This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is substantially duplicated in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) copied Wikipedia, rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
More eyes needed regarding redirect/move/title change
More eyes are needed on a redirect/move of Ancestral Puebloans to a new title, Ancestral Pueblos]] without prior discussion. Diff: . The article talk page history has several previous discussions about renaming (moving to a new title) from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans, and another discussion about moving the article from Ancient Pueblo people to Ancestral Puebloans. There was no discussion I can find about moving it now to Ancestral Pueblos. Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This page's move history has been Anasazi -> Ancestral Puebloans -> Ancestral Pueblos, mirroring the similar Encyclopedia Britannica titles changes of Anasazi -> Ancestral Puebloans -> Ancestral Pueblo culture. The Wikipedia page for Puebloans was moved to Pueblo peoples. Since Pueblo peoples is the main article, renaming Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblo peoples is a noncontroversial administrative procedure according to the principles underlying WP:C2D: Consistency with main article's name. An alternative considered was Ancestral Pueblo culture, in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica article, but that would slightly narrow the scope of the article and so was discarded. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan. --Plumber (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica is not the ultimate authority, and they do not dictate Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been many discussions about the article title, which were not taken into consideration when you acted (and are now are changing multiple articles to your own preferred version without discussion). The majority of sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Example: Usage of Ancestral Puebloans Your redirect renamed the article and moved it to another title without prior discussion and without taking previous discussions into account, which would have been both best practices and considerate of the community. You do not have consensus to make this change.
OpposeUser:Plumber's unilateral decision to redirect/move/title change of this article without community consensus.
The above user was repeatedly explained the move was not a unilateral decision. The above user is aware and is ignoring that discussion already took place at Talk:Pueblo peoples. Pueblo peoples was renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective nor as a noun. Plumber (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth, Plumber. Firstly, that discussion did not have much participation, it was closed due to "minimal participation". What I said was: However as to the antecedents of the Pueblo people, the term "Ancestral Puebloan" or "Ancient Puebloan" is used more frequently used than Ancient Pueblo People, so I think that article Ancestral Puebloans (formerly called the Anasazi) should remain intact for now. Just look at the N-gram above to see how much more frequently Ancestral Puebloans is used - it's the common name for the ancestral people - there are many, many solid academic and popular sources that back this up. The places where these peoples lived were ancestral pueblos, not the people themselves the COMMONNAME for the peoples are Ancestral Puebloans according to sources, which is what we go by. Netherzone (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
If anthropologists and archaeologists are no longer using the term, then why are there over a thousand hits on JSTOR for "Ancestral Puebloans" in recent research publications? Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: this is a contested move, Plumber should move it back to its stable title, and then discussion about the proposed move can commence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC) (EC) I forgot that there's a place to request reversion of an undiscussed move, so I have filed there. --Pinchme123 (talk)
Comment: I thought it was Ancestral Pueblo peoples at one point, which would be the best name. It would be clearer than Ancestral Pueblos, which sounds like it's about the settlements/governments as opposed to the peoples themselves. Yuchitown (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The move happened after an RM discussion in 2015 (see a section above, numbered 3.1 in ToC). --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That's a reasonable title, but it might imply the Ancestral Pueblo peoples are more different to contemporary Pueblo peoples than is so. Given the recent DNA evidence confirming oral history links to Chaco Canyon, that may be a step too far. But it is an acceptable title using the WP:COMMONNAME noun Pueblo rather than the dated and niche term Puebloan. Plumber (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion already took place at Talk:Pueblo peoples. Pueblo peoples was renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective. Plumber (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This is quite disingenuous for several reasons. First, the one other participant your Move Request garnered, Netherzone specifically stated their opposition to moving "Ancestral Puebloans" for specified terminology reasons. So C2D does not apply, as they are likely termed differently by content experts. Second, as you are very well aware, discussions on one article do not automatically hold for other articles, particularly when those other articles were not mentioned in the discussion. The fact that this article was mentioned, specifically as a case that would be opposed, shows that discussion (with only one other user participating) cannot hold for all these distinct articles.
