Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:41, 31 January 2014

	San people was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Angola / Botswana / Namibia / South Africa Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Angola (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Namibia (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups High‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-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: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Torchiest, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 14, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

DNA genome question

Please read the following question without suspicion of racism, I am truly curious and would like to know more: The San people are said to have the oldest DNA in the genome. I understand this to mean the San's DNA has the least amount of mutations/adaptations/evolutions from the original "Adam DNA"; this begs the question, are they the least evolved/advanced people on Earth? If this is true then it is not necessarily a bad thing if you consider evolution as just a change for adaptation to circumstances and assume that the San's environment just has not changed that much since the time of "Adam" to force them to change significantly- if you're religious you could even say that they are the picture of God's original design for humans and all subsequent "tribes" of people are perversions or corroded images of this initial design. Unfortunately, some people will not view the San's unchanged and possibly "original human" DNA as the nice picture of purity that I just described, rather, some might assert that the San are therefore closer to our evolutionary ancestors, the monkeys (or whatever the scientific name might be of that monkey-like creature that we see in the Darwin diagram of ape to man) and attempt to validate their racist beliefs with this "scientific fact" (and possibly extrapolate out that other similar or related black people are inferior and so on). So, getting to my actual question, I am wondering if there are any documented arguments out there or groups that use this information to support racist views (Hitler would probably have loved to have this information). Also, I am wondering, if the San are the least changed (DNA) people then who are the most changed (DNA) people and do the most changed (DNA) people assert that they are the most advanced or superior in the human group? As as side note, I have heard "Black" or "African-American" people pridefully state that they are "pure" (usually if they are darker than another "black" person- possibly a counter argument to the "red-bone" thing) and I wondered if the persons saying this understood that this claim can certainly be a double-edged sword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.191 (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"the oldest DNA in the genome" must say: purity, with minimal combinations, an original race.

Look at it this way. England is the source of the English language, but we would not consider the language spoken there to be more primitive or unevolved than dialects in other countries. Additionally, most English dialects do not directly come from standard British English (in the same way that Hindi does not come from Sanskrit, and French does not come from Classical Latin). Lastly, British English did not simply stop evolving when other dialects went to other countries.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of "Y-chromosomal Adam" in the first paragraph of the article is quite misleading. By definition, this man was the most recent male ancestor common to all human beings who happened to participate in the global genetic testing. (Presumably the male ancestor of all human beings alive today.) But this man was NOT the male ancestor of all human beings ever. (For example, if all people besides those of central Asian heritage died out, that might make Genghis Khan the Y-MCRA.) Now, whoever came up with the catchy but misleading name "Y-chromosomal Adam" for the Y-MRCA is partly to blame for the confusion, but let's at least use this commonly accepted definition of the term.

By the way, the poster of "Please read the following question..." has a few other misconceptions. I know of no evidence to suggest that the San people are genetically stagnant and immune from mutations and evolution, that they are somehow a genetic snapshot of 'how people used to be'. To use the analogy of a family tree, they are not necessarily closer to the root than other groups, they just happen to have fewer branchings between them and the root.

You might argue that African ancestries are somehow 'genetically superior' to other ancestries in that Africa has enormously more genetic diversity and thus a greater chance of having some members survive a cataclysmic plague or the like. But I suspect that human nature and intercontinental air travel will shortly (at least on the cosmic scale) spread that diversity around the world.

Perhaps to clear up another of the poster's misconceptions: Geneticists are not claiming that apes are closer than humans to the root of all primates. They are just another branch. Apes evolved to be good at flinging poo at zoo visitors; humans evolved to be good at producing politicians; they're just different directions.

The way I look at it is as follows: Genetic studies suggest that we can think of the San people as the 'original Africans' but it goes much deeper than that - the science is saying that everyone alive today can be directly traced back to the hunter-gatherer people of the Kalahari (2,000 generations ago). It means the only human creatures that survived the last ice age were these guys from the Kalahari. And that's also you and me!!! That is an astonishing statement & takes a lot of getting used to. If it is true then why isnt the whole of the Kalahari a world heritage site & why dont we go on holiday & try to live like they do - like families goto disney world? This claim is as socially & culturally significant as Darwin's origin of species a hundred years ago. Is this taught in schools these days? For more on this angle check out National Geographic's Genographic project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenclive (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

--74.248.228.7 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate ethnonym

So San is offensive? Wetman 07:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC) the san(also known as bushmen or bawsarwa.

Pretty sure. - Nat Krause 08:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. San comes from the neighbouring Nama, and means outsider. thefamouseccles 10:00, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, I think I've heard or read the (non-sexist?) term BUSH PEOPLE or BUSHPEOPLE somewhere. How common is this in Southern Africa? Wikipeditor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How is "Bushmen" offensive? You aren't one of these semantics lunatics who think that the patriarchy is hidden in the english language are you?

-TEH OGROK

Actually, bushmen, bushpeople, bushwomen, etc... these are all considered offensive. These people are now called, anthropologically, the San, and, more appropriately, are classified as within the khoisan language group, which is characterized by an integrated "clicking" noise. I belive that the currently acceptable term for these people is the khwe. 206.188.163.1 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Mariyah

According to Bushmen expert Elizabeth Marshall Thomas in her 2006 book The Old Way, Bushmen is "how most Bushmen refer to themselves collectively" (Introduction). San is a pejorative term among the Bushmen. -- Stbalbach 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also heard that they were called Basarwa in Botswana; if this term is used to describe all bushmen (not just the botswanian ones), perhaps opt for this name instead and rename article. Another possible name is RAD (remote area dwellers), I don't like "bushmen" as it is a term invented and used by the European kolonials.

81.244.192.200 (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bushman" is also inappropriate because it's a term used for all African non-Pygmy foragers. The Hadza, e.g., are called "Bushmen", but have nothing to do with this article.

"Khwe" might be appropriate, but is perhaps better for the Khoi peoples (Khwe and Khoi are cognate). San is the general anthropological word. Is it any more offensive than "Bushman"? kwami (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Borshay Lee includes a statement at the very beginning of his ethnography, The Dobe !Kung, saying that he considers the term "Bushmen" inappropriate. Matthew Durington, a visual anthropologist who has worked with the !Kung said the same in a lecture that I attended at Towson University in 2006. There is also an incomplete article titled !Kung (people) that needs to be merged with this one, so that would be a good opportunity to fix the title issue. Randomundergrad (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Aren't significant numbers of ethnonyms given by outsiders (exonyms), and originally imbued with none-too-kind connotations? The word "Welsh" also meant "foreigner" at one time, but I can't remember the last time I read anything about the "Cymry" people, even by the most politically-correct authors. It seems to me that a good ethnonym needs to strike a balance between accuracy, recognizability, and inoffensiveness. --74.248.228.7 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason for revert

The info added by User:Chueyjoo (who hasn't contributed to any other article except Assata Shakur on 29 May 2005, also involving a possible copyvio) is quite dodgy, which I've reverted wholesale:

• Image:Bushmen1.jpg is a possible copyvio, which I've tagged and added to WP:PUI.
• "Bushmen are known to be shorter than other ethnic africans, and they usually have asiatic oval eyes." — while I could be swayed for the 'shorter' attribute, I'm not biting the 'asiatic oval eyes'. I'd like to see a cite of some sort of medical text before we re-add this.
• Nelson Mandela most definitely was not a bushman; he was (and still is) Xhosa.

Dewet 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are they farmers,Nomadic Hurders or Hunter Gatherers?

                                     -Jason

Well, traditionally they're hunter-gatherers, but for information about how most of them live today, I suggest you read this article. Click here for the full text. Cheers. —Khoikhoi 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

!Kung

My understanding is that !Kung is one of the languages spoken by the Bushmen; the article on the !Kung language refers to it being spoken by "perhaps 15,000 Saan". As such, where does !Kung people fit in? Should there be a merge?

I confess I have no idea at all, but hopefully someone here knows what's up. The article is currently unwatched, so thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the !Kung are probably a sub-group of the Bushmen, correct me if I'm wrong. It should probably be made clear on that article. --Khoikhoi 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The !Kung are a subgroup (tribe) of San with their own distinct language, in the same way that German, French, Italian are subgroups and languages of Europeans. I have a university textbook that is all about the !Kung. Roger (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Different groups, different names

The group of bushmen in the Nyae Nyae region of Namibia definitely called themselves "Bushmen" when I was there in 2000 and again in 2005.

My understanding is that the group in Botswana (where I have not been) prefer to call themselves "San".

The article does not address the current economy. Many people believe that the bushmen still live as hunter gatherers (which was stated as a claim in "The Gods Must be Crazy"). This is most emphatically not true and not possible given the relatively small area that the bushmen are allowed to occupy in Nyae Nyae. I think this point, among others, should be stated in the article.

Cre 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Bushmen and !Kung people?

Shouldnt the !Kung article be merged to Bushmen. !Kung people consists mostly of a cut-n-paste of someone's essay, and !Kung are Bushmen. --Ezeu 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The !Kung language article suggests that this is a subgroup. --Henrygb 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the !Kung are definitely a sub-group of the Bushmen. Also, here's a paragraph from the !Kung language article:

!Kung is endangered, along with most other Khoisan languages, because of encroaching Bantu and Khoi cultures. The Herero and Nama languages are becoming more commonly spoken among the Kung-ekoka, and the hunter-gatherer way of life that is typical of the Khoisan-speaking peoples is being eroded by Bantu and Khoi farming settlements.

