Talk:Indigenous peoples: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:37, 9 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indigenous peoples article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 28 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does this article only include "minority" ethnic groups?

A: Because we apply the definition of "indigenous peoples" used by international legislation by the UN, UNESCO, the ILO and the WTO, which applies to those ethnic groups that were indigenous to a territory prior to being incorporated into a national state, and who are politically and culturally separate from the majority ethnic identity of the state of which they are a part.

Q: Why does this article not include European ethno-national groups such as the Irish, French, Georgians, etc.? They are also indigenous to their countries.

A: Yes, they are indigenous to their countries and territories, but they are not indigenous peoples under the definition used by international legislation described above. The reason this definition is useful is that under a broader definition of "indigenous" simply as "native to a territory", the definition would include all peoples and ethnic groups, because all groups are indigenous to somewhere. The article would then have the same scope as an article on the ethnic groups of the world and it would be redundant as a separate article. Furthermore, literature on indigenous peoples always applies a definition similar to that used in international legislation, precisely because otherwise it would simply be an article about human political, cultural and migrational history; that is another topic. This is the RfC in which the inclusion criteria were decided by broad consensus.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 9, 2010.

Ethnic groups Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Definitions

Hello all

I have significantly rewritten and restructured this section to make it more logical and to better reflect the sources. The majority of sources state unequivocally that there is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples and this needs to be stated clearly at the beginning of the section. The various attempts to describe or define the coverage of Indigenous peoples then need to be clearly stated in order of their current importance. Therefore the UN needs to go first because it is the major international body dealing with Indigenous issues and has adopted the major international agreements; that is the ILO Convention of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have created a sub-heading on Historical Definitions where I have placed some information on older definitions which are now out of date and only of historical interest.

I have also changed some sub-heading. For example, the section on National definitions wasn't about national definitions at all, but was a description of the approach of an international body: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. I have deleted the section on the World Health Organization because it is a UN body and since 2007 has adopted the UN approach of not defining Indigenous Peoples.

This is a very tricky section to get right and I am not sure I have got it right, so I would welcome any comments you might have on my approach. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hello all

I have rewritten this because the old version read like a separate mini-article with different content and sources from the rest of the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and should not contain different content and sources. See: MOS:LEAD. I have moved most of the content to the relevant parts of the article (namely, Definitions, Population and Distribution, and Indigenous Rights) and have briefly summarized the key content for the lead.

The other problem was that it was contradictory, giving a definition in the first sentence then stating in the next sentence that there is no definition. While it would be nice to have a clear definition of Indigenous Peoples, the fact is that the majority of sources state unequivocally that there is no generally accepted definition, and it is not our job as editors to create one in the face of the sources. All we can do is accurately state the current approach in the UN, international law and other major bodies.

I have kept the lead brief because most of the article is unsourced or uses out of date sources and therefore cannot be confidently summarized in the lead. I suggest that a top priority for editors interested in the article should be to update the information in the article with more recent reliable sources. Changes to the lead should then summarize the reliable content of the article adhering to policy on the lead, verifiability, and neutral point of view.

I am not at all sure that I have got the lead right so I would be grateful for any comments or suggestions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population and distribution

Hello all

I have added information which was in the lead and have edited other information to make it consistent with the sources and the rest of the article. Also please see the above discussions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Hello all

I have changed the short description of Indigenous Peoples from "Earliest known inhabitants of an area" to " Peoples who identify as Indigenous and have a special attachment to their traditional territory." This better reflects the recent trend in the UN and international law whereby the most important factor in determining whether a people is Indigenous is their self-determination as such. Few recent sources state that Indigenous Peoples must be the first known people to inhabit a territory. This is because it is often very difficult to determine who first migrated to an area and whether any other groups were displaced or coexisted in the same area. The emphasis now is on whether a group identifies as Indigenous, existed on tradition lands when it was colonized, settled or current state boundaries were introduced, whether they have a special relationship to traditional territory, and whether they have experienced oppression by a dominant culture. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting debate since it deals with the definition itself of the word indigenous. I personally do not feel your change has improved the short description since it renders lots of potential problems, for example Europeans who have lived in North America for 300 years can be considered indigenous? I think most will agree Native Americans or Aboriginals are considered indigenous and not Europeans even if they were there for several hundred years... It's a complicated issue and I commend your efforts in trying to address it and am open to continue discussing and I await the input of other editors. Happy New Year :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aemilius Adolphin, but I have to agree with @Homerethegreat - your change to the short description still brings up a lot of issues. Just look at the discussion above surrounding the "indigenous" status of the Palestinians who lived in the Palestine territories (or whatever the terminology is) prior to the 1948 formation of modern-day Israel. Many Palestinian Arabs who have been living in "Palestine" for generations would surely call themselves indigenous to the land. Despite this, there are ongoing challenges from Israeli Jews who also claim indigenous status to the area, even if many of them are recent immigrants from Europe or Asia (especially other parts of West Asia). I'm sure there are counterarguments, just like the Europeans living in North America, that many Israeli Jews who are recent immigrants from other parts of the world are not really "indigenous" to Palestine/Israel/West Asia/the Levant/etc. But the Palestinian peoples do not appear to have recognized "indigenous" status as of January 2024 (save for one nomadic group IIRC).