But also, it is really unfortunate you have stated The above user was repeatedly explained the move was not a unilateral decision above. I am assuming this is your repeating statements on your talk when Netherzone brought his opposition there. The discussion you're talking about only included you and them, and their specific comment in the discussion opposed moving "Ancestral Puebloans", so it is completely inappropriate to characterize that as not your "unilateral decision".
And then, in another comment, you state There have been four RM discussions here and one on Talk:Pueblo peoples. Since you are aware of past discussions, you are also aware that they are chronological, with the last one (having occurred 10 years ago) holding precedent. This page has sat at "Ancestral Puebloans" for 10 years, changing this requires more than a poor pointing to C2D.
@Plumber, you did not have consensus to make these bold moves. Ancestral Puebloans has been the stable version for a long time. Please kindly read the talk pages and comments of others rather than forcing a discussion to go your way. That's how collaboration works. Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
The consensus extends from the last Move Request, which found this consensus, followed by 10 years of title and terminology stability on this page. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Claiming otherwise, especially without specific sources (you have provided non showing content experts explaining "Ancestral Puebloan" as unacceptable, while Netherzone has provide metaanalysis showing it's quite commonplace) is patently absurd. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Plumber, that n-gram link contains inaccuracies. To compare Puebloans to Pueblos is an unsound argument, since Pueblos can also mean dwellings, villages, structures, sovereign nations, ruins and more in addition to the people/cultures. It's an inaccurate comparison. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: because Plumber chose to contest the reversions at the Technical requests noticeboard for page moves, they are now at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. It would probably be better to join that discussion there, to have the previously-stable versions reinstated, so that proper Move discussion(s) can take place. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment - the modern, and living people are referred to as Pueblo peoples (or Puebloans), the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to hundreds of reliable sources.Netherzone (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Yesterday, an editing spree occurred when dozens of articles were changed to one editor's preferred version without first gaining the consensus of the community. For example, templates were changed, multiple article's contents were changed and several articles were renamed/moved/redirected without prior discussion - even though a discussion was taking place on the editor's talk and in several other venues including this one. These changes also introduced ambiguities, such as changing the Tiwa Puebloans to Tiwa Pueblo peoples. Tiwa is a language spoken by Puebloan people across several pueblo villages (sovereign nations), AND there is no such place as Tiwa Pueblo. This is confusing. Please get consensus first before such mass sweeping changes, as this is creating a lot of work for other editors, and are introducing errors. This is a request that the editor undo the mass changes across the encyclopedia and use the article talk pages first. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
None of what you're saying applies to "Ancestral Puebloans". The move request at another page you keep pointing to was closed specifically as an undiscussed technical request. It alone would have very little weight in this discussion on those grounds, even if it wasn't also true that the participant who did chime in in support specifically stated they would not support this move. It also fails C2D because Pueblo peoples is not the main page for this or any of the others you moved. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
This page is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the DNA evidence, oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article.We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Pinchme123 is correct, and it gets to the crux of the problem. Let me frame that by saying there is a content dispute, we all know that's business as usual on Wikipedia, and content disputes are in large part and rightfully settled through discussions leading to consensus. There is another problem which I reiterate because I'm not sure it is being heard by some, that being that after the content dispute discussion was raised in the past 24 hours, the editor went on to rapidly change dozens of articles and templates, and even renaming/redirecting/moving several articles to their preferred name or wording. This is not an ideal or community-minded way to go about resolving a content dispute, and the changes were made without consensus. It creates a lot of work for other editors and is a time sink. Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, the content dispute can be resloved civilly, but not when one party resorts to these sorts of practices. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and I've been now followed onto Commons. Not cool. Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I have created a move request below. --Plumber (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Requested move 5 May 2025
