Talk:San peoples

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 review after 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. Consensus was oppose. If anyone disagrees, please undo the close and notify me. (non-admin closure) Robloxguest3 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

San peoples → SanSan – The people are the primary topic for San. Most of the entries on the related disambiguation page here are things abbreviated SAN, except for the following: The Dream (1966 film), which is titled San in Serbian, San (Japanese honorific) which is a redirect, San (band), San (singer), San (letter), San (river), San (album), and Sydney Adventist Hospital and Battle Creek Sanitarium, both of which are called The San sometimes. Nothing else on the disambiguation page should be considered at all, as the capitalization is distinct. Of these entries, the San people easily outstrip the rest in long-term significance, as a significant ethnic group and one of the oldest surviving cultures in the world. The peoples are also the primary topic by usage: among things called "San", this article got over 70% of pageviews (please note that San people was moved to San peoples in January so the views must be combined). The long-term significance should be enough, but however you cut it, this article should be the primary topic. Ladtrack (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support: I also checked the [clickstreams] and they show that San peoples are the most common thing for readers to navigate to via this disambiguation page, with 129 clicks in a month. This is closely followed by Storage area network and San Diego International Airport, but those two are both abbreviated SAN which clearly puts WP:DIFFCAPS into play. If we only look at articles with "San" as the capitalization the competitors are San (Japanese honorific) (49 clicks), San (letter) (23 clicks), San (river) (11 clicks) and, arguably, Saint (10 clicks). Anything else has below 10 clicks and so is excluded from tracking by the clickstreams service. These numbers clearly give further support to San peoples claim to being WP:PTOPIC. Sidenote: clickstreams for some reason gives 718 incoming pageviews shown in the statistics, but then underneath it where it says the total number including those that have been excluded, which I would think should always be higher, and usually is, says 517 incoming pageviews. I do not know why this is. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 05:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not the primary topic. The San disambiguation page has many entries. I don't see any evidence that usage of this term heavily outweighs all the others combined. Moreover, this is not a popularity contest. This is about making the title distinguishable from other uses so readers can find the article easier. We usually use "people" for many ethnic people articles to distinguish them from languages (English people vs. English language), or articles on other aspects (San culture, San religion, etc.). We only don't use people if the demonym is in a plural form and already sufficiently distinct from language (e.g. Swedes vs. Swedish). San is not plural nor sufficiently distinct as a demonym. You will often find references to "San language", "San culture" and other things in sources. We use the "San people" in the title to make clear it is not an article about the language or other aspects, but the people. Your proposal doesn't seem to be helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  First off I feel like you're missing some of the core WP:CRITERIA here, but also I'm not sure how you think the current situation is helping readers find the article easier. Most people typing "San" seem to be trying to get to the page San peoples, but right now they're sent to a big DAB page where San peoples isn't even visible without scrolling down to almost the bottom of the list. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 07:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to reorder the list, that's a different story. But I don't see evidence that this is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e. usage "more likely than all the other topics combined". I also consider WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. The article title should be informative of its content and be recognizable for general readers looking for the topic in general searches, where article titles show up without context. A reader searching for the San people may not be sure what a page called merely "San" is about - language, culture, something else? - but "San people" makes it clear this is the article they're looking for. Thus it is easier for readers. Since you are proposing to reduce precision and recognizability, then I'd like to see substantially more evidence that this is primary topic. And I don't see it. Walrasiad (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot to respond to. Piece by piece:

I don't see any evidence that usage of this term heavily outweighs all the others combined. I provided pageview data and Maltazarian provided clickstream data. Both show that more people look for this article than all the others combined. What exactly do you want?

We usually use "people" for many ethnic people articles to distinguish them from languages (English people vs. English language), or articles on other aspects (San culture, San religion, etc.). The languages spoken by the San people are called Khoisan, which is a sufficiently distinct title to not be confusing. We don't have a San culture article, if anyone wants to learn about it they would read this article. We do have a San religion article, but anyone wanting that should still prefer this article at the basename; there's obvious connection here and the San religion article isn't even linked at the disambiguation page.

