Talk:San people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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" [1]. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

Re some points made by Thefamouseccles in their rationale (sorry if this is in the wrong place, it is a bit crowded):

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 ([2] [3]) 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, Wikipedia'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'"[4] and "For a while, “San” seemed to be replacing “Bushman”, but more recently the pendulum seems to have begun to swing back."[5] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I am confused by statements by opposers in the survey such as:

"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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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" [at international conferences] (Dieckmann, 2007)
• "WIMSA representatives" (Le Raux, 2000)
• "a representative gathering of San in 1993" (Mail & Guardian, 2007)
• "San delegates [at the Common Access to Development Conference held in Botswana in 1993]" (Suzman, 2001)
• "delegates from various San groups at a meeting in Namibia [in 1996 and 1997]" (Guenther, 2006)
• "representatives of various San groups [who] met in Namibia [in late 1996 and 1997]" (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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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.

"post-move clean up"

I happened to notice Special:Contributions/HelenOnline, and saw that it relates to the discussion above. First of all, please read WP:NOTBROKEN. If you want to mark the term "Bushmen" as tainted, use some redirect template other than {{R from move}}. But even then, when you're thinking of changing a referenced sentence, check that the reference is actually using the term you want to use and not the other one (that you do not think is freely interchangeable). Otherwise this is not "cleanup", it's advocacy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the references, that is why I added "(Bushmen)" after San. HelenOnline 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's for that one that I reverted. Why the redundancy? More generally, why would it now be necessary to use the term not used in the source, when it wasn't yesterday? I didn't go through the entire list reverting every violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, but there were plenty. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What has changed is that this article has been renamed, based in part on what the ethnic group prefers as an autonym overall and considers the most neutral term. I am doing post-move clean up, as agreed above with the closing admin BDD. I don't mind who does it, but nobody else offered, and I even checked beforehand whether or not it was appropriate for me to do it, so please don't accuse me of "advocacy" just because I like things to be tidy. Clean up to me entails tidying article text where necessary and ensuring reasonable consistency across Wikipedia. It doesn't make sense to me that the default term is "Bushmen" everywhere on Wikipedia except in the main article about them. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), which is about article titles but should surely be consistent with article texts? HelenOnline 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate use of WP:NOTBROKEN. NOTBROKEN tells us not to pipe links to avoid redirects; it doesn't prohibit actually changing the visible text that appears in the article. NOTBROKEN tells us not to change [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]]. If Helen was changing [[Bushmen]] to [[San people|Bushmen]] then this would apply. As she is changing the actual text that appears, this is a content issue and not a NOTBROKEN issue. Addressing that actual content dispute, it seems to me that as we have determined that "San" is the more appropriate title than "Bushmen" for this topic, there's nothing in general wrong with changing the text used in other articles to refer to this topic. - htonl (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a direct violation of both the spirit and the text of the redirect guideline. Please try simply reading the first paragraph of the WP:NOTBROKEN section. I do not see how we could have possibly determined that "Bushmen" is something that is "broken" and should be "fixed" through a rather contentious move proposal that resulted in a very difficult closing decision (BDD's words, not mine). Acting as if these further changes are a natural corollary to such a RM result, and are somehow magically devoid of being contentious, is disingenuous. Even if you all do mean well, it's a classic procedural blunder. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to condescendingly tell me to read NOTBROKEN; obviously I read it before I posted my first reply. NOTBROKEN is about replacing links to a redirect with piped links to the target. It's not about changing the text of the articles. To put it differently: if Helen was changing "Bushmen" to "San people" in text that was not a link at all, the issue would be exactly the same, and clearly NOTBROKEN doesn't apply there. I'm not saying it's not contentious - clearly there is a dispute, but it's a dispute about content that has to be settled by discussion, and not a situation where you can say "NOTBROKEN" to shut down the debate. - htonl (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Further: it was perhaps inaccurate for Helen to describe the edits as "post-move cleanup", which seems to imply that the edits are automatically justified as a consequence of the article move. But it is equally inaccurate to claim that the edits are automatically wrong because of NOTBROKEN. The edits must stand or fall on their own merits as changes to the article content. - htonl (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks htonl. Not being an administrator or move expert, I probably made some procedural mistakes and I apologise for that. I am not going to repeat the move discussion debate on every single article linked here (there are many). See Talk:Khoisan#Terminology correction for starters. If it makes anyone feel any better, I won't be doing anything other than very basic post-move clean up as it is not worth my while. If other editors want to change terms used in linked articles, it is up to them but this job struggle is too big for one editor. HelenOnline 07:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're forcing me to quote chapter and verse. You're going to take this as condescending, but I can't help it when you're refusing to simply read it over there.

