Talk:List of larger indigenous peoples of Russia

Requested move 19 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

---

List of larger indigenous peoples of Russia → List of titular nations of Russia – All the article contains is a list of titular nations of Russia. It'd make sense to change the article's name to reflect this. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians are not a titular nation of Russia. But then they also don’t meet the conventional international definition of an Indigenous people (see Indigenous peoples#United Nations).  —Michael Z. 21:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I guess Russians actually don’t belong in this list, since they are neither Indigenous nor titular. My comment is probably immaterial as to the proposed move.  —Michael Z. 21:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all of them in the list have been described as "Titular Nations", atleast in the article.

Circassians

Aghuls

Avars

Aukhovite Chechens

Ethnic Azerbaijanis in Dagestan (mainly in Derbent and its suburbs)

Kumyks

Laks

Lezgins

Nogais

Rutuls

Tabasarans

Tats

Tsakhurs

I am not an expert on Russian ethnicities, so if you have sources for these being titular nations do share. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

21 republics of Russia, 4 autonomous okrugs of Russia, and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast have titular nations (some more than one). Not sure if that represents the full list of titular nations, or if it corresponds to the larger indigenous peoples.  —Michael Z. 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious

Russians are not one of the Indigenous peoples of Russia. They are not designated as such and they do not meet the international definition of an Indigenous people. Editors should stop trying to add them to this list. —Michael Z. 20:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve asked for input from WP:INDAM, WP:IPNA, and WP:IPAU.  —Michael Z. 20:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The source listed definitely does not support the claim. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the source to support the clarification about the term “state-forming people,” but that has nothing to do with membership in this list IMO.  —Michael Z. 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it unless there is proper sourcing added. Your point above on them not meeting the UN definition is also a good reason to remove absent sourcing. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians undeniably have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that existed on the landmass that is today's Russia. The East Slavs, from whom ethnic Russians are descended, have occupied the eastern European plain for centuries, long before the formation of the modern Russian state. Ethnic Russians have distinct cultural practices, language, and traditions that differentiate them from other ethnic groups within Russia. This cultural distinctiveness fits with the UN's understanding of indigenous peoples. Their exclusion from the list of indigenous peoples in Russia could be interpreted as a denial of their long-standing historical and cultural ties to the East Slavic land. I would also like to mention that deleting ethnic Russians from the page due to lack of adequate sourcing would imply that many other ethnic groups should also be deleted from this page. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, you could remove the ones that you have reason to believe are not Indigenous peoples.

“Ethnic Russians undeniably have a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies”!? Do you know about the Russian and Soviet empires? Russia was a colonizer, not a colony.  —Michael Z. 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So if you look at Indigenous peoples#United_Nations: They form at present non-dominant sectors of society is part of the general definition and that may exclude ethnic Russians from the definition. But if there is a WP:RS that labels them as indigenous peoples we could include them and we should probably remove indigenous peoples that aren't sourced or add sourcing. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary to consider that the definition of "indigenous" may extend beyond the specific UN interpretation which explicitly refers to non-dominant sectors of society. Most definitions have indigenous as more or less a synonym as "native", and that is how it is popularly understood. The dominance of an ethnic group in society should not exclude them from indigenous status. If that were the case, we would have to reconsider many other groups typically accepted as indigenous. For instance, the Japanese are the dominant ethnic group in Japan, yet they are recognized as the indigenous population. (We should also consider that 'non-dominance' in the UN's definition might refer more to the group's political and economic power rather than its demographic majority. Arguably, ethnic Russians have not been consistently dominant politically and economically throughout history, especially in the periods of Mongol domination and the political disarray after the dissolution of the USSR; this is a minor point though.) Chamaemelum (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So, no sources at all support it?  —Michael Z. 03:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I just don't think you're right on how it is popularly understood. For example, if you google "indigenous people of Japan" you get results about the Ainu people and some mention of Okinawans. You don't get many results about Japanese people.

