by dialect and classification to the ethnic category and one is by cultural self perception, none are by self classification to a specific ethnic group like the other countries, the “most like” to the others would be the household one since they actually offer the ethnic group in which they belong like all the other countries, what’s your choice.Kaidros (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, please point out the relevant self-identification question asked then. Classification (by a government agency) of a household into an ethnic category based on a question about language ("do you speak an indigenous language?", "what indigenous language do you speak?") answered by at least one of its members is not self-identification. Asking them: "According to your culture, do you consider yourself indigenous" is a self-identification question. The other countries' figures do not exclusively consider indigenous to be those who self-identified into a specific ethnic group for not identifying, not knowing and belonging to "indigenous" ethnic group were all acceptable answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

okay then only 7 million people actually identified themselves to form part of an indigenous ethnic group by dialectal classification which is how indigneous ethnic groups are classified in Mexico, that’s the most similar metric being used in context to the rest of the table, done we can put 7 million if you want.Kaidros (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, being asked "what indigenous language/dialect do you speak" is not a self-identification question, asking "what indigenous peoples do you belong to" is (same as "do you consider yourself indigenous"). The infobox compiles self-identification data, not the number of Nahuatl speakers, or a Maya speakers, etc, nor the number of people in households where at least one member declared to speak one of such languages.

actually that is self identification, one is just on culture and one on linguistic ethnicity, now what’s your compromise to resolve the dispute.Kaidros (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, saying I speak English doesn't make my "linguistic ethnicity" English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats a false equivalence my friend. what’s your preferred compromise for this dispute?Kaidros (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What is a false equivalence is saying that claiming to speak an indigenous language or dialect is the same as self-identifying as indigenous (or as Maya, Nahuatl, etc), being classified as such because the head of your household does so is also not self-identification. Saying "yes" when asked "Do you consider yourself indigenous?" is self-identification, saying "I'm Nahuatl" when asked "What indigenous peoples do you belong to?" is self-identification, else is classification by a third party. Infobox lists figures on self-identification, not Mexican government classification. I'd prefer for the table to list one figure only, but I'm willing to compromise if you are willing to settle this dispute in a creative, perhaps unorthodox way— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

1.Comparing English to any indigneous language in Mexico is a false equivalence 2. Maya/ Nahuatl are like saying “Hispanic”, they are linguistic ethnicities, if you speak a dialect of the mayan language branch you are mayan, nobody is being classified it’s just a categorization 3. the question starts with “in agreement to your culture…” don’t leave things out, it’s a cultural survey not an ethnic one (stop repeating points we already discussed it’s unproductive to the discussion) 4. what’s your compromise?Kaidros (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'm comparing is the nature of the question, it's not a table of "linguistic ethnicities" but of people who self-identified as "indigenous" and/or as belonging to a specific indigenous group independently of what language did they speak (being categorized as indigenous because the head of your household spoke a Mayan dialect is also not self-identification, it's categorization), the first part of the question doesn't invalidate the second (you can find other countries that asked a similar question but no country other than Mexico used questions about language to estimate their indigenous population). A wager so that we might decide between using both figures or just one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Im fine with using both figures 7-23 M.Kaidros (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a table about language, the 7 million figure is out of the question.

it’s also not a table about culture, The lowest metric used in Mexico is 7 million.Kaidros (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That metric corresponds to "Population 3 years an older speaker of an indigenous language", it is not comparable. Every other country also has data on the number of indigenous language speakers, but that's not what the infobox lists, it lists people who self-identified as "indigenous" and/or as belonging to a specific indigenous group, not as "indigenous language speakers", it is not the same for you can be indigenous and not speak an indigenous language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

don’t repeat the same points, what’s your proposal.Kaidros (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not willing to accept a 7 million figure, nowhere does Mexico define indigenous as "only the people who speak an indigenous language". According to INEGI: "Indigenous population is identified as the total population in households where the head of the household, his or her partner or any of their ascendants, declared to speak an indigenous language", that is 11.8 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

okay edit it to 11 million-23 million.Kaidros (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, since we can't roll a dice or flip a coin, it occurred to me the next best thing is a sports wager, if you are willing to consider it I'll detail it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