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. This RM discussion hinged on the question of which name was the WP:COMMONNAME for this group, with different editors arguing for either "Ancestral Puebloans" or "Ancestral Pueblo" as the prevailing name. Opponents of the move identified plausible methodological errors with the searches that supported "Ancestral Pueblo"; conversely, the search methodology used to support "Ancestral Puebloans" does not appear to have been convincingly rebutted. Accordingly, an evaluation of the numbers and the strength of argument on either side leads me to find a consensus to retain the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
In case this request actually stays open, I'll formally chime in that I Oppose all moves from "Ancestral Puebloan" to "Ancestral Pueblo peoples". "Pueblo peoples" and "Ancestral Puebloans" are terminologically distinct in the literature, as shown by commenters above. In this context, "Pueblo peoples" (which was moved to this title as an undiscussed technical move) is not the "main" article for terminology related to "Ancestral Puebloans". I will also note that there has been no sources provided to support this move (again, "Ancestral Puebloans", not "Pueblo peoples"), but there was the last Move Request and 10 years of stability on the side of keeping this title as is. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC) To add to my vote, I have never once seen an experienced editor refer to past Move Requests in the collective, as if some majority of them hold sway. Move Requests are chronological and reflect changing consensus (or not). In the case here, the most recent Move Request affirmed consensus for the current title, which has remained stable for 10 years. That's 10 years of WP:EDITCON. Pinchme123 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it have any reference to DNA or other markers to determine how scholars are using terms. We follow content experts on Wikipedia. The JSTOR results you've provided are deeply disingenuous and On JSTOR, the relevant searches are for full phrases, using quotations. Searching "Ancestral Pueblo people" (which picks up results of both "people" and "peoples") "ancestral+pueblo+people"&so=rel returns 142 results; searching "Ancestral Puebloans" (to be absolutely sure the results refer to people) "ancestral+puebloans"&so=rel returns 255 results. Expanding to "Ancestral Puebloan" "ancestral+puebloan"&so=rel returns 1330 results. And with this response, I take my leave. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That n-gram is not the right comparison, this one is, it compares Ancestral Puebloans with Ancestral Pueblos, with Ancestral Pueblo culture with Ancestral Pueblo people: - showing that Ancestral Puebloans is in fact "orders of magnitude greater" and is in more common usage. Netherzone (talk)
Oppose move from Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblo Peoples which is the COMMONNAME and is in much greater usage in reliable sources. There have been many discussions on the article talk page throughout many years, and through consensus decided upon Ancestral Puebloans. It has been stable for ten years at that title, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That's interesting, however you need to put quotes around those search terms, otherwise it searches for each word independently. With quotes added I come up with 1,730 for "Ancestral Puebloans" and for "Ancestral Pueblo people" I get 265 hits: Netherzone (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Ok, I'm done traveling for the day and couldn't stay away, because something about this really bothers me. Plumber, can you please explain these series of notices to specific editors? , , , , , , , ? Each of these personally-noticed users appear to have participated in previous Move Requests (search their names in archives 3 and 4), and each opposed moving this page away from the now-proposed article title of "Ancestral Pueblo people" (or the very-similar "Ancestral Pueblo Peoples"). I do not see any personally-written pings to anyone else from any of the previous Move Requests in your edit history. I would also note that several of these personal notices specifically state "Since you spoke up in favor on the term Ancestral Pueblo peoples" (many times with typos), and in one you state, "Since you previously wrote favor on the term Ancestral Pueblo peoples rather than Puebloans". --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
