":Hi Labongo. Just to clarify a little, the criterion about self-identification as an indigenous people is actually one that is frequently and explicitly used by the major sources and bodies concerned with indigenous peoples' affairs and status. It was paraphrased a little for the article, but if you examine a few of the most-consulted definitions (such as UN, World Bank, ILO, etc) you will see that it's embedded in many of these formulations, with a deliberate intent. See for example the definitional quotes from these organisations, that used to be in the 'definitions' section of this article but now seems to have been split off into Definitions of the term Indigenous. As such, I think the criterion needs to remain mentioned along with the others that appear in the opening paras.

The statement ""Note that even if all the above criteria are fulfilled, some people may either not consider themselves as indigenous or may not be considered as indigenous by governments, organizations or scholars"" does not quite mean the same thing. While that statement itself is fine as far as it goes, IMO it's not an adequate replacement. Self-identification and recognition is part of the ""set"" of criteria that are often referred to in indigenous rights contexts.

I can see some rationale in the recent splitting out of the former content of the 'definitions' section into that separate article, however at the same time I think that this present indigenous peoples article does need to devote perhaps more space than we usually do to covering definitions and usage of terms/terminology. It's an area where there's a lot of general misconception and confusion between the common, adjectival and the formal, specific usage of words like indigenous, and even of the concept of indigenous peoples' rights and concerns (a lot of the discourse on this talkpg and others related are along these lines, for eg.) I think we could probably spare a few more paras to cover the most salient points and prominent definitions, so the detail's not all spliced away into a different article. Thoughts?  ʘ TALK 

"