Since they are neither Bantu nor Khoi, this can only suggest that they are a Bushmen tribe. I support the merge. --Khoikhoi 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am retracting my merge suggestion. Will try to cleanup and expand !Kung instead. After all, wikipedia is not running out of space.--Ezeu 17:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about merging them with Berbers?

Image from s:The New Students Reference Book

Here is a link to a picture you might want to use when this article expands further: Image:NSRW Africa Bushman Woman.png.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheap shots

I am a decendant of the nation known as The Bushman.We go by the term Coloureds now,because we wear Fancy dress and can speak English.I would like to congratulate the degenerate wankers who hide behind cryptic nicks on a job well done.Your vandalism of this page and unprovoked slander is a fine testament to the perils of idle time and not so idle hands.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theospeak (talk • contribs)

That's quite a sweeping statement. Why don't you (since the onus rests on yourself) tell us what's wrong, or even better, fix it yourself? It's no help making personal attacks on other contributors and vague accusations. dewet|✉ 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The descendant of the nation is probably a Bastar of Rehobath. What he (she) didn't say, is that there were thirty odd racial classifications in South West Africa, before it became independent. !Kung, and their relatives had their own classification, which was not one of the ten or so "Coloured" classifications.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.252 (talk • contribs) 23:41 (UTC), 16 June 2006

lol wat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ey, speaking of cheap shots, why's half the article in past-tense, like these dudes don't exist anymore? Either they're still around, or the "population" section of the general information window in the top right is grossly inaccurate, right? Furthermore, the user Theospeak seems convinced that they're not extinct. Am I missing something, here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.68.173 (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

For those who want to spend some time... a user on Flickr has this set of photos licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0 which means they can be uploaded to the commons for our use here... gren グレン 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

article needs more historic data

this people has a significant cultural heritage of an important early civilization. who can help to expand this theme? ive started a section on history. regards Covalent 05:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

article is not to wikipedia standards

I have added the standard template because sections of the article are to encycopedic standard.

For exemple this paragraph: Another great problem is regards to hunting. This area contains two obvious dilemmas. Number one ; the Bushmen of the Kalahari and elsewhere are persecuted and in Botswana imprisoned and even tortured for hunting; a traditional right since thousands of years before the present colonists ever arrived; this is a travesty of justice, but the second point of injustice is that American and other tourists travel to various southern African countries and go on hunting holidays! Not only is this an insult since Bushmen wish to hunt respectfully for survival and the maintenance of their traditional life, one of the oldest on the planet , but these foreign, 'sport ' hunters have been indiscriminately hunting such game as Eland and Kudu-game sacred to Bushmen and in the case of the Eland for example, a creature of supreme importance, not only culturally and spiritually as is the Kudu, but in the ecology of the land , as according to Bushman lore, Eland are related to the bringing of/ coming of the rains.

Kilrati 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing's atrocious. Peppered with Politically Correct hand-wringing and white man's guilt. I fell asleep before I found out something I didn't know. What a bore.

This does not sound remotely like an encyclopedia. While I agree with some of the sentiments expressed, this article violates NPOV.

"Other problems exist, such as that regarding the rock art, sacred to the Bushmen being 'owned' or in custody of the South African Government and often, it appears, on private lands where land owners make money from tourism but the traditional inheritors of the art cannot visit , or afford to visit , are further thorns in the side and contribute to what was outright genocide but now is occuring as a subtler but nevertheless devastating policy of ethnocide. Simply put , it appears most Southern African countries want the Bushmen to disappear from existence, something which understanding the issues, it is incument on us to prevent yo mama"

Unless this is a direct quote from someone giving an opinion, this has no place in an encyclopedia. (By the way, I have no connection to this article previously, and I haven't edited much, I'm just a dedicated reader of Misplaced Pages who was taken aback by this page.)-Randomglitter 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

San/Bushmen

The Third Edition of The Dobe Ju/'hoansi by Richard B. Lee states that the term San means "aborigines" or "settlers proper" and that "t]he term Bushman has both racist and sexist connotations." As a footnote, however, it states,

"The Term San is not without problems of its own. Some point to this Nama term's negative connotations, meaning "worthless" or "no account." And the term Bushman has its advocates among anthropologists and others. San leaders themselves are divided over the term Bushmen. At a recent meeting reported by Megan Biesele, one said he never wanted to hear the term used again in post-apartheid Namibia. Another argued that the term could be ennobled by the way in which they themselves now chose to use it. However, as Pan-San or Pan-Bushman political consciousness grows in southern Africa, we assume a general term will emerge. By the late 1990s, San had come into general use by the San people themselves. (9)

If the term has come into general use by the San/Bushmen themselves, then it would seem that that is the appropriate term to use to describe. And if this was so by the late 1990s, then it seems unlikely the popularity of the term San has dwindled to the extent the article suggests. I personally don't feel confident in our current sources. And although states that the term Bushmen is in common use among the San/Bushmen, there is no source given. Theshibboleth 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism?

This article is either a direct copy of this page or the other page is a direct copy of the wikipedia article.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bushmen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.10.22 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages is the source. Many sites mirror Misplaced Pages and add advertising banners to make your view experiencing more pleasant. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Please get consensus before changing the article name. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Motivating Recent Edits to "government persecution" section...

I have removed this title, since using the words "government persecution" is neither factual, nor verifiable and bordering on the inflamatory.

I have also added references to the official government's statement on the issue, so as to ensure the article remains UNBIASED and shows BOTH SIDES of the story.

I have removed any language which may be construed as unbiased.

In particular, I have removed statements that were not verifiable (and are therefore considered not factual)

Where unsubstantiated facts were stated, I have preceded the paragraphs with "It is claimed.." or "it is rumoured.." or "it is alleged..." Since that is all that it is, until verification and citation can be provided.

Please feel free to improve add or edit - but lets stick to Wiki standards and provide a factual, balanced article to the public...

Give the public the FACTS and let them make up their own minds about which side to take.

PS - I am avidly in favour of support for the Bushmen people, their crisis and am in no way diminishing the hardship they suffer. However - wikipedia is not the platform to put forward subjective views and emotional convictions. Dzstudios 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

class X words?

"The term is a class 2 noun (as indicated by the "ba-" class marker), while an older class 6 variant, "Masarwa," is now almost universally considered offensive. (using class 5 labels with class 6 plurals is a common strategy used by speakers of southern Bantu languages to show contempt for ethnic groups, though there are many societies whose own endonyms are class 1 nouns with irregular class 6 plurals)"

Could somebody explain this better, please? What are class 2 nouns, class 5 labels, etc.? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.210 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a certain scheme used in describing Bantu languages. Please see Sesotho nouns. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest people of the world - nonsene

"Genetic evidence suggests they are one of the oldest, if not the oldest, peoples in the world — a "genetic Adam" according to Spencer Wells, from which all humans can ultimately trace their genetic heritage."

This is just stupid and/or racist statement. How can some people be "the oldest"? Did they stop evolving 100 000 years ago, while the other people kept evolving? Or were the other people "created" later? I can understand, that changing habitat will pose greater evolutionary pressure for peoples moving out of Africa, but labeling as "the oldest people" is just pseudo science. This line should be removed or changed to make some sense.--Jarri K (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

agree with this comment; that's not a really good paraphrasing of Spencer Well's book, and I don't think he labeled "Genetic Adam" (or "Eve") as being from any specific group other than being in Africa at certain points in time Spettro9 (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bushmen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review in progress --Anonymaus (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of introduction I would like to say that I enjoyed the article: it was readable and interesting. However this is my first GA review (sorry! we all have to start somewhere) so I've decided to assess it by following the Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria very narrowly.

Is it well written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• The article is well written in an engaing and readable style. There are no apparent spelling or grammatical errors.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead section provides a brief summary and stimulates further reading. Headings and paragraphs are used appropriately. In general, there is no use of technical jargon except for "(using class 5 labels with class 6 plurals is a common strategy used by speakers of southern Bantu languages to show contempt for ethnic groups, though there are many societies whose own endonyms are class 1 nouns with irregular class 6 plurals)" which I deleted. I note this has been commented on before on the talk page. If you want to keep this, it should be explained - but it is probably not essential to the sense of the paragraph. There is no inappropriate use of POV language, or any other breaches of the style guidelines.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

• The paragraphs "Opponents to the relocation policy ..." ; "It is further claimed ..." and "However, only a limited number ..." have no clear supporting references. This is important, as this is the most politically contentious part of the article. The section from "The Bushman kinship system..." to "... far from receding waters" also lacks referencing, unless it is [11}, in which case the sources should be referenced within each paragraph. The comparison with the Eskimo kinship system needs support or explanation.

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

• The sources seem to be reliable as far as I can tell, as a non-Anthropologist

(c) it contains no original research.

• No evidence of original research

Is it broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• The paper focuses on the current circumstances of the Bushmen of Botswana, whereas in the introduction you refer to "South Africa, Zimbabwe , Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia and Angola". Your focus on Botswana comes close to a POV violation; at the very least there should be some explanation of what happened to the Bushmen in the other countries of southern Africa. I Googled "Bushmen Namibia" and got 118 000 results. I think this is a major weakness of this article.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• There is no unnecessary detail

Is it neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• While you represent both sides of the land rights issue in Botswana, your exclusive focus on Botswana might be taken as a POV violation. However, since I've already raised this under the previous heading, I'll give you a

Is it stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Some lively and partisan editing over the last few weeks, and the objection to "Oldest people in the world" on the Talk page hasn't been addressed, so it isn't really stable.

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• This looks OK to me

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Images are used well and the article has a good overall appearance.