Personally, I think something like People who are identify as or are legally considered indigenous to an area may clear up some of that confusion, especially since being considered "indigenous" is a rather arbitrary and touchy subject.

It clearly isn't about being the Earliest known inhabitants of an area, as the previous description stated, since, for example, I have never seen confirmation that the Sami people arrived thousands of years earlier than the other Nordic ethnic groups (Norwegian, Swedes, Finns, etc). Plus either way, no Norwegian or Finn I've known would say that their people are actually "indigenous" to say... Nigeria and not Norway or Finland respectively. The same goes with the Irish Travellers being legally considered "indigenous" peoples. Nor does indigenous identity revolve entirely around European settlers and their colonies, as noted by the opening section.

Furthermore, the current short description stating that one must have a "special attachment to their traditional territory", or some source definitions of being "indigenous" discussing how they're in touch with one's "traditional culture" seems dubious to me to. People who are ethnically Korean, or French, or German make up the vast majority of people in South Korea, France and Germany respectively. I'm sure they would all consider themselves to be "native" to those aforementioned countries and have a special attachment/identity to their homelands. All of those countries also have cultural festivals to honour and celebrate their respective heritages and what not. But as far as I know, neither of those three ethnic groups are legally considered "indigenous" to their countries and are not included in the population figures for being "indigenous".

Though the page notes that there is no single definition of the term "indigenous" that everyone can agree with, modern ideas seem to have some of overlap with many groups considered "indigenous" are largely nomadic, tribal, marginalized, minorities, etc. Because broadly speaking, much of the world is "indigenous" to their lands. Unless the majority of South Asians would say that they're really "indigenous" to East Asia or something like that.

That said, I'm obviously open to debate and again, I'm aware that this subject is rather contentious. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points. The problem we have is that coming up with a short description flies against the recent trend of avoiding definitions in favour of lists of indicators. We are supposed to stick to the consensus of reliable sources but the relevant consensus is not to provide a short description of Indigenous peoples! The only indicator which has general support is self identification as Indigenous peoples. But, as you point out, that's not enough in itself. The problem with your suggestion of "People who identify as or are legally considered indigenous to an area" is that there is no legally binding list of Indigenous peoples in international law, and national laws tend to deliberately use different categories (such as "tribal peoples") in order to avoid admitting that they are Indigenous. One possibility is: "People who identify as Indigenous to an area and are recognized as Indigenous by the international community." The problem with this, however, is that the second part of the definition "...and are recognized as Indigenous by the international community" is only implied by the relevant sources, even if it seems self-evident. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the difficulty of concisely defining this term (see 90% of the discussions on this talk page), I'd leave this as {{short description|none}}. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Indigenous peoples. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

please add to the existing article:

Indigenous peoples by region

Asia

Central Asia

The Iranian peoples are indigenous to much of Central Asia, descending from the ancient Proto-Iranians.^[1] By the 1st millennium AD, their area of settlement was reduced by Slavic, Germanic, Turkic, and Mongolic expansions, and they were subject to Slavicization^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] and Turkification.^[6]

Today, modern indigenous groups include the Tajiks in northern and western Afghanistan, most of Tajikistan and southern Uzbekistan,^[7] the Pamiris in eastern Tajikistan (Gorno-Badakhshan, Afghanistan (Badakhshan), Pakistan (Gilgit-Baltistan) and China (Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County), and Yaghnobis in Tajikistan (Sughd Region).

Southeast Asia

Thailand was inhabited by several indigenous groups before the arrival of the ethnolinguistically Tai peoples, including Austroasiatic speaking groups (Khmer Surin, Khmu, Kuy, Lawa, Mon, Paluang and others), Sino-Tibetan speaking groups (Akha, Karen, Lahu, Lisu and others), Austronesian speaking groups (Malay, Moken, and Urak Lawoi), and Hmong-Mien speaking peoples (Hmong, Miao, and Yao).^[8] Various groups who inhabit the high mountainous Northern and Western regions of the country are refered to as Chao Khao (ชาวเขา), literally "Hill tribes" by the Thai Government.^[9]

