Talk:Great Lakes Twa

Why?

Why does TWA not default to the airline? That's quite silly.

So an airline should get top priority over an entire ethnic group? Please see Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. — Brian (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's does not mean the airline is somehow more important, it means that the vast majority of people throughout the world would identify Trans World Airlines over the Twa. Although admittedly I do not have factual evidence to support this I think it is reasonable to agree that the airline has thus far been more historically significant

Wow. I'm stunned someone would even suggest this. Feel free to propose the move at Requested moves, though. — Brian (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

i agree with the original poster, its just ridiculous to have thousands of people who are searching for a very famous, international corporation end up looking at the page for an obscure ethnic group of little consequence. I strongly support moving twa searches back to Trans World Airlines asap.Paco8191 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC), Wikiproject Companies

I have to agree that far more people are likely to have heard of TWA than the Batwa. But nonetheless in an encyclopedia I think a people who have been around for millennia should have precedence over a corporation that only spans a few decades. kwami 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially an airline that's out of business... jeez/ --72.128.94.139 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

More

Is there anyway this article could include more about the people and their history? I came to this article through an article about the god Bes and there's not really anything here regarding the past history of these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.242.14.141 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

move?

It's been suggested again that the article be moved, this time to Batwa, to avoid confusion with TWA. However, the normal name in English is Twa. By analogy with other ethnic articles, Twa people might be a better choice. Regardless, there isn't any conflict: If you type "TWA" into the search window, you're automatically redirected to Trans World Airlines. So why bother moving this article? kwami (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If people want the airline, they should learn how to use the Shift key on their keyboard. — Dulcem (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that the wikipedia search recognized capitols. TWA does make more sense than Twa, and i withdraw my previous arguments.Paco8191 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its also news to me that Wiki search is sensitive to capitalisation to this degree, but on that basis would also oppose the proposal. Twa and TWA are not not ambiguous when used as search terms. A false positive in this context would be down to poor/sloppy searching which could be adequately addressed with a hatnote RashersTierney (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

The following is a closed 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 No move Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Twa → Twa (people) — I agree with the other posters above that the most probable reference for "twa" or "Twa" on the English Wikipedia is to the airline. I therefore feel that taking the article through the formal process is appropriate. Along with the move request, I'm proposing (in case it isn't obvious) that Twa should become a redirect to Trans World Airlines, as TWA already is - I don't think it's appropriate to distinguish between any articles solely by capitalization. I also note that the name of the reference photo for the current article is "Batwa2.jpg" - a move to Batwa would be an alternative. — Tevildo (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (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 naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No offense to the Twa people, but the airline, even though defunct, clearly has primary usage in the English speaking world. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary use of "Twa" is the ethnic group; the primary use of "TWA" is the defunct airline. There is no conflict in article titles, nicely disambiguated by capitalization, which is entirely appropriate (see WP:PRECISION#Minor spelling variations and examples such as WASP and wasp or Red Meat and red meat). In cases like this the proper solution is to "provide links between the pages to reduce confusion for readers and editors" which is in place via a hatnote. Please also consider the discussions above under "#move?" and "#Why?". Station1 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See TWA vs Twa discussion below. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that people are linking Twa thinking they'll get TWA. Tassedethe (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - capitalisation is a fair method of distinguishing articles, as it is a common method of distinguishing words in English writing. Without it, diary entries about my attempts to polish the seat of my Polish SEAT would be terribly confusing. Tassedethe and Station1 raise valid objections. Knepflerle (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Semi-Support create a dab page at twa, and move the people article. That there are people going to look for the airline is highly likely, but I think a dab is more appropriate than a redirect. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose.Twa and TWA are not not ambiguous when used as search terms. A false positive in this context would be down to poor/sloppy searching which could be adequately addressed with a hatnote. RashersTierney (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The airline is TWA and so is the article. The people are Twa (admittedly, this is the first I've heard of them) and so is the article. Seems like we are already in a sweet spot. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: Tevildo (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

TWA vs. Twa - conflict?