In conclusion I'm sorry to say that the weaknesses with regard to referencing and comprehensive coverage are important. These can be fixed but probably not in a short period of time I'm not going to put the result "on hold". I have failed the article but I do think the problems can be fixed and when you have done so I would encourage you to re-submit for GA review. Best wishes --Anonymaus (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to someone with a rudimentary knowledge of evolutionary biology. The "Capoid race" as an identifiable genotype extends back further than so called Negroids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, or Australoids. While it's misleading to say the rest of humanity "evolved" from them (implying that they're more beast-like, or a "missing link") the more agreeable term would be that we diverged from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormwoodpoppies (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

merge?

I deleted (rd'd) the Khoisan article as nonsense. Turns out there wasn't much in it to save anyway. Here's some stuff that might be relevant here, if s.o. wants to integrate it into the article:

Historically, they have been referred to as the Capoid race because they can be visually distinguished from most other sub-Saharan Africans by way of their relatively lighter skin color and their epicanthic folds. From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than 40 inches (1016mm)—and today's San resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. The San people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and later European colonization.

Over the centuries the many branches of the San peoples were absorbed, killed, or displaced by Bantu speaking societies who were migrating south in search of new lands, most notably the Xhosa and Zulu. Both have adopted some San clicks and loan words into their respective languages. The San survived in the desert or in areas with winter rains which were not suitable for Bantu crops. During the colonial era they lived in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. Today many of the San live in parts of the Kalahari Desert where they are better able to preserve much of their cherished culture.

kwami (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article is highly offensive

Bushmen? In 2009? Really?! Seriously, to whoever made this, and defends it, the word "Bushmen" is a racist slur, and has no place in a modern-day encyclopedia except in a "History of Racism" article. The accepted term is "San People". Only a bigot would use the term "Bushmen", excepting of course preceded with a phrase like "Hundreds of years ago racists used to call the San...". 41.245.165.55 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue of naming is already addressed in the article: Bushmen#Naming. Please show reliable sources for "San People" being a mainstream international name for these people, and then propose a move of the article to the new name. Note that Survival International, who work directly with indigenous tribal people, use the term Bushmen, so accusing editors who prefer that term of being racist is not constructive and should be avoided. Fences&Windows 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming research

The following material removed from the article for discussion and future reference. WBardwin (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire genome of one San individual has been determined along with coding gene variations from four other individuals in a paper to appear in December 2009. Much older ancestral genomes can be accessed via the forthcoming Neanderthal genome and existing genome projects for five species of great apes.

Their physical characteristics

There appears to be nothing in this article whatsoever about the physical characterstics of the Bushmen. They have been described as unusually short-statured, having "Mongoloid" traits including, if I recall, epicanthic folds on the eyes and a mongolian spot on newborn babies. The men reportedly have a semi-erect penis permanently and the women a genital apron, that is elongated labia I believe. None of this is discussed or mentioned. Really weird. People have bodies as well as culture. Julian

I thought maybe that was a joke when I just read it on a website. http://www.isds.duke.edu/~ervance/saemails.html Bushmen men are born with, live with, and die with, a semi-erection. Have I written about this before? It's called Qwxai-Qwxqha (pronounce it with lots of clicking sounds). Their penis is always semi-erect, and it's always depicted on them in their rock paintings. So *WHY* is that? I mean, there has to be some kind of reason behind it. --RyanTee82 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the .edu URL in the link above, the page is merely a collection of personal letters home, and such a travelogue does not constitute a reliable academic source. A quick search did not reveal any better references. Caution would be wise, as there sometimes seems to be a distinct link between interest in such physical characteristics and pseudo-scientific eugenics.
Here is a reference in the journal Nature to internal epicanthic folds in the eyelids of Central Kalahari Bushmen. Not many people refer to a 'genital apron' any more, most Bushman women seem to have extended labia minora. Supposed historical sketches of an individual on this page. This organisation bears no responsibility for any and all racism, misogny, anti-progressive attitudes or faulty logic that you may experience from perusing the linked website. Your clicking on the link above constitutes acceptance of these conditions.Centrepull (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See steatopygia for the "apron". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Migration

Why?Tortuga135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

John Marshall error

In the Media Presentation paragraph, it states that "Marshall was a fierce and vocal proponent of the Bushman cause throughout his life, which was, in part, due to strong kinship ties, and his marriage to a Bushman wife in his early 20s". The John Marshall wiki page (linked within the article) states he was born in 1932. I've never edited anything on Wiki so I'm hoping someone will come along and correct that error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.212.171 (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Land issues, 'right to roam' et al.

Political section needs to be expanded and more balanced, it is not mainly an issue of the current Botswana forced clearances. In every one of the seven countries listed with Bushmen native to them, there have been at one time or another serious conflicts with colonial or post-colonial authorities. Most often these have centred around the Bushmen being dispossessed of land, their right to roam being limited or removed and other situations that act against their ability to continue their traditional way of life.

There has also been a notable history of conflict and cultural prejudice directed towards Bushmen from other local ethnic groups.

I no longer have access to the materials in which I read much of this. Centrepull (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Last edit

Sorry, I took out the wrong thing.

68.27.74.182 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hearsay

This paragraph seems to be pure hearsay, and smacks of conspiracy theory: "Hydro geologists who were officially hired to find water in bushmen territory were actually ordered not to find any, for this would make the original inhabitants far too independent to be relocated to any army bases.." Where did this information come from? Provide a reference. What is hydro geologists referring to? Hydrologists? Hydroelectrical contractors? Should it be generically Hydrogeologists? "Officially hired": By whom? The Botswana Government? I don't see anybody else claiming that the Barswana / San are being relocated to army bases. Please provide a reference.

Unless there is any evidence for any of this, that whole paragraph should be deleted. I have gone to the trouble to change the beginning of the sentence to "It has been suggested...", but I think there is no place for it here at all as it's just plain hearsay.

MFdeS (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, no adverse comment, I'll delete the offending section and leave it up to someone else to restore it if they feel strongly enough about it.MFdeS (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bushmen is viewed by the San peoples as a derogatory term

From: http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_bushmen.html

"The San are the oldest inhabitants of Southern Africa, where they have lived for at least 20 000 years. The term San is commonly used to refer to a diverse group of hunter-gatherers living in Southern Africa who share historical and linguistic connections. The San were also referred to as Bushmen, but this term has since been abandoned as it is considered derogatory.

There are many different San groups - they have no collective name for themselves, and the terms 'Bushman', 'San', 'Basarwa' (in Botswana) are used. The term, 'bushman', came from the Dutch term, 'bossiesman', which meant 'bandit' or 'outlaw'. "

I may return to edit this article because it is very poorly researched and obviously tainted with more than one agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksawild (talk • contribs) 00:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been rehashed several times both here (for instance here and here, on this very talk page) and elsewhere, so unless you can give references to support the existence of a consensus on the term (and since I'm reasonably familiar with the literature involved, I know for a fact no consensus yet exists), please, don't let's go over it again. There's already a section in the page itself on naming that explains the problems. To some Bushmen, it is San that is the offensive term: it's from a Nama word, sān, which itself has offensive and strongly pejorative connotations; an excellent explanation of its meaning is given in Alan Barnard's Anthropology and the Bushman (pp. ix and 4-6). The idea that San is to be preferred to Bushman is largely the result of Western political correctness. (The article you cite is also disingenuous on the meaning of the Dutch word bosjesman, which literally means "man of the bush" - the sense of "bandit" or "outlaw" is an innovation.) No collective name exists in English that is even close to universally inoffensive and so choosing which to use is to a certain extent a moot point. Thefamouseccles (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Bushmen and San (tribe)

This was proposed in October, but I can't see any discussion on this. The two articles should certainly be merged. Greenman (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. --Varsovian (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - I simply redirected the San article, as there was nothing I could see worth adding to the much more complete Bushmen article. Greenman (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy?

I believe that this line is wrong: "Births are generally spaced four years apart due to lack of breast milk" I have not read the cited source, but according to Bates's "Human Adaptive Strategies", the 4 yr child-spacing is due to extended breastfeeding, not a lack of breastfeeding. This makes more sense, as there are few suitable weaning foods in the traditional San diet, and because breastfeeding suppresses ovulation. A lack of breastmilk (unless accompanied by famine conditions) will lead more quickly to ovulation, and thus more children, not fewer. I propose this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.26.128 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Followup: I think this entire paragraph: "Because of their low-fat diet, women typically have late first menstruations and do not begin bearing children until about 18 or 19 years of age. Births are generally spaced four years apart due to lack of breast milk and requirements of mobility that make feeding and carrying more than one child at a time difficult." is wrong and should be removed.

1. The source given for this is a single ethnographic account of one woman's life. I HIGHLY doubt the anthropologist (or the informant) has done any sort of scientific study of the quantity of breastmilk their diet can support. 2. Later menstruation in the San/Bushmen diet is most likely caused by a lack of grains, not fat. Grains are well-known to increase fertility (and weight) in livestock, not fat. 3. Their diet isn't even 'low fat'. For example, Lee (Lee and Devore, 1968) documented that in the harsh winter dry season, half of the San diet came from Mongongo nuts--about 300 per day. Mongongo nuts, according to their wikipedia page, are 57% fat. That's a diet that's 28.5% fat, not so different from our own. This is the lean season when there is very little fat on the animals. 4. The issues I pointed out above (in fact, I eat a similar diet and have had no problems producing enough breastmilk,) 5. Extrapolating from one ethnography of one person to an entire population is very questionable.

I therefore propose that this section should be deleted, unless someone has better support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.26.128 (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Correctness of article name

Bushmen has a rather derogatory connotation, can someone either investigate a better title, or rather explain the necessitous nature of not changing the name of the article?