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful and time-wasting exercise, and it can actually be detrimental.

"Bushmen" is a redirect to "San people". "Cleaning up" links to Bushmen by making them use the term "San people" - is bypassing the redirect. I'm certainly not intending to shut down the debate - in fact, I'm protesting these mass changes because they're easily perceived as an act of advocacy that skews the debate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bypassing" the redirect or "fixing" the link, in the context of NOTBROKEN, means changing [[redirect]] to [[target|redirect]], i.e. in this case changing [[Bushmen]] to [[San people|Bushmen]]. What Helen is doing is different, as she is changing the visible link. A little bit further down it says:

"It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects. That is, editors should not change, for instance, [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] just to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] if for some non-redirect-related reason it is preferred that Franklin D. Roosevelt should actually appear in the text." (emphasis mine)

Clearly Helen believes that it is preferred that San people should actually appear in the text. She is not making those changes just to avoid redirects. Evidently you disagree about what should preferably appear in the text. But that clause is why it is not a NOTBROKEN issue.

As an addendum: when people interpret policy differently to your interpretation, it does not mean that they have not read the policy. - htonl (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your retort is plain ridiculous. You've picked out the single sentence of that section that talks about pipe links as the meaning of WP:NOTBROKEN. That is simply illogical. That shortcut points to the start of that section. To infer that it fails to refer to the entirety of the section - is a novelty interpretation at best.

Regarding the other argument, the purpose of that exception for "non-redirect-related reasons" shouldn't be one of a crutch that allows editors to blithely disregard the spirit of the guideline. Sure, you can have some reasons, but when those reasons have just been seriously disputed in a contentious discussion, that must give you pause about proceeding to use them in another likely contentious setting.

In conclusion, I can't believe I got pulled into this useless exercise in wikilawyering. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we have a fundamental disagreement about what "the spirit of the guideline" is. I think it's a technical guideline about not changing the target of links just because they're redirects. You think it governs article content as well. I can happily agree that it isn't automatically necessary to change everywhere that links to an article just because the article is renamed. But I don't think NOTBROKEN dals with that situation, and it certainly doesn't make it automatically wrong to ever change such links. - htonl (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the rules in the redirect guideline necessarily follow a spirit that the guideline text itself explains - see WP:GUIDES. The guidelines are categorized in a manner similar to what you describe, but not with the intent to undercut them, but simply to make the long list of guidelines easier to navigate - see WP:LGL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic nomenclature: March 2014

In line with WP:BRD, I am opening a new discussion here about my partial revert of some of kwami's recent edits in which I have provided clarification based on what is actually in the sources cited and added a new source on the meaning of the term San. HelenOnline 07:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I'd like to verify the root means "picking up off the ground", but that can wait. Restoring some of the balance, on the negative implications of the word, that were removed during the push to move the article. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Re my latest revert, I have explained in my edit summaries and above that I have removed Saan because it is unsourced. Please stop adding it back. HelenOnline 12:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's a common spelling; you can choose any of hundreds of sources if you want one. — kwami (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, take your pick. — kwami (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-European / Historic Life Expectancy Data: Sept 2014

Hello fellow San researchers. I am having a hard time finding reasonably credible information regarding historic life expectancies of the San. There is no shortage of information claiming that life expectancies used to be much longer than they currently are, which I believe, but I am having a tough time finding specific/credible sources. If anyone has useful data I humbly request you add it to the article. 162.239.92.148 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Neoteny And Other Race Science

Pseudosciences like Neoteny or Phrenology have no place next to real science like genetics. I would like to see the removal of the subject of Neoteny, or at least a qualification of the dubious nature of these and other pre-DNA bases of scientific racism.MrSativa (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been selected to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd like to ask the English Wikipedia community to join our efforts and improve the article before December 31, 2014 (any timezone); a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review in early 2015. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that editors can decide if and how to use them. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Review within the Wikipedia Primary School project

Hi all. Some weeks ago Prof. Sven Ouzman (University of Western Australia) agreed to review a couple of articles within the scope of the project linked above. You can find his notes in these 2 PDFs I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Prof. Ouzman for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here. Best, --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Films

• A Far Off Place
• Red Scorpion

Axxter99 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

UN indigenous peoples report

This document may be useful for putting the material under San people#Ancestral land conflict in Botswana in context. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Anaya, James (2 June 2010). Addendum – The situation of indigenous peoples in Botswana (PDF) (Report). United Nations Human Rights Council. A/HRC/15/37/Add.2.

Another good source, from the US State Department:

• Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Botswana 2013 Human Rights Report (PDF) (Report). United States Department of State.

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "genetics" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Linking information and ensuring correct interpretation of terms

I don't know enough about the topic to do this myself, but there seems to be some conflicting information with regard to the various terms - San, Khoisan, Khoikhoi, Strandloper, etc., and the information is not effectively linked or comprehensive in listing and relating the various terms on Wikipedia. I refer to this UN-funded site http://www.san.org.za/history.php run by the South African San Institute as a starting point. Is there anyone willing and able to take this on? Genmel (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genmel (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. See my note above. I don't have the expertise, time or health to do a thorough revision, but I thought that at least adding the information about the Strandlopers entry in Wikipedia (which does provide some citations) to this one, thus linking back to it, would spark somebody's interest in cleaning all of this up. I agree the name is colonial, but the term does nevertheless exist in some sources. As it now stands, there is nothing in this entry to link it to Strandloper peoples It would be nice to get Wikipedia in line with reliable sources linking all of the terminology, colonial and indigenous. Genmel (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, I suspect it's no at the moment, but perhaps someone will see this and come along. Strandloper is plainly the odd-one-out in the list of San, Khoi, etc, as a term with dodgy origins: it exists, but that doesn't prove it's decent (compare gypsy, lapp, ...). I suggest we put it in as a 'See also' and leave it to a future expert. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap, that's a good solution. I might add some of the other terms to this list, and vice versa with San people. I agree about some terms not being correct and decent, but I'm not the one to sort them all out - and there may be more. (The link I gave above seems to be a fairly authoritative source but I haven't looked extensively.) Genmel (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

time period of western colonization

Zero information about time period of western colonization. What were the interactions and how did the population change?--Halfcookie (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Age/Name rule

Could someone who understands the passage about "name rule" and "age rule" expand it, perhaps with an example? Are these terms an anthropology student would know in a generic context? 70.131.48.56 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BushmenSan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

There is apparently a little error, one of the photo used for this page, the "Portrait of a bushman" one, is the same than the one used for the chief Gaborone (a bantu chief) page, and both are credited to Alfred Duggan-Cronin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.139.81.223 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Age of art and implements

The claim that artefacts at Tsodilo are 70,000 years old is strongly contested in the main Tsodilo article. These doubts seem to be confirmed by the recent announcement of the worlds oldest representational artwork in Indonesia at about 45,000 years old. I'm not expert in these things, but if there's not objection, I suggest to remove this sentence, as it is not essential to the topic. Kyle MoJo (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Bushmen Hottentots image

Toltol15 on 11 November added an 1804 image with caption "Bushmen Hottentots armed for an expedition". I gather that the illustrator of the time didn't distinguish Bushmen (now San) from Hottentots (now Khoekhoen). But seemingly Wikipedia does distinguish. So I worry that this is not clearly an illustration of San, and should not be in. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

History

San people 41.223.117.66 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

History

When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they colonised the land.They made a refreshment station for their people to eat healthy food  41.116.244.101 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean invaded? 2601:8C:981:A3C0:2141:B8ED:B3BC:CCA0 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Cape genocide

I can't be the only one who finds the image of a severed head disrespectful, can I be? That could be someone's great grandfather. 2601:204:100:4270:7D0F:BA22:AD3B:7966 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)