Dilshodjon24666 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Young, T. Cuyler Jr. (1988). "The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses". In Boardman, John; Hammond, N. G. L.; Lewis, D. M.; Ostwald, M. (eds.). Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 11 (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-22804-2. The Iranians are one of the three major ethno-linguistic groups who define the modern Near East.
^ Brzezinski, Richard; Mielczarek, Mariusz (2002). The Sarmatians, 600 BC-AD 450. Osprey Publishing. p. 39. (...) Indeed, it is now accepted that the Sarmatians merged in with pre-Slavic populations.
^ Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 523. (...) In their Ukrainian and Polish homeland the Slavs were intermixed and at times overlain by Germanic speakers (the Goths) and by Iranian speakers (Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) in a shifting array of tribal and national configurations.
^ Atkinson, Dorothy; Dallin, Alexander; Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky, eds. (1977). Women in Russia. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8047-0910-1. (...) Ancient accounts link the Amazons with the Scythians and the Sarmatians, who successively dominated the south of Russia for a millennium extending back to the seventh century B.C. The descendants of these peoples were absorbed by the Slavs who came to be known as Russians.
^ Slovene Studies. Vol. 9–11. Society for Slovene Studies. 1987. p. 36. (...) For example, the ancient Scythians, Sarmatians (amongst others) and many other attested but now extinct peoples were assimilated in the course of history by Proto-Slavs.
^ Roy, Olivier (2007). The New Central Asia: Geopolitics and the Birth of Nations. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian Plateau, which remained Persian and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.
^ Foltz, Richard (2019), A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East., I.B.Tauris
^ Draper, John (2019-04-17), "Language education policy in Thailand", The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 229–242, doi:10.4324/9781315666235-16, ISBN 978-1-315-66623-5, S2CID 159127015
^ Morton, Micah F.; Baird, Ian G. (2019). "From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 50 (1). Cambridge University Press: 7–31. doi:10.1017/s0022463419000031. ISSN 0022-4634.

[1] Young, T. Cuyler Jr. (1988). "The Early History of the Medes and the Persians and the Achaemenid Empire to the Death of Cambyses". In Boardman, John; Hammond, N. G. L.; Lewis, D. M.; Ostwald, M. (eds.). Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 B.C. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 11 (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 0-521-22804-2. The Iranians are one of the three major ethno-linguistic groups who define the modern Near East.

[The_Sarmatians,_600_BC-AD_450-2] Brzezinski, Richard; Mielczarek, Mariusz (2002). The Sarmatians, 600 BC-AD 450. Osprey Publishing. p. 39. (...) Indeed, it is now accepted that the Sarmatians merged in with pre-Slavic populations.

[Taylor_&_Francis-3] Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 523. (...) In their Ukrainian and Polish homeland the Slavs were intermixed and at times overlain by Germanic speakers (the Goths) and by Iranian speakers (Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) in a shifting array of tribal and national configurations.

[Women_in_Russia-4] Atkinson, Dorothy; Dallin, Alexander; Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky, eds. (1977). Women in Russia. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-8047-0910-1. (...) Ancient accounts link the Amazons with the Scythians and the Sarmatians, who successively dominated the south of Russia for a millennium extending back to the seventh century B.C. The descendants of these peoples were absorbed by the Slavs who came to be known as Russians.

[Slovene_Studies-5] Slovene Studies. Vol. 9–11. Society for Slovene Studies. 1987. p. 36. (...) For example, the ancient Scythians, Sarmatians (amongst others) and many other attested but now extinct peoples were assimilated in the course of history by Proto-Slavs.

[6] Roy, Olivier (2007). The New Central Asia: Geopolitics and the Birth of Nations. I.B. Tauris. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84511-552-4. The mass of the Oghuz who crossed the Amu Darya towards the west left the Iranian Plateau, which remained Persian and established themselves more to the west, in Anatolia. Here they divided into Ottomans, who were Sunni and settled, and Turkmens, who were nomads and in part Shiite (or, rather, Alevi). The latter were to keep the name 'Turkmen' for a long time: from the thirteenth century onwards they 'Turkised' the Iranian populations of Azerbaijan (who spoke west Iranian languages such as Tat, which is still found in residual forms), thus creating a new identity based on Shiism and the use of Turkish. These are the people today known as Azeris.