Please and thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.184.166 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times before - please see the talk page above and the archives. Greenman (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Subsistence

Of the mammals, Bushmen hunted antelope (including kudu, springbok, steenbok, duiker, eland, gemsbok, etc), bovids, elephant, etc but not deer, because deer (Family: Cervidae)never occurred in Africa (see Misplaced Pages) where Bushmen live. Also, the statement that Bushmen hunted dik-dik needs to be verified, because I am uncertain that dik-dik actually occurred in the areas where Bushmen had lived over the last few hundred years. The Hasabe hunter-gatherers of Tanzania, who I think are unrelated to bushmen, do hunt dik-dik. Jan Viljoen (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Media presentation

I think the book "Islands" by Dan Sleigh (translated from Afrikaans to English by André Brink) should be mentioned under the heading "Media presentation" in the article. Islands is based on historic fact and covers the first fifty years or so of Dutch settlement at the Cape. It vividly describes the lifestyle of the indigenous Khoi people, the Goringhaicona. The philosophies of various tribal leaders of the Khoi are represented, including a leader named "Chief Harry" by English visitors to the Cape. Subtly, the differences and similarities between Khoi and San lifestyles are depicted, as well as the alternation of some individuals and Khoi groups between dominantly Khoi or San lifestyles. It also strikingly relates the difficulties and problems that occur between the western settlers and the indiginous people and it gives some idea of the roles of slaves imported to the Cape, particularly from Indonesia, Madagascar and India.

For the indigenous people at the Cape, it is the beginning of the end of their traditional way of life as governed by their environment. A niece of one of the tribal leaders, Krotoa, is renamed Eva and brought into Commander Van Riebeeck's household as interpreter between the Europeans and the Khoi and to look after Van Riebeeck's children. She eventually marries a Dutch colonist, and a number of children are born from the union, of which the eldest is a girl named Pieternella. Pieternella is the pivot of the story and eventually becomes one of the first victims of a small pox epidemic that decimated the Khoi. The reader is offered an understanding of the historical forces that shaped the Cape in particular, and which are also shaping the world at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Viljoen (talk • contribs) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Media presentation

John Marshall is the son of Lorna Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.57.135 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two errors re John Marshall in Media Presentation: he is the son (not the brother) of Lorna marshall, and he never had a Bushman wife.

John Bishop

76.115.57.135 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected, and expanded John Marshall (filmmaker) and Lorna Marshall a bit. Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bushmen → San people – Per autonym preference as the current article title and the term used throughout is considered derogatory by the subjects. I think the article should also consistently use "San" in place of "Bushmen", though the latter term should be mentioned in both the lead and the naming section.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the generic term "bushmen"/"bushman" also can be applied elsewhere, and thus is not sepcific enough. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Elsewhere where? —  AjaxSmack  05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• According to the article and its sources, "San" is not an autonym for Bushmen. (Anyway, using automyms that are not common, English names is not typical at Misplaced Pages. There might be an argument for "San" based on South African or Namibian English usage but, according to the article, many Bushmen live outside of these countries.) Furthermore, one of the article's sources notes that both "Bushmen" and "San" are considered to have pejorative connotations by some. —  AjaxSmack  05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• An autonym is a name chosen by the people themselves, regardless of where it came from. And no, you would be completely wrong in the "using automyms that are not common, English names is not typical" part. Please see Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people)#Articles on peoples (ethnicities and tribes).

Generally speaking, the article title should use the common English language term for an ethnic group. How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.

The main consideration here is to avoid using a derogatory term as the title and the primary ethnonym in the article. The reference you just gave has conclusions that imply that San has become the preferred term. Examining further sources shows that this has been the case since about the 1960s. The confusion over the Nama origins of the word "San" seems to be relatively recent and caused a lot of academic sources to switch back to using the term "Bushmen". I acknowledge that San is itself alleged to be derogatory and probably is, as is BaSarwa/Barwa and most(?) of the other widely used alternatives. I don't actually care what term ends up being used, the more important question is which of the terms is the least derogatory and the most accepted? Is "Bushmen" really acceptable or is that simply a westerner preference?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, The Botswanna Gazette, Oxford, and Merriam Webster. Amazon's top-selling book on this subject is The Healing Land: The Bushmen and the Kalahari Desert. Kauffner (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Have you even read the above discussion? So news outlets are using the term, so what? I can give you just as many sources from actual anthropologists which use San in preference to Bushman. Give me a rationale that actually discusses which term is preferred rather than just pointing out where it has been used. Your Oxford link also contradicts you

1 a member of any of several aboriginal peoples of southern Africa, especially of the Kalahari Desert. Traditionally nomadic hunter-gatherers, many are now employed by farmers. Also called San.

2 older term for San (the languages of these people).

Both it and the Merriam-Webster point out that the term is also used differently in Australia as raised by 70.24.251.71 earlier.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I gave a list of authoritative sources that use "Bushmen" preferentially. None of them include any notation to the effect that the term is derogatory. As for anthropology sources, there is this article in Science, as well as Anthropology and the Bushman (2007) by Alan Barnard. Andrew Bank's Bushmen in a Victorian world (2006) claims that "the term San means 'thief'". (p. 404). Do you have any information as to what is, "regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group"? Even if they really have issued a statement in support of "San", as one link claims, that's not quite the same thing. Kauffner (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is none of the previous sources you've given as rationale for the oppose actually prove anything. Yes, it's being used, but those articles are not exactly talking about ethnonyms. It's original research to infer that those terms are not derogatory because the New York Times use it.

That said, the latter sources you've given are more appropriate. And yes, we are all aware here that both terms are considered derogatory by one population or another. The question is which of the two is less derogatory? As for sources, I'm actually completely sure you've seen them, LOL. In searching for which peoples view San or Bushman as derogatory, you would really have no choice but to see the vast amount of sources that discuss this as well. It's pretty obvious in previous discussions above this section that the fact that the article is named "Bushmen" has been a point of contention for quite a long time. So is it time to actually listen and change something? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to move - Is there a specific time between proposals?

I see that a proposal to move Bushman to San in March last 2012 came to nothing, as - somehow - the debate did not attract any attention (2 or 3 people). How long before a new proposal can be made? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's really a time limit as such, especially since no consensus was achieved. I have to ask, though, do you think it ever will be? Thefamouseccles (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Move

This should be moved to San people, just like Khoi people isn't at Hottentot. Also, San people is the preferred version nowadays in academics.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, 'Bushmen' may be offensive.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

From the very article:

The different San language groups of Namibia met in late 1996 and agreed to allow the general term San to designate them externally. This term was historically applied by their ethnic relatives and historic rivals, the Khoikhoi. This term means outsider in the Nama language, and was derogatory because it distinguished the Bushmen from what the Khoikhoi called themselves, namely, the First People. Western anthropologists adopted San extensively in the 1970s, where it remains preferred in academic circles. The term Bushmen is widely used, but opinions vary on whether it is appropriate because it is sometimes viewed as pejorative.

In South Africa, the term San has become favored in official contexts, and is included in the blazon of the new national coat-of-arms; Bushman is considered derogatory by many South Africans, regardless of their race.

Shouldn't the article naming actually agree with what the article says? Also, it seems the San themselves and South Africa call them San.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The article should be moved, the term Bushmen is racist. It is like having an article Called Negro for African American--Inayity (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

actually its more complicated than that because some groups call themselves bushmen and find San (which is also an exonym) offensive. In academics it is also about 50/50.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You will always find people clinging to terms. Most in South Africa (where I am) reject the term, in government and popular circles it is considered offensive. Clearly the more progressive option is not Bushman, just like African American and Inuit.--Inayity (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Inuit is also complicated as for example Alaskan people prefer Eskimo as the inclusive term whereas in Canada it is rejected as racist. I will try to find some sources that explicitly describe the San/Bushman/Khoe naming debate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See ref The Third Edition of The Dobe Ju/'hoansi by Richard B. Lee)--Inayity (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This has come up again with Bushman religion. For me it feels a weird to use a word like "bushman", but that's for the communities to decide. Either term would pass COMMONNAME. What the South African govt decides is not particularly relevant; we have claims here that both terms are considered pejorative, so which is the lesser evil, assuming they actually are pejorative at all? Namibia or Botswana might be a better source than South Africa. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you have been here long enough to know -your rationale =/= our rationale. And hence why we discuss things before doing them. Already I have reverted your changes which means it has NOT been agreed. Your soln is to engage in an edit war. Let us see what Misplaced Pages policy says on the issue of solo moves of a page? WP:RM/CM. I have never ask that everyone agree with me, but i would respect if they just stick to the rules--Inayity (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The move request above was closed as 'no consensus', which means we're at 'Bushman' for the time being. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename

From this derogatory, European & Bantu colonial, ugly vitriol, ahistorical offensive name Bushmen to "Indigenous Southern Africans" which is parallel to Indigenous Australians. As usual practise, state if he or she support or disapprove of the name change proposal for this article. Considering to the discourse above, this name change antithesis to what is said. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose because this proposal is simply a proxy for pushing the POV that the Bantu peoples are colonizers. (I would support a move to San people.) - htonl (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The deluge ahistoricism here. It is in fact your point of view asserting that those of the Bantu ilk is indigenous to Southern Africa. By proclaiming or counter factually propagating that the Bantu ilk are indigenous, which it is not, your are omitting that the Khoisan never existed? Are your supporting this notion? Those who are in power write history. The National Party did, now it's either the Democratic Alliance or the African National Congress asserting what is what without consent of the complexity of historical implication of colonialism, imperialism, tribalism etc. Ask yourself, does our constitution recognise the Khoisan as the first inhabitants of Southern Africa? Or does our constitution recognise Khoisan languages? A dire no. Vrijburger (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the rename? per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Inayity (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

POV of another editor. I rebutted his POV. No relevancy to you. As you were. Vrijburger (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: it should be noted that User:Roland Postma/Hendrik Biebouw is the same person as User:Vrijburger. - htonl (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And? Vrijburger (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Just making it clear to anyone else reading this discussion, otherwise they might think you were two different people. - htonl (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

comment I agree with the above comment. But we should rename it, but not to that funny construction, which is problematical per the above remark. But the term Bushmen is really off key considering this is 2013 and the era of plurality and progressive scholarship. --Inayity (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are non-San/Bushmen indigenous groups in South Africa, so those two topics are not identical. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

New notion

State if he or she support or strongly oppose changing the article from Bushmen to San people.