If you wish to make a compelling case, talk about the Pueblos and WP:avoid personal remarks. Reaching out to participants in past discussions is standard practice in Wikipedia when new moves are discussed, especially since this comes after a period of several years. This is an important discussion, after all. No one in opposition to this move so far has displayed any proof in this section that Puebloans is the WP:COMMONNAME rather than Pueblos. Plumber (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Here is proof that the Ancestral Puebloans is in fact the COMMONNAME . It is also less ambiguous, and it has been the stable name of the article for ten years, as determined through several talk page discussions. And a reminder to please refrain from non-neutral canvassing, per WP:CANVAS and WP:INAPPNOTE. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry but you are again mistaken in regards the search method that was deployed. Your search term for Pueblo is grabbing all of the mentions of the word pueblo, whether village, ruin, structure, homestead, sovereign nation, house, dwelling or community and lastly people. Therefore a wholly inaccurate analysis. Whereas Puebloans and Ancestral Puebloans are search terms solely about people. Netherzone (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose move at least for now. I lean toward using terminology the affected people prefer (or in this case, their descendants), and what I am seeing is "the appropriate term to use is “Ancestral Pueblo” or “Ancestral Puebloan.” The current article reads The Ancestral Puebloans, also known as Ancestral Pueblo peoples or the Basketmaker-Pueblo culture. I think that covers it. If we wanted to be more precise, perhaps Ancestral Puebloan culture would be a little more precise of a title, because we are talking about an ancient culture as opposed to modern people. But bottom line for me is if the current Pueblo people seem to have a preference, and it sounds like they are OK with either one, so absent additional data to the contrary, I say just leave it alone. Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Support. I worked in a museum creating and publishing educational materials and we were instructed to use Ancestral Pueblo peoples as that's the current term. We were advised against using outdated terms when writing about any Native culture. oncamera(talk page) 05:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting admin help
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
User Plumber's activity on this Talk and elsewhere has been quite disruptive. I am leaving my computer for 2 weeks in a few hours and do not have the time to take a look, but their responses directly to me on their talk page give concern. They archived an active discussion about their undiscussed move that was reverted, while opening a Move Request to reinstate that discussion. This archiving also took off the last Move Request that was unarchived, which was being actively referenced in said discussion. After I reverted, they rearchived most of the page again, including the last Move Request. When I warned them about this (making a mistake myself by linking to Ancestral Puebloans rather than this Talk), they ultimately responded: I do not believe this warning applies to Talk Spaces, only to discussions in the main space. I have never before been warned for archiving a talk page in my nearly 20 years editing Wikipedia. (emphasis theirs, added here after I had responded to their retort regarding my error). (How does one have a discussion in main space?) If they do not believe being disruptive on Talk pages does not warrant a warning for disruption, even after 20 years of experience, I'm not sure what to do. I don't know if this rises to the level of AN/I, though I suspect it does, but I also simply can't spend more time on this as I need to pack.
It's your decision where to take this, if anywhere, when you get back. All I can say is requesting that single admin look at this is not appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Very well. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There was overwhelming consensus to discuss a move that proved controversial, and the move was reverted. I created a new section accordingly. After an objection, the first section of this page was un-archived despite it being the 20th section of discussion out of 20. The other archives are all far shorter, in fact they are unusually short. This talk page is about the Ancestral Pueblo peoples, not about any specific user. --Plumber (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
None? Zip? Zilch? What kind of article on a population wouldn't include numbers - for a long-lasting population, numbers over time - of the size of the population??? Just really not very useful...but hey at least we know that their clay jars had black rims (in the North).98.22.50.44 (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Populations for this area are notoriously difficult to estimate. For the most part, we simply don’t know. See Lekson, S. H. 2018 A Study of Southwestern Archaeology. The University of Utah Press. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Is This A Useful Concept?
One difficulty with this discussion of "Ancestral Puebloans/Ancestral Pueblos" is that the article lumps groups together, and excludes other groups, in a rather arbitrary and old-fashioned way. For example, the denizens of the Chaco Great Houses lived in buildings that look like pueblos, but the modern Pueblo culture may well have developed in opposition to, rather than evolving from, Chaco. At the same time, there were people living across Chaco wash who were Chacoans but who did not live in pueblos. There are buildings in the Mimbres that look like pueblos, but aren’t. There are the Fremont. Paquimé looks like a pueblo, but it's a long way away. Kuaua was distinct from Awatovi and from Pecos; for that matter, Hano is distinct from Oraibi. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)