Setting aside the debate on terms, you need a source to meet the verifiability requirement for adding new content to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I see you used a few phrases from the UN definition but—um, wow—weren’t exactly true to its spirit. From Indigenous peoples#United Nations:

Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those that, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

Shame.  —Michael Z. 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The UN definition is relevant in discussions on indigenous peoples. However, it was primarily framed to protect marginalized groups. While it provides a good baseline, it doesn't cover every possible scenario globally. I acknowledge that the situation of ethnic Russians doesn't neatly fit into that definition--though it isn't opposed to it, either. When referencing "indigenous people of Japan," the majority of results may pertain to the Ainu, but that does not mean the ethnic Japanese are not indigenous to Japan. The emphasis on the Ainu probably stems from their marginalized status and the greater need to protect their culture, heritage, and rights (being a minority). A similar search for "indigenous people of Russia" would likely return results on the many marginalized ethnic groups within the country, not necessarily because ethnic Russians aren't indigenous but because these groups need more attention. I have sources, but I see discussion as a first step. After all, I also have quality secondary sources that say ethnic Russians are the indigenous people of Ukraine (or Crimea), but that would be rightly deleted. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is not an optional policy waivable by discussion. Please provide reliable sources to the challenged content you would like restored. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sources, but I see discussion as a first step. This means that I will do both before I make the edit. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, get back to us when you’re willing to reveal your sources.  —Michael Z. 15:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Crimean Tatars are among the Indigenous peoples of Crimea. They were colonized by Russia from 1783 and later ethnically cleansed in a genocidal forced resettlement, in favour of other, non-Indigenous peoples, including Russians, and continue to be marginalized and persecuted under Russian occupation. The false claim thatn”Crimea was always Russian” is rhetoric that accompanies atrocity crimes which are still being committed.  —Michael Z. 12:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the key distinction here is semantics: does indigenous mean "native to the land", or does it mean "a marginalized minority native to the land". (A search of dictionary definitions sides with the former, but it's true that it has a connotation of "especially, but not exclusively" minority groups. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There’s a common adjective indigenous, which can be applied to plants and animals, and perhaps individuals born in a place. This list is specific to Indigenous peoples, i.e. nations, to which the specific subsense of the word is applied. Consult any dictionary.  —Michael Z. 12:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not define "Indigenous peoples" as that refers to a phrase. For example, it is not in Oxford or Merriam-Webster. Peoples is a word and indigenous is a word: the definition of indigenous peoples arises from the definition of indigenous by itself. Let's look at how it's defined:

Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group

used to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else

used to refer to plants and animals that grow or live naturally in a place, and have not been brought there from somewhere else (the definition you referred to.)

originating in and characteristic of a particular region or country; native (often followed by to)

Indigenous. relating to or being a people who are the original, earliest known inhabitants of a region, or are their descendants:

Indigenous people or things belong to the country in which they are found, rather than coming there or being brought there from another country.

(of people and their culture) coming from a particular place and having lived there for a long time before other people came there; relating to, belonging to or developed by these people

Use indigenous to describe a plant, animal or person that is native or original to an area

I hope this clears up the proper definition of indigenous, and how it is applied to people. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point on word usage in context. In an article about a specific topic area (verifiable indigenous peoples) terms of art have specific contextual meaning. A specific definition overrides a general definition. Here, the UN Definition is much more appropriate to the topic than dictionary definitions. Plus at this point, we have no source to WP:Verify the claim you want added to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster (2023) has a specific sense 1b, capitalized “Indigenous,” “. . . and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group,” and with the example phrase “Indigenous peoples.”[1]

Oxford Dictionary of English (2022) has a specific sense 2. capitalized “often Indigenous,” “of people . . . from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.”

The specific, capitalized, sense refers to people, not animals or plants, and does not refer to Russians because they were always the dominant group where they lives, never colonized, and the non-Indigenous colonizers in 95% or more of Russian territory. All of the other peoples mentioned in this list were colonized by Russia.

Russians do not qualify as an Indigenous people either under international law, under the World Bank’s definition, nor under Russian law.[2]  —Michael Z. 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Based on your definition Russians are indeed "of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group". Russians are also clearly "of people . . . from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists". The fact that they were not colonized does not preclude them from being indigenous by your preferred definitions.

"Russian law" does not specify who is indigenous. It specifically specifies "small-number" indigenous peoples. Indeed, the need to include that qualifier implies the existance of a larger-number indigenous people not on that list. Let's look at their criteria:

"Living in the historical territories of their ancestors." - Any group that has resided within the same territory for a significant period could be considered indigenous. Ethnic Russians have resided within what is now Russia for centuries.