Create a proper template for the rename so we can Support or Oppose. etc. I think there is a template for purposed moves and renames. --Inayity (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to. If you may, or could perhaps, create a proper template for the rename so we can Support or Oppose. Vrijburger (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont know either, maybe they stopped doing it. You could put a notice on the article main page that We suggest renaming. Template:Renaming--Inayity (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources on name

I have started compiling some reliable sources about terminology per se at Bushmen#Further_reading so we can make a more informed decision about the name of the article.

A Google search on The Namibian newspaper website shows they use "San" or "San people", except for one instance of "San Bushmen". HelenOnline 07:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly sure this article in The Independent used this Misplaced Pages article for a source (sadly), as that wording was here and I could not find that interpretation anywhere else including the source cited here (I changed it to reflect the facts in the source). HelenOnline 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. This was a very difficult close, because despite the clear numerical majority in support, it's also apparent that neither term is free of negative connotations and other cultural baggage. I took very seriously the suggestions that "San" was just a term that Western academics have supported due to their own uncomfortableness with "Bushmen," but the supporters' arguments that this ethnic group prefers "San" as an autonym, in combination with academic usage, convinced me that the proposed title is still within policy. It's unfortunate that there don't seem to be any truly neutral, common names for the subject. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bushmen → San people – As covered in Bushmen#Ethnic nomenclature, San is the collective term most commonly used and accepted today. While both Bushmen and San have historical negative connotations, the consensus of the people themselves since the 1990s is that San is the more neutral term. This is the term adopted by representative organisations such as WIMSA, the Kuru Family of Organisations and the South African San Council, The Namibian which is the largest newspaper in Namibia, and the South African government. I am not suggesting that Bushmen is never acceptable, only that San is more common and acceptable today and Misplaced Pages is currently out of line. HelenOnline 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's policy on article titles.

• Weak support clearly "bushmen" can and is used generically to mean men of the wild, as well as specifically the San, and more generally the human lineage native to southern Africa for which the San are members. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support, as bushmen is like calling African Americans Negroes. If not worst.based on all the documentation the more progressive term which is respectful and "more" neutral is San. Just like Inuit vs Eskimo, African American vs black. --Inayity (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Has anything changed since the last request 10 months ago? —  AjaxSmack  01:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up and expanded the Nomenclature section of the article, adding a lot of sources. HelenOnline 06:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even if the term is considered improper by anthropologists and derogatory to some, I have found that "San" is not in common usage in Namibia or Botswana. As Bushmen is the more accepted local terminology, it would be helpful to retain the title and references, for now. --Katangais (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for your statement. Sources cited in the article state that San is the term used in Namibia since 1996, it is the term supported by WIMSA (as agreed in 1996 and used on their website) who represent the people, and it is the term predominantly used by The Namibian newspaper (see above section with site searches on various terms). HelenOnline 11:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually been to either Namibia or Botswana? Who there honestly calls these people "San" other than government newspapers or official paperwork? "Bushman" is still the prevailing term used in multiethnic social settings, at least in the latter. Source is Afrikaners of the Kalahari: White Minority in a Black State, by Margo and Martin Russell. I think this context should at least be considered! Furthermore, I find it appalling that most of those claiming slur status for "Bushmen" aren't even members of the group themselves, nor have they generated any popular statistics to support their banter. I've always been offended by people who are offended for other people because of something somebody may or may not have meant. --Katangais (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have several times but it is not relevant to this discussion. The source you mentioned was published in 1979 (long before the 1996 WIMSA meeting) and although it uses the term Bushmen I cannot tell whether it discusses the use of the term. I am not suggesting Bushmen should not be considered (it is the current title and the most obvious alternative), only requesting reliable sources to support your position. HelenOnline 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the book in question is largely about Afrikaners, it includes several chapters which focus on Bushmen, their treatment by Herero, whites, or others, and social status in particular. An interesting summary in the preface defends the writers' decision to use the term "Bushman" rather than "San" due to its social "prevalence" among "Mutswana" nationals. --Katangais (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We have several more recent reliable sources that say Basarwa is the term most commonly used for them in Botswana. However, per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the name most frequently used in English-language reliable sources and if the name changes (which has per consensus of the people in the 1990s), then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change. HelenOnline 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a native of Africa, so to answer the question about Botswana... YES. Here in SA and across the world that knows about these issues it is offensive. I dont think you need to live among the San to take issue with human beings being called Bush people. progressive Pan-African scholars do not use the term. Just like Negro. And please respect wikipedia Civilities --Inayity (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I suggested this before. At least in Namibia the term 'bushman' is absolutely unacceptable, and in a non-tourism context you will never find someone calling someone else a bushman. Check e.g. Royal /Ui/o/oo and get me one reliable source that calls him a bushman. --Pgallert (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - It's hard to say which of the two names "Bushmen" or "San" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the population. Both are certainly quite common. However, like the popular term "Hottentot" (which re-directs to "Khoikhoi"), "Bushmen" is essentially a derogatory and anachronistic exonym. "San", on the other hand, is a neutral endonym. For this reason, the WP:BLP policy would take precedence over any commonname considerations, even if "Bushmen" were shown to be the more frequently used name. Middayexpress (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

False. "San" is also a derogatory exonym. The question is which derogatory exonym to use for this article. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a Khoikhoi exonym, but the people themselves have decided it is the more neutral term and that is what they are calling themselves, at least on the WIMSA website (WIMSA represents the people in Botswana, Namibia and in South Africa via the South African San Council). HelenOnline 04:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the point to prove, isn't it? They've supposedly also rejected "San" and decided that they should be called "Bushmen". My point is that the rational given for supporting the move was spurious, though of course your sources may prove convincing that "San" is the way to go. — kwami (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was that the San exonym has become an endonym (although that is true for both terms). Sorry if that was not clear. HelenOnline 06:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Another difference is that while some modern scholars argue that "San" is also derogatory, there is no consensus on why exactly that is. Some claim that it is derived from a pejorative in the Nama language. However, other scholars suggest that "San" actually stems from the neutral Khoikhoi language word "saan" . On the other hand, the meaning of "Bushmen" is clear, and many scholars today for this reason outright reject the name as derogatory. The people themselves appear to prefer their own group names, such as "!Kung". This would therefore appear to be the best page-naming solution, were it not for the fact that those group names don't apply to the population as a whole, but rather to subdivisions of it. Middayexpress (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I say yes to this unapologetically. I see that some here cited the grass-root term being 'Bushmen' which is true, however, in accordance to Thabo Mbeki speech given at Unisa yesterday on the decolonisation of knowledge, I say we change the term which is still use by no other less than those who are fixed to other terms considered inappropriate. This is a historical moment (if we succeed) in the digital sphere as we, as a community change history which was first ushered by colonialist and other White inferior complexes. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your support but not your rationale if I understand it correctly. Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for original research, i.e. changing history or promoting specific terms. It is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. HelenOnline 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see (and sincerely apologies). I commented in the wrong region as it is original research and more. A side note if I may: our 1996 constitution vetoes the indigenous people of Southern Africa and other forms of ethnic measurement. Statistics South Africa only give these options: Black African, White, Asian, Coloured and Other. Thereof, in retro-perspective we are limited in what we can cite as the only legitimatise measurement of asking the people on the grass-floor level what they call themselves? And which Pretoria has failed by a large margin, continuing the ill bred Apartheid classifications in the same of readdressing the past via racial quotas which I understand, however, they are not going the extra mile to make-up and illustrate who we are, either San , Afrikaner or Khoikhoi in mind-of-our complex past that reflects our profoundly divers demo-graphs. Hendrik Biebouw (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support after examining various from the UK Telegraph newspaper to National Geographic and academic publications and various websites such as the Bradshaw Foundation. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - given that there doesn't seem to be clear evidence that makes either term the obvious "common name", the fact that the organisations like WIMSA, the San Institute of SA and the National Khoi-San Council all prefer the name "San" tells me that we should use it. - htonl (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The shift to San has largely been driven by the Western anthropological literature. The Nama word sān itself has highly offensive and strongly pejorative connotations, as explained by anthropologist Alan Barnard in his book Anthropology and the Bushman (pp. ix and 4-6). Other anthropologists who have worked with them, such as Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, continue to use Bushman. Although a large proportion of the Bushmen/San live in Namibia - where there is apparently a consensus on the use of San - there are many others also in Botswana, Angola, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Zambia, and the fact that they are not a single homogeneous culture means that even if a consensus is reached in Namibia, that still fails to speak for all groups. The million-dollar question of this issue, as I see it, is simply this: is San so much less pejorative than Bushman - and to a large enough proportion of the people themselves - that it warrants the change? Given the continuing uncertainty over the terminology reported even within these countries, and the clear existence of arguments in both directions, I don't believe we can determine this to be the case. Consequently I'm firmly against any shift from the status quo, at least for now, on the basis of the following portions of WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:POVNAMING (my emphases added in bold):
  • Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged (WP:TITLECHANGES).
    • Both titles are controversial, and there is no clear decision reachable on the basis of self-identification across all Bushman/San groups (Namibia and South Africa are only two of six countries with sizable populations).
  • If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub (WP:TITLECHANGES).
    • After the "stub" status was deleted on 15 September 2005, the first major contributor was 195.92.168.164 on 29 October 2005, and the title Bushmen was retained by that user.
  • Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made (WP:TITLECHANGES).
    • Reaching consensus has clearly been impossible for years, as the persistent arguments on the talk page have shown.
  • While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased (WP:POVNAMING).
    • The name has wide usage in reliable, reputable and academic English and while strictly non-gender-neutral, there is not now and has never been an even marginally common non-gendered alternative (*Bushpeople??).