[7] Foltz, Richard (2019), A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East., I.B.Tauris

[8] Draper, John (2019-04-17), "Language education policy in Thailand", The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 229–242, doi:10.4324/9781315666235-16, ISBN 978-1-315-66623-5, S2CID 159127015

[9] Morton, Micah F.; Baird, Ian G. (2019). "From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 50 (1). Cambridge University Press: 7–31. doi:10.1017/s0022463419000031. ISSN 0022-4634.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 {{edit extended-protected|Indigenous peoples|answered=no}}
+please add to the existing article:
 ==Indigenous peoples by region==
-please add:
 ===Asia===
 ====Central Asia====
@@ Line 66: / Line 67: @@
 Today, modern indigenous groups include the [[Tajiks]] in northern and western [[Afghanistan]], most of [[Tajikistan]] and southern [[Uzbekistan]],<ref>{{Citation|last=Foltz|first=Richard|date=2019|title=A History of the Tajiks: Iranians of the East.|publisher=I.B.Tauris|url=https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/a-history-of-the-tajiks-9781784539559/}}</ref> the [[Pamiris]] in eastern [[Tajikistan]] ([[Gorno-Badakhshan]], [[Afghanistan]] ([[Badakhshan]]), [[Pakistan]] ([[Gilgit-Baltistan]]) and [[China]] ([[Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County]]), and [[Yaghnobis]] in [[Tajikistan]] ([[Sughd Region]]).
 ====Southeast Asia====
-[[Thailand]] was inhabited by several indigenous groups before the arrival of the ethnolinguistically [[Tai peoples]], including [[Austroasiatic languages|Austroasiatic]] speaking groups ([[Northern Khmer people|Khmer Surin]], [[Khmu people|Khmu]], [[Kuy people|Kuy]], [[Lawa people|Lawa]], [[Mon people|Mon]],[[Palaung people| Paluang]] and others), [[Sino-Tibetan languages| Sino-Tibetan]] speaking groups ([[Akha people|Akha]], [[Karen people|Karen]], [[Lahu people|Lahu]], [[Lisu people| Lisu]] and others),  [[Austronesian peoples| Austronesian]] speaking groups ([[Thai Malays|Malay]], [[Moken people|Moken]], and [[Urak Lawoi]]), and [[Hmong-Mien]] speaking peoples ([[Hmong people|Hmong]], [[Miao people|Miao]], and [[yao people|Yao]]).<ref>{{Citation|last=Draper|first=John|chapter=Language education policy in Thailand|date=2019-04-17|title=The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia|pages=229–242|location=Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY|publisher=Routledge|doi=10.4324/9781315666235-16|isbn=978-1-315-66623-5|s2cid=159127015 }}</ref> Various groups who inhabit the high mountainous [[Northern Thailand|Northern]] and [[Western Thailand|Western]] regions of the country are refered to as ''Chao Khao'' (ชาวเขา), literally "[[Hill tribe (Thailand)|Hill tribes]]" by the [[Government of Thailand|Thai Government]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Morton | first=Micah F. | last2=Baird | first2=Ian G. | title=From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand | journal=Journal of Southeast Asian Studies | publisher=Cambridge University Press| volume=50 | issue=1 | year=2019 | issn=0022-4634 | doi=10.1017/s0022463419000031 | pages=7–31}}</ref> [[User:Dilshodjon24666|Dilshodjon24666]] ([[User talk:Dilshodjon24666|talk]]) 07:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
+[[Thailand]] was inhabited by several indigenous groups before the arrival of the ethnolinguistically [[Tai peoples]], including [[Austroasiatic languages|Austroasiatic]] speaking groups ([[Northern Khmer people|Khmer Surin]], [[Khmu people|Khmu]], [[Kuy people|Kuy]], [[Lawa people|Lawa]], [[Mon people|Mon]],[[Palaung people| Paluang]] and others), [[Sino-Tibetan languages| Sino-Tibetan]] speaking groups ([[Akha people|Akha]], [[Karen people|Karen]], [[Lahu people|Lahu]], [[Lisu people| Lisu]] and others),  [[Austronesian peoples| Austronesian]] speaking groups ([[Thai Malays|Malay]], [[Moken people|Moken]], and [[Urak Lawoi]]), and [[Hmong-Mien]] speaking peoples ([[Hmong people|Hmong]], [[Miao people|Miao]], and [[yao people|Yao]]).<ref>{{Citation|last=Draper|first=John|chapter=Language education policy in Thailand|date=2019-04-17|title=The Routledge International Handbook of Language Education Policy in Asia|pages=229–242|location=Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY|publisher=Routledge|doi=10.4324/9781315666235-16|isbn=978-1-315-66623-5|s2cid=159127015 }}</ref> Various groups who inhabit the high mountainous [[Northern Thailand|Northern]] and [[Western Thailand|Western]] regions of the country are refered to as ''Chao Khao'' (ชาวเขา), literally "[[Hill tribe (Thailand)|Hill tribes]]" by the [[Government of Thailand|Thai Government]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Morton | first=Micah F. | last2=Baird | first2=Ian G. | title=From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand | journal=Journal of Southeast Asian Studies | publisher=Cambridge University Press| volume=50 | issue=1 | year=2019 | issn=0022-4634 | doi=10.1017/s0022463419000031 | pages=7–31}}</ref>
+[[User:Dilshodjon24666|Dilshodjon24666]] ([[User talk:Dilshodjon24666|talk]]) 07:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)