lmao, not sure about that but you can detail it if you want. Kaidros (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In a week Mexico will be playing Jamaica for the WC qualifiers and Peru will play against Colombia. If, in that one match, Mexico scores more points (3 for winning, 1 for a tie, 0 for losing) we go for 11.8 million, if Peru scores more points we keep the 23.2 million, if they score the same amount of points then we settle for "11.8 - 23.2" (each figure with their own citation). Just so we are clear this is only concerning the infobox, not the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not familiar with soccer so im not sure if that’s in your favor or mine, im more of a baseball guy myself, here, change the figure to 11-23 and maybe when friday rolls around or the day before, we can see.Kaidros (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While not perfect, the official FIFA rankings might give you with the general idea of it https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13505 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

idk i don’t wanna stretch this any longer it’s been like 5 days already plus it looks like mexico sucks at soccer, just add both figures and call it a day man.Kaidros (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

All we have to do is wait for the match results, that way watching them is more fun, at least for me it is.

yea but i want this to just be solved and done, don’t wanna stretch it out longer, just get a compromise on it and go our separate ways, are you down for the truce?Kaidros (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And you'll have it, it's just a week. It'll be solved for us so you can consider it done, it just so happens we don't know what is done yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:19:BDF7:CDAB:3F7D:5477:2456 (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

the bet was finished, mex scored more points.Kaidros (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Bet was about points "3 for winning, 1 for a tie, 0 for losing", not goals scored (and goal difference is the same btw, 1). I don't remember you explicitly accepting though, but I'll honor it anyway.

okay then its tie, 11-23 million Kaidros (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a quick analogy and what it says regarding the current question. So Source #1 and source #2 list the number of tall people in the world. Source #1 says "based on considering people over 6' 5" to be tall, the number is XXX million". Source #2 says "based on considering people over 6'6" to be tall, the number is YYY nillion" Both sources obviously recognize that the word "tall" has many different meanings. And so they they both made more specific statements. There is NO CONFLICT between their more specific statements. The only blunder would be if Wikipedia editors tried to list info on the # of tall people in a wiki-place (such as an info box) where they failed to list the rest of the specifics of the statement(s), specifically the criteria used for their particular number. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous capitalized?

Should "Indigenous" be capitalized? Editor2020 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, when referring to a group of people, same with Native. For more, please check out AP Style on the subject. Same with Chicago style. Grendel-taco (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Grendel-taco

Short description

I'm new to this article, so not in a position to dictate the short description; however, the previous one is completely inaccurate and implies Indigenous peoples don't exist here after European contact. I changed "Pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas" to "Native populations of South and North America," but the short description should probably be established by consensus. Grendel-taco (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Grendel-Taco.

I support this change. The old description was inaccurate (they have continued to exist for the last 500 years). Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I also support this change. Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's an improvement. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision

This page could be revised to better segment the page into recognisable and consistent discussion of the topic by region. Additionally, many paragraphs and citations could be clarified and updated to reflect contemporary thinking or evidence. PurpleReindeer (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How can European languages be indigenous?

Please explain. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Does the article claim they're indigenous languages to the Americas? Or it is simply saying those languages are spoken by Indigenous people?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 11:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Oncamera The section on languages and the main article on indigenous languages mentions no European languages nor does thus article nor are there sources for the infobox. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the best call here is to remove both the Languages and Religion sections of the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead (and article) talks about the present Indigenous people so it seems like the assimilation methods of forcing foreign languages and religions onto the Indigenous people should be included -- how else to explain the present day conditions? It's a glaring lack of history and deleting it from the infobox instead of updating the article is a strange response.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd happily support re-inclusion it if content like what you're proposing is added to the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Oncamera remove first, add content, then reinstate whatever is appropriate . Doug Weller talk 20:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Moxy and 162.192.142.210 (will post a user talk message), who have both recently edited the language portion of the infobox. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I added the language section back to the infobox. 162.192.142.210 (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I would remove languages from the infobox entirely. It seems to me to be WP:RECENTISM given that throughout history, the indigenous peoples of the Americas have spoken a wide variety of languages, most of which are very obscure and/or unknown. The infobox cannot possibly list all 300+ known languages spoken in the present day US, let alone other parts of the Americas. So it should just be omitted. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems the best solution. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. And on top of that, the current proposed set of languages to include does not even include any indigenous languages, merely a link at the bottom of a list of European languages to our article on indigenous languages in general. I also have the same issues with the religion category just below languages, which currently follows the same pattern. Heiro 17:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree on taking it out. Info boxes are brief oversimplifications that should be reserved for slam-dunk clear items so my infobox opinion is: when in doubt, take it out. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Andean man" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Andean man and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11 § Andean man until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Source for disputed content