Thefamouseccles (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

An aside not relevant to my vote, since it falls under WP:OR: as an anthropologist myself, it seems to me that the push for San over Bushman has always been one of heavy Western, particularly Anglocentric, bias insofar as Bushman has meaningful connotations to Westerners where San does not. Consequently, I firmly believe that using San as the exonym does nothing but sweep the problem under the English-speaking carpet. It allows us to kid ourselves somewhat arrogantly that "we're not calling them anything offensive, because we don't understand it", to unilaterally colonise and rework the semantics of the Nama pejorative sān without input from either the Bushmen or the Nama. Despite what Hendrik Biebouw argues about the decolonisation of knowledge, the use of San as a generic term is really just the same type of colonial mentality. It's still an attempt to force a Western construct (albeit with a Nama name, which I believe was appropriated more to sanitise it in our minds than anything else) to fit over the top of numerous interrelated but separate indigenous knowledge systems. Thefamouseccles (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Yes, I wondered about that. I moved the religion article to "San religion" for just that reason before moving it to "Bushman religion" to be consistent with this article. There's also the complication that the Khoi are "San" rather than "Khoi", which would be extremely confusing if we were to use the Khoi+San terminology. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And maybe you should have discussed those reasons prior to moving, because this is a space where multiple users contribute, and your rationale might not be shared. Moreover just because a people are called one thing does not automatically mean their religion is named after them. Or refereed to as a Bush people religion. Hence religion of Muslims is Islam, not Muslim People religion. Consistency has to go with reference also.--Inayity (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You're being silly. There is no San/Bushman religion; the title is merely a descriptive phrase. Or at least you could provide some smidgin of evidence that your objection has anything to do with reality. As for moving the article, several people had pointed out that the old name was spurious, and in any case did it not describe the topic of the article. No-one has ever complained complained about the move. The only question was whether it should be to "San" or to "Bushman". I initially chose "San" because I do not like the name "Bushman", but I changed my mind for consistency with this article. Your constant griping about irrelevant trivia is a waste of our time. Maybe you could address the issue at hand? — kwami (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer if you respect civility per WP:CIVIL and the next time I come across your battleground editing policy i will address that in the appropriate place. So do not dare tell me about what is silly or "wasting time: again. I have addressed the issue at hand, hence why this discussion is going on. --Inayity (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES: When this article was changed from stub status in 2005, there was a separate non-stub article titled San (tribe), which was redirected to this article in 2010.

WP:POVNAMING: This rule applies as much if not more to the counter-argument, as the San term is more widely used in English language reliable sources (over the last 20 years). HelenOnline 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The history of related articles is quite a mess, with various articles including San (tribe), San people, Khoisan and Bushmen and redirects back and forth. I have tried to figure out what came first other than as a dab page or a redirect. San (tribe) was created on 23 September 2003. San people was around from 20 January 2004 ( ) at the latest. Bushmen was created as a redirect on 14 September 2003 and changed from a redirect (with text copied from San people) on 3 May 2004. San (tribe) and San people both predate Bushmen as articles proper. HelenOnline 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

HelenOnline, regarding your argument on WP:POVNAMING: as you point out, the argument stands for both Bushmen and San so I am happy to concede that point (though I concede only that it merely makes the point moot and not usefully the purview of WP:POVNAMING). However, I must disagree on your counterargument regarding WP:TITLECHANGES, and the "non-stub article" San (tribe) that you claim was present when Bushmen was de-stubbed in 2005. Though it is true that the article San (tribe) was never actually formally tagged as a stub, its body text never once exceeded 300 words, from its creation in 2003 until its merge with Bushmen in 2010. Consequently it has for its entire existence fallen below most common rule-of-thumb criteria for stub status (see WP:Stub), and so my argument still stands, that at the time of the de-stubbing of Bushmen in 2005, it was by far the larger article on the topic and several subsequent users retained that name for it. As for San people, Misplaced Pages's edit history has no evidence for its stubness or lack thereof, so I can't comment on it beyond what you've cited. But in any case, I remain convinced that the article should remain as per WP:TITLECHANGES. Thefamouseccles (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. San people is what I am used to hear and reading, I have had the impression that "bushmen" has been outdated for quite some time. Britannica says "San, also called (pejorative) Bushmen". Iselilja (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per Helen's rationale. We should make a better effort to separate the different khoisan speaking peoples in our articles though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as OP of previous proposal and as explained further in the Bushmen#Ethnic nomenclature subsection of the article itself. Particularly the part where this was chosen by the peoples themselves as the preferred ethnonym as Helen mentioned, debunking the arguments that this is the result of western bias. "Bushmen" is the more obviously western bias here, being English.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I didn't fee that strongly until perusing a couple of the article's sources which read (in part) that "The problem was that in the Kalahari, 'San' has all the baggage that the 'N-word' has in America. Bushmen kids are graduating from school, reading the academic literature, and are outraged that we call them 'San'" and "For a while, “San” seemed to be replacing “Bushman”, but more recently the pendulum seems to have begun to swing back." Replacing a more common controversial name with a less common controversial name is not a good move. User:Thefamouseccles provides Wikipolicy reasons for this above. —  AjaxSmack  00:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is each users choice what to do, but I have found it strange taking the opinion of a blogger as so notable that it out weights all the other evidence presented which says Bushmen is worse. STEVE SAILER is a blogger, probably doing what most people do, googling something and sticking with the opinion which best suits his 4 person liked article. So who is Steve? SPL and this might interest you racially insensitive remarks. And by the way, and unfortunately, any African American would know that using the N-Word certainly (while it should) does not outrage African American youth. Just like I am sure some San (for probably the same reasons), like calling themselves Bushmen. (reporting from the ground in real Africa)--Inayity (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I admit I didn't read an entire dossier on the each quotation's author and his background. I simply pulled them from articles (not blogs) taken from the citations in the Misplaced Pages article's nomenclature section. If you have an issue with certain authors being cited, edit the article appropriately. —  AjaxSmack  03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the N-word is extremely offensive. Offensive words can be used in-group as an emblem of solidarity, but that doesn't mean outsiders get to use them. Also, "Africa" is a big place, and just because you're there doesn't mean you're necessarily better informed than the others here. That would be like saying "I can tell you we should call them 'Indians' because I'm here on the ground in the US". Well, I'm not Indian/Native American, so my opinion doesn't mean much, and even if I were, that wouldn't mean my opinion was representative. I've met too many Africans who've told me not to go somewhere because the people are savages who eat their children to think that someone knows what is racist just because they're African. The question is not what "someone in real Africa" thinks, but what the San/Bushmen prefer to be called in English, assuming there's anything approaching consensus.

The info about Sailor's racism is troubling. Thank you for pointing it out. The question is whether he reported Harpending correctly, or misquoted him (or took him out of context) to serve some ulterior purpose. His factual statements on Inuit/Eskimo seem to be on the mark (even if the conclusions he draws from them are a stretch), so his Harpending quotes may be too. — kwami (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is true that living in Africa can have no value (on its own). It is also true that for some issues being on the ground is extremely useful. And I certainly do not dismiss that. And on this issue it does help to have someone in Africa (as a few users are) who are not just random people. But maybe teach at university here in Africa and have another sense of things on the ground. Just like a trained linguist is going to know things and appreciate things that a general user cannot. There are nuances about Islam (as a good example) you cannot know unless you actually are practicing the religion. The term expert opinion comes into it. B/c If i have meet and worked among the San, or in Southern Africa it does add to arguments presented here, unless only one kind of "knowledge" can be discussed. And this has come up before. And this is why if Misplaced Pages articles on Africa were ONLY written by Americans of European ancestry you would be shocked how poor they would be. --Inayity (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, if you've worked with the San, then hopefully you have some understanding of what they prefer to be called. Growing up in Dakar, though, would be completely irrelevant, and that's all "real Africa" might mean. BTW, in South Africa many prefer to be called "Khomani". — kwami (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, and I am just adding it as another dimension. I am in South Africa and would not take the opinion outside my door on the San. because even in South Africa most people here have never meet a San person or even seen a Real Lion (fact). So I am adding all of this in balance. Most people I meet do not even know where Zimbabwe is. I cannot 100% state what they want to be called, but I do have a sense of the issues (per Hendrik Biebouw correct remarks) and its parallels to Black vs African American. Or to a lesser extent Oromo vs Gallah. --Inayity (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Although a large proportion of the Bushmen/San live in Namibia - where there is apparently a consensus on the use of San - there are many others also in Botswana, Angola, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Zambia, and the fact that they are not a single homogeneous culture means that even if a consensus is reached in Namibia, that still fails to speak for all groups." (Thefamouseccles)

"The question is not what 'someone in real Africa' thinks, but what the San/Bushmen prefer to be called in English, assuming there's anything approaching consensus." (Kwami)

The article clearly states that the consensus of delegates representing the people at meetings held in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa in the 1990s supported the San term as it was considered the more neutral term (incidentally although based in Namibia, WIMSA "represents the interests of San peoples throughout southern Africa"). This is also evident from the primary wording used on the websites of WIMSA and the Kuru Family of Organisations, who represent the people directly (these are not charities or academic groups). Yes not every single person agrees with it and yes it is a fairly recent development (although surely something that happened in the 1990s and is predominant in English language reliable sources published since then is not too recent for Misplaced Pages to adopt?). If more sources are needed, a 2000 report by the Kuru Development Trust and WIMSA includes the following statement:

"Although the people are also known by the names Bushmen and Basarwa, the term San was chosen as an inclusive group name for this report, since WIMSA representatives have decided to use it until such time as one representative name for all groups will be accepted by all."