We only don't use people if the demonym is in a plural form and already sufficiently distinct from language (e.g. Swedes vs. Swedish). This is wrong. There are many examples of titles like this, even just limited to ethnic groups from the same region of Africa: Khoekhoe, Ndwandwe, Zemba, Batalaunda, Mbukushu, Ambundu, Ovimbundu, Sundi, and Twa. I have no idea where you got this idea but it is entirely wrong.

A reader searching for the San people may not be sure what a page called merely "San" is about - language, culture, something else? I would hope a reader would realize what the article is about from the short description that says "Southern African indigenous hunter-gatherers" or the first line that says "The San peoples (also Saan), or Bushmen, are the members of any of the indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures of southern Africa, and the oldest surviving cultures of the region." I get trying to improve ease of navigation but we shouldn't assume our readers are stupid. Ladtrack (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider that sufficient to overcome the reduction in WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. You seem to have a lot of advice on "what readers should do" to overcome the complications you're proposing to introduce. That's always a sign of a bad proposal. We shouldn't be forcing readers to jump through hoops. I don't really see the benefit of the proposal, and I see a lot more costs. Walrasiad (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC right now. We could title everything with disambiguators to ensure that people know exactly what they're getting into long before they end up on the page, but we have already decided not to do that. We could title Australia Australia (country) because of the many other articles titled Australia, so that everybody that ends up there knows exactly what page they're going to click on. Or we could, you know, not do that and instead trust them to figure it out based on the content of the page itself and the many clues we provide. There's no difference here, this is the same situation. And the benefit is obvious, and the same as any other primary topic: save the ~1500 people a year that end up on SAN looking for this article a click. Ladtrack (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Bushmen I tend to disagree with the 2014 move bringing this page from "Bushmen" to "San peoples". While it is hard to compare contextual usage of "San" to "Bushmen", Google Ngrams shows that "Bushmen" is used more commonly than "Saan", "San people" or "San peoples", even in the modern day. I believe Bushmen remains the clear common name. It may be derogatory if you look at it from a historical context, but San is also derogatory and demonstrably so, while being less-used amongst the general public. In the absence of a better name, it should go to the common name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  As an addendum, I would oppose the proposed move regardless of whether my alternate move gets any support. The Japanese honorific -san is equally primary. I would, however, support moving SAN to San instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with this. I understand the thinking behind the idea, but think of it in terms of the actual article subjects in question. One is an honorific used to denote respect in Japan. The other is a major ethnic group with, along with aboriginal Australians, one of the oldest surviving cultures in the world. How could the group of people not be more significant? I understand that Japanese culture is more influential in the West than African culture, but we should be careful to avoid systemic bias by overstating the importance of cultural elements we're more familiar with. Would we ever consider shunting a major Japanese ethnic group off the primary topic because they shared a name with an honorific used in Botswana? Ladtrack (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not in the position of making judgements of whether an ethnic group or language is more subjectively important, only factoring in pageviews and longterm significance to determine a primary topic. Both the system of Japanese honorifics and the Bushmen/San peoples have high pageviews and longterm significance. Furthermore, the implication that Japan cannot be included in systemic bias because more Westerners are influenced by its culture seems somewhat insulting towards Japanese people. I feel that Japan can certainly be left out in systemic bias situations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a value statement against the Japanese people. I'm simply stating that systemic bias tends to occur when Wikipedia users are more familiar with certain topics. It's the same reason why Java has repeatedly been proposed to come off the primary topic, because Wikipedians are more familiar with the programming language. The average Wikipedia user is absolutely more familiar with Japanese culture than San culture. I don't think that's even a controversial statement, it's just a fact. Imagine if the San had an honorific like -kobe, with less pageviews and less clickstreams than the Japanese city. Would we shunt the city off the primary topic? I don't think the honorific would even make the hatnote, frankly. Which isn't to say that -san shouldn't be in a hatnote here, but an equivalently significant topic? Not the Japanese language system, not even a dialect, but a single honorific, as important as an entire major ethnic group? Really? Ladtrack (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think the data comparison is apt here. I have no opinion on whether San or Bushmen is more or less derogatory, as I have never met a person in this ethnic group and have no basis for making any sort of informed claim. However, looking at the ngram viewer in this way is not useful. If there weren't any other articles with this title, the name would just be "San", and we stuck people/peoples to the end as a WP:NATURAL disambiguator. Of course, just searching "San" on the ngram viewer would be basically useless, which is why I didn't include Ngram data in my proposal, but using "San people" as the search term would probably result in a severe undercount of how common the name really is, because in running text it would almost always be "the San" which would not appear in a "San people" Ngram search. For a similar comparison, here's Ngram data for "Ovambo" (which basically only pulls results for the ethnic group) vs "Ovambo people", and you can see how badly the second search string is undercounting. Failing this, it would be prudent to follow the article itself, which says that the term "Bushmen" has largely fallen out of academic use. Ladtrack (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Bushmen per above comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I nearly made this suggestion myself yesterday, but didn't hit 'save'.

  The name "Bushman" is not derogatory. What's derogatory is the racist idea that we shouldn't call people what they are because they're inferior, and it's impolite to rub their faces in it. That applies to most of the "many South Africans" who feel it's derogatory. The Bushmen don't see it that way, because they don't see their preferred lifestyle as inferior.

  (This is not dissimilar to (American) Indian, Lolo, and a number of other terms used for self-identification that outsiders have decided people shouldn't use for themselves.) — kwami (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Having already opposed the original proposal, I'd like to register my opposition to alternative proposal to moving "Bushmen". Whatever its etymological origin, at this stage, "San people" is commonly used in both official and academic literature, and accepted by the San people themselves. Moving it to "Bushmen" would be both surprising and eyebrow-raising. Walrasiad (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whether it is "surprising" is not what is being debated here. Wikipedia isn't censored, and has many surprising topics. What matters is whether it is more commonly used, and Ngrams seems to indicate it is. Furthermore, the article does state, with a source, that the San people agreed that "bushmen" is not inherently derogatory unless used in that context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  The article says that a single group representing San people in one of the five countries in which they are present said that "bushmen" is not inherently derogatory. That's not the same thing. Incidentally, the article also states, with five sources, that "San" has been predominant in academic literature since the late 90s. Ladtrack (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion about the original suggestion, as the numbers do not seem to clearly demand action. But I am opposed to moving an article from one pejorative term (San) to an even more pejorative term (bushman). --Pgallert (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I echo the sentiment expressed in the second sentence here. From what I can tell the word San, while an exonym with a derogatory origin, seems to have gained somewhat of a reclaimed status, being used in official contexts such as on the blazon of the Coat of arms of South Africa and, if our article is to be believed, a "San Council". If there are concerns over how derogatory of offensive names might be, I think San should be favoured over "Bushman" with respect to that as it appears to be the term preferred by the actual people the terms are referring to. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Bushman" is not pejorative, tho considered to be by people who think the lifestyle it describes is inferior. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  We have to consider here that:

  1. "The Bushmen" only exist in the imagination of people who occupied their land. From a perspective of the indigenous people we are talking about, there are ǃKung, Gǁana, ǀXam, ǂKhomanin, Juǀʼhoansi, and so on, but no umbrella term.
  2. Where which term is considered derogatory or not, depends on the locality. In South Africa, boesman was ruled by a court to be okay. In Namibia, Bushman is derogatory but San is not. It might be yet different in Angola, Zambia, Botswana.

  So whatever English Wikipedia calls the set of all of them, must be a term that (a) clearly indicates it is _our_ description of the manifold of first nations on this continent, and (b) is derogatory for none of them. I believe the current, somewhat artificial "San peoples" is close to this. --Pgallert (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  In Namibia Khoekhoe is widely spoken, and "San" is a Khoekhoe slur. — kwami (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  But if you call Royal ǀUiǀoǀoo a bushman you'll get visited by the Police, while all English newspapers refer to him or his communities as "San". Is it maybe that Khoekhoe-speaking communities despise San, as so many others in Namibia? --Pgallert (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why would you call him either? He's Juǀʼhoan. That would be like calling Buthelezi "Bantu" instead of Zulu.