"Preserving their traditional way of life, occupations, and folk art [handicrafts]." - Again, ethnic Russians have continued to uphold aspects of their traditional way of life, culture, and crafts.

"Self-recognizing themselves as a separate ethnicity." - Ethnic Russians recognize themselves as a distinct ethnic group, different from other ethnic groups present within Russia.

Of course, the text also mentions a size restriction for groups to be recognized as small-number indigenous in Russia, stating that they must number at most 50,000 people within Russia. We can see that Russians indeed qualify for all the criteria except are not small-numbered.

The World Bank's criteria for indigenous peoples are designed for policy application within their own operations. These criteria are not specifically tailored for the purpose of creating a comprehensive list of indigenous peoples worldwide. The focus of the World Bank is primarily on providing financial and technical assistance for development projects, rather than establishing a definitive list of indigenous peoples. Obviously, for these purposes, it is useful for the WB to specify minority group in particular. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that is just wrong. Since I’ve cited sources supporting my argument, and you’ve brought none, I think I am done with this discussion.  —Michael Z. 20:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your sources support the inclusion of ethnic Russians on this list, as ethnic Russians conform to the definitions at the sources you provided. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

At this point, the repeating of the same argument and not providing any WP:RS to support the claim is borderline WP:FILIBUSTERING. I recommend you provide a reliable source that says Russian people meet the definition of Indigenous peoples or WP:DROPTHESTICK. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. It seems like you're unintentionally misinterpreting what I'm trying to convey (not trying to assign fault), because you replied with something(s) that do not follow/relate to/refute my statements. We can look to the consensus of previous and future editors on this issue instead. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with Chamaemelum, that ethnic Russians indeed belong to Russia's indigenous peoples since ethnic Russians fulfill two main criteria for being indigenous: first "Historical continuity with pre-invasion and/or pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories" and second "A strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources" proof link https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/2016/10/indigenous-peoples-and-the-united-nations-human-rights-system-ohchr/ Thus, I do not really understand, why are you trying so hardly to reject this. Maybe you can explain, why do you think that United Nations basis documents work for some group of indigenous ethnicities and do not work for others like ethnic Russians? 2001:7D0:886B:5000:19A2:9A09:5B59:2F60 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All that is being asked for here is one verifiable, reliable source to support the claim before adding it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s a complete misinterpetation. Russia is the colonial society that created an empire by colonizing all of the Indigenous peoples beyond the grand principality of Muscovy and tsardom of Russia.  —Michael Z. 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I will argue that being colonized and colonizer is not mutually exclusive. I do see both sides of the argument here but to give an example some among my people, the Navajo, would argue while we were colonized by the USA we also in turn colonized the Hopi. AevumNova (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re saying the Indigenous Russians in Russia have been invaded and colonized by someone . . . ?  —Michael Z. 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As a whole many Slavs were conquered and genocided during the events of WW2. Though Slav as a label includes many other groups aside from just Russians.

It's definitely not as clear cut as say the First Nation peoples.

It's very difficult to make these decisions in general on Wikipedia because they are a matter of academic and political dispute. AevumNova (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

[citation needed]  —Michael Z. 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No one here has been using citations this far. That aside, what in particular are you wanting citations for?

The conflicting view of scholars on the definitions of indigenous people? Or that Slavs were targets of genocide in WW2? AevumNova (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The “academic dispute” about the colonization of the Russian people by [whom?] and their Indigenous status.  —Michael Z. 22:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I cannot provide evidence for a claim one has put in my mouth rather then one I have made myself.

I would be happy to provide sources regarding the controversy of what is considered indigenous people in general or as to the genocide and invasions the Slavs endured in WW2. AevumNova (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is difficult to help with, in the Americas the notion of what groups are indigenous or not are much more clear cut.

I am not sure in this instance, great points are brought by both sides here. It mainly comes down to how we would define indigenous which has two competing defintions that doesn't affect our defintions in the Americas like it would in this situation.

I am sorry I couldn't provide more help but I will say that in an international context that "indigenous peoples" typically specifically means persecuted indigenous groups as a result of colonization. AevumNova (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@AevumNova Maybe we could define in the article that the list doesn't refer to "native" individuals or indigenous in the dictionary sense, but refers to instead to the context you alluded to. Or we could change the title/add a description saying "Indigenous minority groups in Russia"... or something... 🤷‍♀️ Chamaemelum (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)