I appreciate the distinction between TWA and Twa, and while I don't expect very many people to type "Twa" when looking for the defunct airline, people are accustomed to searching without regard to case at all, and so are likely to enter "twa" when looking for the defunct airline, which will take them to Twa. So in that sense the defunct airline has primary use of "twa", and, thus, of "Twa". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This was my primary reason for proposing the move - I was looking for the airline, and typed "twa". If "twa" and "Twa" (and, for that matter, "polish" and "Polish") were separate articles, then I would have no issue; I still feel that the airline is the primary referent of these three letters, irrespective of capitalization. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Batwa

Of the eight references in the article, one is a dead link (the catgen.com reference), four refer to the people as "Batwa", one refers to them as "BaTwa", and only two refer to them as "Twa". This would suggest to me that Batwa is the more common name for the people. Tevildo (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar (taking out false hits for author called Twa-Twa):

• Uganda + batwa: 517 results, Uganda + twa: 1,390 results.
• Rwanda + batwa: 521 results, Rwanda + twa 1,680 results
• Burundi + batwa 403 results, Burundi + twa 1,240 results

The references don't seem representative of wider usage, where Twa seems to predominate. Knepflerle (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really make a difference, because even if this article were renamed "Batwa" or "BaTwa" (far preferable to renaming it "Twa (people)" in my opinion), "Twa" should still redirect to "Batwa" and not to the airline. Station1 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2009 (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.

Requested move 2011

The following is a closed 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. I filed a RfM in case there might be objections; as there haven't been, I'm closing and moving. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Twa → Great Lakes Twa
• Twa peoples → Twa

– Universality. Several of our links to "Twa" were not about the Twa of the Great Lakes, but about one or more of the many other Twa peoples. Very often refs to 'Twa' in the lit are ambiguous. Although they are yet stubs, we have articles on some of these: Mongo Twa, Kafwe Twa, Lukanga Twa, and there is sufficient material available to expand those articles and to start several more: the role of the Kasai Twa in the Kuba Kingdom, Twa as the fishermen of the lakes of northern Zambia, encounters between Arab slavers and the Twa of the Lomami, the role of the Luba Twa in Himba legend, Ota Benga's Twa companions at the St. Louis exhibition/zoo, etc. (Though admittedly almost nothing about the Twa of Angola.) These people are all just as notable as the Great Lakes Twa, if not as much in the news because of the Rwandan genocide. IMO an article on the "Twa" should be about the "Twa", not about a subset of them. (BTW I opposed the RfM two years ago, which was for a different reason.) — kwami (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• [comments prior to RfM] I opposed a move the last time, but I'd like to suggest moving to Great Lakes Twa, the disambiguating term used in the literature. The reason is that there are many Twa peoples, of which the Great Lakes Twa are merely the most familiar. Others I have been able to document so far are listed at Southern Twa and classification of Pygmy languages, and there are more in Angola and Namibia that I have not been able to find names for. However, "Southern Twa" is just a term I made up, and IMO should be moved here to "Twa" with a short section and 'main article' link for the Great Lakes Twa. Also, while the various groups are all currently redirects, I'm starting an article on Kafwe Twa. I'll probably not develop it beyond a paragraph with some external reading, but we have the potential for a dozen Twa articles. Some of these groups have reasonably extensive anthropological literature. — kwami (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Semi-support. Seems to me that there is no clear primary topic and it would be best if Twa became a disambiguation page. This would mean we could also combine TWA (disambiguation) the dab. Jenks24 (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

TWA is a rd to the US airline; the dab is for acronyms. What other topic would there be for "Twa" apart from the Twa peoples? — kwami (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing with the original proposal, since no one has commented to support yours. The previous move request decided that the people had primacy over the airline. If you would still like "Twa" to be a dab page, please file a separate RfM. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (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.

History

The current History section is very problematic. It states as truth nineteenth-century German colonial eugenicist fantasies about the origins of Great Lakes' castes/ethnic groups. These outdated theories were later revived by Hutu Power during the Rwandan genocide as a justifications for the annihilation of the Tutsi. I'm going to do research for sources and try to clean up the section, but as it stands now the section would be better deleted than allowed to remain as is. 24.125.163.52 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is inaccurate? The 'Hamitic hypothesis' claims that pastoralists brought civilization to the area, but this article never claims that. Besides, those ideas claimed that it was the Tutsi who were racially superior, not the Hutu. And while a pastoralist population may and frequently do dominate agricultural ones (consider the Mongol and Turk 'hords'), they are not generally thought of as bringers of civilization, as the present connotations of the word 'hord' demonstrate. The idea that Cushitic or Nilotic pastoralists arrived ca. 1500 and dominated the Bantu farmers is no more implausible, and no more racist, than the idea that the Yuan dynasty was Mongol. Many Hutu presumably have this ancestry as well, just as a huge number of Han Chinese have Genghis Khan in their ancestry. Both events have been used to justify genocide, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. — kwami (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Genocide

Did hutu kill Twa in 1994 Genocide?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Lakes Twa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126111442/http://www.rogerblench.info/Anthropology%20data/Text/Pygmies%20an%20ethnographic%20fiction.pdf to http://www.rogerblench.info/Anthropology%20data/Text/Pygmies%20an%20ethnographic%20fiction.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201053605/http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/pygmy/52529.asp to http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/pygmy/52529.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)