Talk:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

message: I've removed the neutrality tag from the criticism section. It doesn't appear to me to compromise the article's neutrality, especially considering that the nations in question all appear to have eventually signed it. I'm also guided by the instructions at Template:POV not to indefinitely leave a neutrality tag on an article. 
If others disagree, however, I'll be glad to hear suggestions for how you would rather organize the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag in criticism section 

message: I've added some information about core policies of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies that adopt and uphold this Declaration. As an Australian Government statutory agency and the only such body in Australia that researches and maintains a collection relating to Australian Indigenous languages and societies I thought it was important to this article to know that the Institute extensively quotes the Declaration in these policies. Particularly as these are two essential policies to the Institute, that govern how research is conducted and how the collection is maintained and used, and so show a different attitude towards the Declaration within Australia than that which was already presented in the article. 
I have struggled a little with where exactly the information should be placed. I started out adding it to the existing section on Australia, but that doesn't really fit as it relates to opposition to the Declaration. I've settled on placing in the support and compromises section but it could also possibly be better suited to negotiation and adoption. Thoughts? 
Also wondering if anyone knows of any other peak bodies in Australia that have based their policies etc on this Declaration? LizLou (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsequent support within Australia

message: Do we need the section on Quebec, which for international purposes is just part of Canada? Wikiain (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925080146/http://news.usask.ca/2011/10/12/canada-research-chairs-announced/ to http://news.usask.ca/2011/10/12/canada-research-chairs-announced/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102195634/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=eec0b550-e95a-492b-8801-6ede20a2d35e to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=eec0b550-e95a-492b-8801-6ede20a2d35e
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011071636/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=23df9769-3423-4f43-b828-a755725c2719&k=23677 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=23df9769-3423-4f43-b828-a755725c2719&k=23677
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908110951/http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4850%3Anew-zealand-statement-on-adoption-of-declaration-at-un-permanent-forum-on-indigenous-issues&catid=58%3Aoceania-indigenous-peoples&Itemid=80 to http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4850%3Anew-zealand-statement-on-adoption-of-declaration-at-un-permanent-forum-on-indigenous-issues&catid=58%3Aoceania-indigenous-peoples&Itemid=80
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019173349/http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xraca/documents/text/idc1-021809.pdf to http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xraca/documents/text/idc1-021809.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At some places in the article, one reads that 143 countries signed for, but at other places one reads 144. Surfing the web, I found some sources claiming 143 and other sources claiming 144. I tried to find out what's the truth, but finally, I give up. Does anyone reading what I write now knows: 143 or 144? Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.42.215 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many 133 or 134 signed? 

message: UNDRIP is presently listed, which omits the words beginning with lowercased (on the, of) from acronym. Page didn't doesn't acutally include UN. You can see DOTROIP is also used in following:
*https://zhengchunjanet.tk/pokahzgtqsfndjiecxwulmryavb5f3afaf155.pdf "DOTROIP-24-2-PDF"
Will add mention to page. 70.51.193.44 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate initialism

message: This sentence reads like propaganda to me: "The ongoing process of implementation will propel reconciliation forward in BC." Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but certainly this is not an authoritative statement and thus it doesn't belong on Wikipedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.128.17 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to 'is intended to propel reconciliation forward'. Still not great, but it really is a statement of intent by the BC gov. Alaney2k (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion presented as fact. 

message: The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs  reports:
'India voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on the condition that after independence all Indians are indigenous. Therefore, it does not consider the concept of "indigenous peoples", and therefore the UNDRIP, applicable to India.'
 https://www.iwgia.org/en/india.html 
2001:8F8:1623:4EBA:DDD4:CADD:9543:F91B (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add section on India? 

message: Can we have a map that shows all the signatories? 174.95.16.48 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: A recent edit changed a phrase in the "Current applications#Implementations" section of the article from "states with large settler-colonial portions of the total population" to "states with a settler-colonial history". I think that the first version was quite awkward, but I feel the second version is too vague. Perhaps something along the lines of "states with a population dominated by descendents of colonial settlers" would work better. Donald Albury 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording on colonial settlers