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genomes-reveal-humanitys-journey-into-the-americas/ Moxy- 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Greenland data corresponds to "born in Greenland"

Greenland data corresponds to "born in Greenland." Most of those born in Greenland are mixed (with a lot of Danish ancestry,) as are the Metis of Canada (with French/English/Scottish) and others. 2603:6011:A400:259:B179:4975:3A5C:98DE (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Genetic research section

I am confused about the last paragraph of this section. It says "Native Americans are very closely related to the Paleosiberian tribes of Siberia, and to the ancient samples of the Mal'ta–Buret' culture (Ancient North Eurasians) as well as to the Ancient Beringians, but overall not closely related to any other population. Although Native Americans also share relative higher affinity towards East Asian peoples, they are not directly related, but share partial ancestry with each other." I do not understand how Native Americans are "very closely related to...Ancient North Eurasians" but not directly related to East Asians, given ANE ancestry makes up only about 1/3 of Native American ancestry with the majority (2/3) being East Asian? Which is supported in the sources cited, e.g., Reference [294] "Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans" in the supplementary information file, page 76, titled "SI 12. MixMapper Analysis," shows Karitiana, the Native American reference population, has 26.1% MA1/ANE ancestry with the remainder (73.9%) coming from Han/East Asians. Basically, I am confused how Native Americans and ANE are considered very closely related whereas Native Americans and East Asians only indirectly and partially, when the East Asian ancestry is more. I think this paragraph needs some minor revision, unless somebody cares to explain/elaborate why it is fine in its current state. Also, @CorbieVreccan you wrote to me that my edit was the reverse of what is sourced. Could you please elaborate specifically what I wrote that was the "reverse of what is sourced?" Thanks. Xadiiujhy (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Xadiiujhy

You made a handful of changes to the text in your edits, in several different places. Some of your rewordings only slightly altered the meanings, while others read like reversals, or were just confusing. As you offered no new sources, I think you should either offer sources or provide direct quotes from the current sources that support your changes. Either way, when making multiple changes in meaning it's good to seek consensus. And please do so in a way that other editors can navigate without an overwhelming amount of time and effort. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the edits, this doesn't look to be the article you did the reversals on. You did a series of similar edits on related articles, and with the walls of text it's been difficult to keep track of which ones you are talking about. When I requested that you take your opinions about article content from user talk to article talk, I meant the relevant articles. Right now I'm not interested in debating your personal interpretations and theories. Just cite the content appropriately and follow policy, and stop pinging me about this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That was precisely the section I did the reversal on. Also, I asked you for the specific edits I wrote that were "reversals of the source material," which you haven't provided. Instead, you accuse me of writing stuff that is the reverse of what the sources say--if you accuse me of that, the burden is on you to tell me specifically what I wrote that is the reverse. "or were just confusing" nothing I wrote was confusing, it was very straighforward language, and I didn't write any completely new sentences, just modified some of the preexisting ones. And again, you're making an accusation without telling me specifically what was wrong. And you're telling me to seek consensus when making changes, but that is exactly what I am trying to do right now, yet you seem unwilling to engage with me, telling me to stop pinging you about this. And I don't understand how what I wrote is my own personal interpretations and theories, but that doesn't apply to other people? I gave specific evidence from one of the articles sourced, how is that my own personal interpretation and theory? By the way, this Is a civil discussion, if my tone appears hostile it is not meant to be that way. But if you want me to stop pinging you about this, then I will, but I don't know how I am supposed to gain consensus about edits in the future, if nobody wants to talk to me about it. Xadiiujhy (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Taking this to user talk as this is a conduct issue, not about this article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good evening. The article posted to earlier may be out of date. I don't know if you took a look at the site, MyTrueAncestry. In addition to comparing the dna of living people today with ancient samples, it also lets you compare the genomes of historic samples. What I found is that the samples of Indigenous peoples of the Americas such as the Algonquins and the Ojibwe keep coming up as being more closely related to the Saka Scythians than they are to the Chinese which is interesting. It even shows how closely related each Indigenous American sample is to other samples from throughout the Americas including the Caribbean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:D0D1:8EB3:4E24:CFCE (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't capitalize "indigenous" when it's not part of a proper noun

Capitalizing "indigenous" when it's not part of a proper noun violates Wikipedia's internal policy of neutrality. Not everybody agrees with the word being capitalized in all cases, and it's not grammatically correct to capitalize it when it's not part of a proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeecee75 (talk • contribs)

Per MOS:RACECAPS, Indigenous is capitalized when referring to Indigenous people. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jeecee75, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have certain guidelines for editing. In this case we follow the standards of the Associated Press, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA and others mentioned above. Here is more information:

Style Guides on Indigenous terminology and other issues. Like "Native American", "Indigenous" is capitalized when referring to people.

• From the Associated Press

AP changes writing style to capitalize ″b″ in Black. By The Associated Press, June 19, 2020. "The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place."

• From APA style

APA Style - Racial and Ethnic Identity. Section 5.7 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition, September 2019.

Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. ... capitalize terms such as “Native American,” “Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize “Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations”).}}

• From The Chicago Manual of Style

Capitalization: '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.'

Decisions regarding style guidelines and the WP manual of style has been developed over many years through the process of consensus. Netherzone (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

But your style of capitalizing "indigenous" violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. There can be no style manual that you and others in your small group decided on for the general readership/authorship of Wikipedia. You are violating what Wikipedia was meant for. Jeecee75 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

All of the replies from you and the other editors/administrators on here don't refute what I'm saying. You just keep saying what you want. Refute my assertion that you're violating Wikipedia's policy of neutrality; you can't refute it, because you are violating it. Jeecee75 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Its' in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you want to dispute that go over there and stop making disruptive edits until you've got an answer. Poketama (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO the MOS (BTW a guideline) does not directly support the argument for universal capitalization. The word itself is descriptive rather than inherently referring to a people. So IMO the MOS example (e.g. Japanese) extending it's use to where it is merely an adjective is not applicable. But when it is as noun referring to a people it should be capitalized. So IMO the MOS does not conflict with the external authorities quoted which provide more detailed and precise guidance on this. For example, in "indigenous languages" IMO it should not be capitalized.....it is an adjective for languages and is not referring to a people unlike "Japanese language" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent with page "European people"

There is a page European people yet this page isn't called "Indigenous peoples of Europe". This page should either be called "American people" or the other page "Indigenous peoples of Europe". 31.20.106.40 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The term American can refer to many things and is confusing. It can refer to citizens of the United States or of North/South America. Any race can claim to be American if they are a citizen of those countries/continents. However, Indigenous peoples of the Americas is clear that it's about people who did not immigrate to these places from overseas within a modern time frame. Indigenous people of Europe are under focus in the article Ethnic groups in Europe, not European people, which isn't even an article page.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

What about "Indigenous Americans" or "Amerindians"? Fahamarinana (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Manually reverted 12/3 edit which removed European countries from Infobox

Manually reverted some of the edits made by "2001:1388:19:313f:1c16:5263:9533:585d" on December 3, 2023 at 17:48 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&oldid=1188172095). They left a comment stating "Removed European countries from the inbobox".

They removed my previous contributions which added population numbers to the infobox for Indigenous Americans living in Denmark, Russia, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway and Barbados. I reverted the additions for Denmark, Russia and Barbados because the citations are solid and it is consistent with other pages such as Indigenous Australians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians) which lists the population residing in New Zealand. The page for "Maori people" also lists their population living in Australia, UK, Canada, US and "other regions". Greenlandic Inuit have lived in Denmark for generations and their number exceeds the number of indigenous peoples in many states in the Americas. Indigenous people living in diaspora are still indigenous.

I also added Netherlands to the infobox because I found a source on Indigenous Surinamese migration to the Netherlands. I did not revert the removal of Iceland, Faroe Islands and Norway given the small population numbers but I may add them back in the future depending on what the community thinks.

If anybody has any information on Indigenous American communities in former European colonial states like Portugal, Spain, Britain or France, please share or add to the page. Numbers are hard to come by but there's no doubt that tens of thousands of Indigenous Americans from Central/South American have settled in Europe of the centuries. Fahamarinana (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)