I can cite more sources, but do we really need them? HelenOnline 07:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I am also confused with equal frustration. I sincerely feel the case has been demonstrated. But what can I say? I just dont get some of the counter arguments, I tried but they do not balance out. --Inayity (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, so it shouldn't matter how many people support or oppose. If the closing admin judges that you've proven your case, they'll move the article even if a majority opposes the move. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Though of course if we reach consensus that simplifies matters. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with kwami. And for my part, I read the WIMSA statement provided by HelenOnline as saying precisely the opposite is true: that while the councils participating in WIMSA - that is, the indigenous councils of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa (only three of the six nations where Bushmen/San have sizable populations, incidentally) - have agreed to use the name San as an inclusive group name, they also recognise explicitly that there is as yet no genuine consensus among southern African Bushmen/San populations as to what the appropriate nomenclature should be ("Although the people are also known by the names Bushmen and Basarwa, the term San was chosen as an inclusive group name for this report, since WIMSA representatives have decided to use it until such time as one representative name for all groups will be accepted by all.", my emphasis). That's quite the opposite of what HelenOnline reads from it. Thefamouseccles (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, a report from this month on Botswana Bushmen by native South African journalist Pumza Fihlani notes that "While some people find the term Bushmen offensive, this is what this group of people prefer to be called", adding moderate but noteworthy support to the possibility that WIMSA's statement was in fact an explicit recognition of the lack of a genuine consensus among the people themselves. Thefamouseccles (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. I've held off voting because, let's face it, most of us have no idea about this, and I feared my preference for "San" might be nothing more than the fact that "Bushman" sounds bad to me. Which it now appears may be the case. I almost voted earlier, until Inayity pointed out that the person quoting Harpending might be a racist. But Harpending confirms his account. I've also gone through the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., 2006), and they never say "San" unless they also say "Bushman" for clarification, but may use "Bushman" without "San", or may splice it as "Bushmen/Saan". (Though there are clues that some of the people using the word in ELL2 don't know what they're talking about, for instance in thinking that the "Khoe" and "San" of Botswana together make up the Khoesan, so that "Khoesan" and "San" are synonyms.) BTW, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, say if the pejorative aspect of "San" has lost its potency in the last 20 years. — kwami (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It is widely and increasingly considered a pregoritive term by many people who consider them selves as decendants of the San or Khoi-San people. Since my philosophy is that a term is offensive if the people who that terms refers to consider it offensive, regardless of what others think, I feel I must support the move.--Discott (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. My worry is that "San" may be even more offensive, and that we don't recognize that fact simply because it doesn't mean anything in English. In some areas it does appear that "San" is a far worse pejorative than "Bushman". The question is which is the lesser evil overall, and I don't have an answer to that. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Representatives of the people consider San to be "the most neutral" term (James Suzman, 2001). Isn't that the same thing as the lesser evil? HelenOnline 19:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on who they are. The anthropologist above says that "San" is innocuous in the northern Kalahari but highly offensive in the central Kalahari. We're not going to move 'African American' to 'American Coloureds' just because that term is inoffensive in South Africa, no matter how many sources we can find that say it's the preferred term. It seems that we're guessing that certain POVs are representative or universal when we don't know that's true. It may very well be that "San" is the way to go, but I don't want to make the move and then find out it was a mistake, because moving it back will be worse than the debate we're having now. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

At some stage you have to realize there is a limit on how much "truth" you will get out of finding out what is what. I see your point but we all know that the African American example is not the best example. Today there are people who prefer to be called "black" but Misplaced Pages prefers African American, for all the same arguments we are making here. No matter how you bend time and space, we cannot escape the hard reality that calling people Bushmen is absolutely inappropriate and was born out of the racist conquest of Africa. So the lesser of two evils can only be San. Nothing else to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The fact that A is bad doesn't mean that B is better. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense if you use a straw man to summarize my argument.Which has been repeated by numerous editors. --Inayity (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense if you're rational. We're supposed to be having an intelligent discussion here. If you're not willing to do that, you're wasting our time. — kwami (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes no sense? You are wasting time by your empty arguments and appealing to a rational discussion when nothing in the your above comments is rationale. For those reading. So the statement Lesser of two evils principle (added link so you can read it) is NOT (as you said) 'A is bad doesn't mean that B is better', so the funny thing is your accusations come back on you and show you are the one wasting our time. Two words have problems, the one with the least problems is SAN, is there a problem with that logic? So you are using straw man to engage in pointless discussions by misrepresenting what I said. Naturally I make no sense when you fail to get the point.--Inayity (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think repeating myself will help you understand any better. Your argument here is circular: San is the lesser of two evils, so the lesser of two evils is San. Or is it the other way around? Either way, a claim is not evidence for itself. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, please don't presume to speak for others here ("our time"). HelenOnline 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

An irrational argument is a waste of everyone's time, unless you propose that's how we should decide things. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is an irrational argument. You do not have a mandate to speak for others. Please do not speak for me. HelenOnline 07:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong but still strong. irrational is defined here Mr Kwami, since there seems to be confusion about what the term means, as for wasting time can you please stop now, you are only discussing your own activities. Move on! --Inayity (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Depends on who they are". What do they sources say about who they are?:

• "San representatives" (Dieckmann, 2007)
• "WIMSA representatives" (Le Raux, 2000)
• "a representative gathering of San in 1993" (Mail & Guardian, 2007)
• "San delegates " (Suzman, 2001)
• "delegates from various San groups at a meeting in Namibia " (Guenther, 2006)
• "representatives of various San groups met in Namibia " (Hitchcock and Biesele, undated) HelenOnline 06:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also representatives from WIMSA and the South African San Institute attending the 2003 Africa Human Genome Initiative conference held in Stellenbosch (Schlebusch, 2010). HelenOnline 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support some move. Red Slash 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Cautious oppose Although both terms are far from devoid of problems, and we should refer to people by the terms they prefer themselves, in the absence of clarity one way or the other we should use the term likely to be widely understood in English. PatGallacher (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:HelenOnline has spent a great deal of energy demonstrating that "prefer" in the majority of measurable cases in San. So i am not sure how much more clarity we need on the issue.--Inayity (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pat please can you explain why you think a) there is no clarity on what term they prefer (overall) and b) Bushmen is more likely to be widely understood in English? HelenOnline 11:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Inayity, with every due respect to HelenOnline (who has clearly done a lot of research into the matter), not everyone has agreed that the case has been demonstrated. I, for my part, still disagree. The wording of the statement in the WIMSA report cited, which comprises the major argument for the putative acceptance of San by the people themselves, rather explicitly acknowledges the continuing absence of a consensus and states that the usage of San is an interim measure in the ongoing absence of said consensus: "Although the people are also known by the names Bushmen and Basarwa, the term San was chosen as an inclusive group name for this report, since WIMSA representatives have decided to use it until such time as one representative name for all groups will be accepted by all" (Le Roux 2000:2, my emphasis). Even some anthropologists who have been working for many years with the peoples represented by the WIMSA councils - notably Richard B. Lee, who was in his work on the Ju/'hoansi of Dobe an early champion of the term San - are still not consistent in using San in preference to Bushmen. (Lee and Hitchcock's 2001 paper African Hunter-Gatherers: Survival, History and Politics of Identity is a notable example, using Bushmen and San nearly equally some five years after the WIMSA meeting.) And even if the WIMSA report is to be taken as indicating the existence of pan-southern African consensus - which I do not believe is tenable in view of its phrasing - WIMSA itself comprises indigenous councils from only three of the six countries (Namibia, South Africa, Botswana) where sizable populations of Bushmen/San exist, and this recent article is evidence that even in Botswana, the country with the largest population of Bushmen/San even by WIMSA's acknowledgment, there is at least one coherent group that prefer the term Bushmen. Thefamouseccles (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing consensus with unanimity. Even on Misplaced Pages, consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMITY. HelenOnline 14:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To reply to my questioner: I think it is fairly obvious that Bushmen is the historic term in English, as for the other point, I thin Thefamouseccles replies better than I can. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And Negro is the historical term for African Americans in English.--Inayity (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you're essentially arguing that we should move 'Negro' to 'Colored'. — kwami (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