  I rather doubt most Khoekhoe despise the Bushmen. Most whites in the US don't despise blacks, but you still shouldn't refer to them as the N word. (Though "San" isn´t that bad, probably more like "white trash".) — kwami (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You keep asserting "San" is a slur. Do you have any evidence of that? Sure, it is an exonym, and its etymology may not be flattering. But that's true of the names of many peoples (e.g. Germans are called "Mute people" in Slavic languages). But this is not about its original meaning, but its current usage, i.e. whether it is currently regarded as a slur. If you have evidence of that, it would be helpful. Because so far this seems entirely speculative. Walrasiad (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no policy anywhere that indicates titles must never be derogatory. See also Category:Pejorative terms for people including various articles like barbarian. There is a rule against hate pages, obviously, but pages that describe a term from an objective standpoint have no restrictions. Describing the term's perceived inappropriateness within the article body is acceptable if there is controversy surrounding it, which this page already does, however, attempted censorship of titles would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Nominator comment: I've alerted the associated WikiProjects. I would also urge a relist following the standard seven-day RM period as I think we should have participation as wide as possible when considering something like moving this article to Bushmen. Ladtrack (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: No opinion on San vs San peoples, but I can confirm that of the sources I've read (which includes everything at History of Botswana#References) prefer San over Bushmen. Bushmen is rarely used in the sources except to clarify that when people say "Bushmen" they mean "San". I am not swayed by arguments based on opinions that something is or is not pejorative. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Bushmen. I acknowledge that both terms have been labeled derogatory and have at times been deemed acceptable by members or representatives of the peoples. Overall, I agree with the sentiments expressed in the 2014 RM that "San" is the better term. San is the name used by Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, and Oxford's World Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of Africa. Merriam-Webster suggests caution with using Bushman, while noting some of the complexities discussed here and in the article. They issue no such caution regarding San but the entry there does again note the potential problems with the synonym "Bushmen". Since 2020, Google Scholar has 2,750 hits for "San people"; 798 for "San peoples"; 7,690 for "Khoisan"; and 8,090 for "Bushmen". Collectively, the usage of "San" is more common, although "Bushmen" remains very much in use. At Google Books, since 2020 there are 8 results for "San people"; "About 1,000,000" for "San peoples"; 7 for "Khoisan"; and 5 for "Bushmen". All of these results, of course, exclude source that only use "San" unmodified by "people(s)". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  For GScholar, how is 3,548 hits "more common" than 8,090 hits? (You can't count "Khoisan", it doesn't mean the same thing.) Though granted the count excludes "San" as a standalone word.

  "San" is a racist term promoted by outsiders who don't know it's racist. But at this point it does seem to be more common. Is that what we should go by in such cases? If an ethnic slur is the most common term, WP should use the slur? — kwami (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  GScholar has 663 hits for "Khoisan people" and 564 hits for "Khoisan peoples" specifically in this time period. You're right that this is less than "Bushmen" overall. The usage in Google Books and tertiary reference works still supports "San (peoples)". I don't personally like either name. Both have been condemned and at other times accepted. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that "Bushmen" is widely considered not-racist or that it is more common especially the best sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose not convinced there's a PRIMARYTOPIC, and is naturally disambiguated as is. And wouldn't want to open Pandora's box with bushmen.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Bushmen per Myceteae, as an addendum I've never seen "Bushmen" be favoured over "San" in recent scholarship and have done a fair bit of reading, the Scholar hits are very surprising even if some of them use scarequotes. Oppose San per Pgallert, "San peoples" is more precise (as referring to the collection of groups), and one of the popular misconceptions we've got to dispel (if our aim is to educate) is of "San" being one ethnic group. Re picking between two pejoratives, San communities (represented by the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa and the South African San Institute) attending the 2003 African Human Genome Initiative conference declared a preference to be known either by their individual community names (!Xun or ‡Khomani, for example) or collectively as San, rather than as Bushmen or Khoisan., so WP:AUTONYM also favours San over Bushmen Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe San should continue to be the disambiguation page. I use "SAN" routinely... but for "storage area network". I had never heard of the "San peoples" until reading this request for a move. I do not see that as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I also oppose the suggestion to move the article to "Bushmen" as that feels derogatory. - Dyork (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)