HelenOnline, I'd appreciate your addressing my points directly rather than simply denouncing my understanding of yours. WP:NOTUNANIMITY addresses that point specifically, in fact: Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. I'm not confusing consensus with unanimity at all. I'm not seeking unanimity: I am questioning whether your evidence is sufficient even to demonstrate the existence of a consensus. Merriam-Webster gives three definitions of consensus, and even if we ignore the first (in which it equates consensus with unanimity), we're left with "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" and "group solidarity in sentiment and belief". As I have argued twice already, in my reading the statement of the WIMSA delegates - the major piece of evidence on which arguments for San seem to be resting - is an explicit recognition that opinions between Bushman/San groups fail to fulfil the criterion of solidarity of sentiment, and it also calls into question (though doesn't outright fail) the criterion of judgment by most concerned. That is the point I think still fails to be addressed, and needs to be before we can consider exchanging one controversial title for another per WP:TITLECHANGES. Thefamouseccles (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I should have expressed myself better. I was trying to address your point about there being "a continuing absence of a consensus" based on the WIMSA statement which implies San is not "accepted by all", i.e. unanimity. I was not talking about the process happening here, just thought Misplaced Pages did a good job of explaining the difference. HelenOnline 05:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to understand everyone here, even questioning the rationale of some who support the move, hence all the (probably annoying) questions from me. HelenOnline 06:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally my statements about there being a consensus or preference (overall) are not original research. Per James Suzman (2001) cited in the article: "The clearest consensus on this issue emerged at the Common Access to Development Conference held in Botswana in 1993, where San delegates agreed that the term San should be used for the meantime, as it was considered the most neutral." Per Mathias Guenther (2006) cited in the article: "San is becoming the preferred term of self-appellation." HelenOnline 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I have not found anything on Google regarding the etymology of 'San' (possibly because I'm using google.fr) but the pejorative meaning of 'Bushmen' is quite clear to every English speaker. If there are any reliable sources -Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 10:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the survey Seonookim. As stated in the article with reliable sources, San is a term of the Khoikhoi pastoralists meaning "people who lived without farms or livestock", which some consider to be derogatory. HelenOnline 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also been said to mean "thieves", though that may be the connotation rather than the denotation (like "Gypsy" in European languages). The word for those without livestock is generally derogatory in pastoralist societies. The fact that words like "San" and "Gypsy" aren't obviously pejorative to those not familiar with them is small comfort to the people themselves if they're used as slurs by their neighbors. — kwami (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I may be late, but I believe Bushmen is a pejorative term. These people are the natives of southern Africa prior to Bantu-speaking Negroid arrival and colonization, which was prior to Germanic-speaking European colonization. Indigenous Southern African (or Indigenous South African) is a good option and would be my first choice. I do not specialize in Khoisan peoples, so I don't know if "San" would be an appropriate term, though based on my understanding, it is definitely better than "bushmen". Afro-Eurasian (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• If we move this, we should also move Bushman religion to San religion. We also should decide if we want to make this a rd or a dab page for the various peoples who have been called "Bushmen". — kwami (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that, if we move this, we should also move Bushman religion to San religion. I am not sure I follow your second sentence. I would expect Bushmen to redirect to San people. HelenOnline 06:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It could. But one of the objections to using the name "Bushmen" was that it's not synonymous with San, being used in other countries for unrelated peoples. The Bushmen from Australia who fought in the Boer wars had nothing to do with the San. However, since the word most frequestly refers to the San, we could have a hat note to Bushman. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't aware of that dab page. I have added a hatnote to the article which should have been there per WP:SIMILAR. As there is no other article titled Bushmen, we could have a redirect here with a hatnote to the dab page as follows:

"Bushmen" redirects here. For other uses, see Bushman.

HelenOnline 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• In case it is not clear, I would like to clarify that I am not proposing removing any content or the alternative term Bushmen from the article. I am only proposing a change in the article title (which alternative terms would redirect to, unless there is a better way to do that I am not aware of). HelenOnline 11:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• In the interests of resolving this matter once and for all, I have posted a comment on the talk pages of all the relevant WikiProjects and everyone who commented about the name here in the last year (since the last formal discussion) and has not participated yet. HelenOnline 10:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• In case there is any confusion, The Namibian is not a "government newspaper". HelenOnline 10:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• This issue is identical to African Americanvs black, identical in the sense that as one user put it (although it was not welcomed) some in a group are progressive an decolonizing themselves. Africa is not a native African word. But it is more neutral than black.I would always replace black with African, or African American. You will find the same controversy, but as Middayexpress said between the two there is no doubt that the more progressive is San. And the arguments against Bushmen is consistent. People who are living the African experience or have studied it properly know what the legacy of slavery and oppression has done to a people's identity. And while Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be "political" i think we would be fooling ourselves if we did not realize EVERYTHING is political.--Inayity (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you realize "it was not welcomed" in the context of the survey and not in absolute terms. Consensus will be based on rationale as much as votes so this supporter is effectively shooting themselves in the foot and voiding their vote. HelenOnline 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

He amended it with a rationale. rationale--Inayity (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see that later. FYI consensus will be determined by the closing editor (an uninvolved experienced editor or admin) as follows: "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Misplaced Pages community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." HelenOnline 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Do they come on their own or do we have to go and get them? --Inayity (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is automatically listed at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and they should come on their own, although there could be a delay due to a backlog. HelenOnline 14:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I asked Dr Harpending if he could confirm what was quoted of him in the Sailer article, and he replied,

I don’t have any very strong opinion about all of this. ... In the early 90’s there was a group called First People of the Kalahari that stated that “Bushmen” was the right name for the themselves. They had a minor campaign to get expats to quit saying “Bush People” in English. I have no idea what the current situation is.

The Botswana government for a while used “Basarwa” officially but I haven’t heard that much lately.

“San” is harmless in the northern Kalahari but it is just not something one calls someone in the central Kalahari, where is is not quite as nasty as our “nigger” but is in the same domain. Again my views reflect 20 year old familiarity with the place but none since.

He also suggested "Khoisan-speaking people", though that wouldn't be limited to the San/Bushmen and wouldn't work well w the religion article. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I like his honesty (on the matter), he would know a lot has changed in Southern Africa since then. This is Harpending the author of The 10,000 Year Explosion? (I will not give an opinion since not a forum).--Inayity (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's him. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think taking his advice on what is more or less politically correct would be an error. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My take on the article is that Henry Harpending implied San is the "politically correct" term in the interview, which is echoed in other sources. HelenOnline 07:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see consensus to move, but I don't see a situation where I'd be comfortable handling the post-move cleanup. Any volunteers among more knowledgeable Wikipedians? --BDD (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@BDD: I would do whatever I can without admin tools (where I would request admin assistance) if it is not considered inappropriate as nominator. HelenOnline 06:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, it's good when a nominator is willing to take care of the follow-through. I'm mostly talking about updating the text of the articles, so lack of admin tools shouldn't be a problem, but let me know if you do run into anything like that. Over to you. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Individual group names

I partially reverted an unexplained bold edit by Kwamikagami, as we should use established WP:ENGLISH names for individual groups and listing the "Khoi" group is confusing and unsourced. I left "Naro" in per source and added "Khwe" per source and established English name usage. HelenOnline 07:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Khwe is Khoi. The latter spelling is obviously more common. As for it being confusing, isn't that a good reason to clarify? — kwami (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Khwe language article says "Khwe" is the preferred spelling. There is no mention of "Khoi" in the article, only in the Khoikhoi article. How have you clarified anything? HelenOnline 07:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't change the preferred spellings "Gǀui" and "Gǁana". We state that the San prefer to be called by their endonyms, so it's reasonable to list them, or their English variants, isn't it? We don't even list the actual San, the Haiǁom. I've found another ref, which is a bit more inclusive (esp. for the San of Botswana), and will add a fn that the endonym "Khoi" is used for various peoples. The reason "Khoikhoi" ("real people") is used is to distinguish them from the Khoi (people) who are San (thieves). BTW, old refs say the Haiǁom would call the Korana "San", just as the Korana called the Haiǁom "San", as they considered the Korana to be thieves. — kwami (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going by what their Misplaced Pages article is called (Gana and Gwi bushmen) (if it is incorrect, it should be addressed via the proper Misplaced Pages channels) and an English Google search on Gana/Gwi versus Gllana/Glwi. HelenOnline 09:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A Gsearch is difficult because of the huge number of orthographic variants for clicks, many of which are transparent to the search engine (they're dismissed as punctuation). I've never seen a source that leaves out the clicks, but that might just be the circles I travel in. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note,if I am allowed. I think the "real" meaning might be Men of Men. Which has been made gender neutral in our PC times to Real people or people of people as opposed to The real men among men. men of menref--Inayity (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the grammar: the gender, whether it's reduplicated, etc., though our Khoekhoe article gives khoe-i (pl. khoen) as an example of neuter gender. But the "real" comes in with the translation, as "men of men" (or "men-men") doesn't have any meaning in English. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked on the group names spelling issue, but came across a 2005 report from Botswana which may be useful for anyone working on this aspect of Misplaced Pages. It includes this recommendation:

"Henceforth, the language will be known as Khwedam and the people are known as Khwe. Work on the Khwedam language will respect the diversity of the language and the identity of the people, giving particular recognition to the ||Anikhwe language variety. NB: The old spelling Kxoe and Kxoedam is inappropriate and does not represent the new integrated spelling system." HelenOnline 07:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

1. It is strongly recommended that the Manual of Style is broadly followed, but this is not required for good articles.
2. ^ In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
3. This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
4. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
5. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
6. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Africa articles
• Top-importance Africa articles
• B-Class Angola articles
• Top-importance Angola articles
• WikiProject Angola articles
• B-Class Botswana articles
• Top-importance Botswana articles
• WikiProject Botswana articles
• B-Class Namibia articles
• Top-importance Namibia articles
• WikiProject Namibia articles
• B-Class South Africa articles
• Top-importance South Africa articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors