Talk:Hill people

Picture

How is a picture of "Taktshang Monastery, Bhutan" representative of "Hill People"?

 Done 175.38.231.242 (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hill people. 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/20101114004942/http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521 to http://www.csa.gov.et/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=264&format=raw&Itemid=521
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012140601/http://iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f1/v5f1a032.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v5f1/v5f1a032.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hill people. 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/20110930221719/http://www.royalhighlanders.co.uk/ to http://www.royalhighlanders.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220195813/http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas to http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205191339/http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/population_change.htm to http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/population_change.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:49, 3 November 2017 (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:

• Mountain People.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues

The "Extent" section states "All land above 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) is classified as mountain, including plateaus.". The word "mountain" can be subjective and depend on local naming and definition. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names has backed off a definition that a mountain as being 1,000 feet (300 m) or taller but anything less is still considered a hill. The meaning of the word is just too broad to attached a very specific minimum height even with a specific source of which an exceptional claim would need. Added content "Roughly half of the mountain area is below 1,000 metres (3,300 ft)" just adds confusion. The embedded list is totally unsourced. Otr500 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: The term "mountain" may be used for quite small elevations, such as Mount Royal at 233 metres (764 ft), while the Scotch refer to all their highlands as hills, including Ben Nevis at 1,345 metres (4,413 ft). In popular culture the Alps may be described as hills. This article defines and follows the WCMC classification, as do most of the sources. It is precise, and seems as good as any.

The section on "Ethnic and linguistic groups" was short-lived. Some sort of survey of ethnic groups in the different mountain areas may be useful, but this is not the place. Indigenous people of Oaxaca, covering just one state of Mexico, shows that it could be huge. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2019

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 due to lots of opposition. More discussion seems to be in order before another RM. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Hill people → Mountain people – See discussion below. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this move per below. There is no single source in this article that is titled "Hill People" or "Mountsin People" (or has "Hill People" or "Mountain People" in its title; because such a global concept does not seem to exist). Moving from "Hill People" to "Mountain People" means that this article will probably be heading back to AfD (for the same reason it got there as "Hill People"). This article is better named something like "Human habitation in mountainous regions", as the article is effectively an essay on that subject; and is a more defensible long-term solution for the article. Britishfinance (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per ngram comparison. “Hill people” seems to be generally more common. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  @SelfieCity: A revised ngram shows "Hill tribe" as far lower than "Hill people", but if we look at page views, both Hill people and Hill tribe (Thailand) get around 60 per day. Hillbilly gets about 670 views per day, and is way higher than the other terms in the ngram with hillbillies. Many of the Google Books results for "Hill people" are about Appalachians. I suspect that a fair number of the Hill people hits were looking for Hillbillies or perhaps Hill tribes of Thailand. Sadly, few people want to learn about Hill people (or mountain people) in general. So "Hill people" might be more useful as a disambiguation page with Hillbilly as the first entry. Is there any way to find out if this is the case? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

But “hillbilly” is a different enough word that it shouldn’t be confused with “hill people,” IMO. “Hillbilly” is also higher on your ngram due to the Beverly Hillbillies. Thanks for bringing this up though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of readers see "hill people" as the Appalachian people stereotyped in the movie Deliverance, basically hillbillies. It would be useful if we could see viewing patterns. E.g. readers who came to "Hill people" and quickly moved on to Hillbilly, Hill tribe (Thailand) or some other page about a specific group. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is relevant, but a search in Wikipedia for "mountain people" got 370 hits, while "hill people" got 218. Some are false positives, like members of Category:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill people, but most are not. Again, like the ngam statistics, it shows how often the term is used, not how often people search for it or what they expect to find. We are guessing on that. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree per discussion below. –Austronesier (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree (as nominator) per discussion below. After the move "Hill people" can be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to the more likely target articles: Hillbilly, Hill tribe (Thailand) and the new Mountain people. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Hill people" is somewhat more inclusive, and I would have thought the most common term. Note that generally people don't actually live on the "mountain" part of mountain ranges, they live in the valleys below or the foothills. The topic covers people living on "all rugged land above 300 metres (980 ft)" & a great deal of this is nowhere near a mountain proper (no universal definition, but I'll go with "2,000 feet (or 610 metres) high", which various authorities use). Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The common term is hill people. Constant references to Hill people abound in popular culture. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Mountain people, move this page there, place a redirect here.

I think there was a general consensus that if this article stays, it's better there than here. I think the best way is to reach consensus here, and show it to an admin to affect a page delete there for a clean move from here. Is there a better/easier way? Usedtobecool ^TALK 07:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That is the right approach. There has been controversy, so we need agreement here before the page can be moved. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Having thought about this more, I think the biggest obstacle to this article lasting on WP is the implication that its title is a definable term in a global sense. This is what brings on the more severe concerns around OR/SYNTH etc. What about changing the title to "Human habitation in mountainous regions". I think that such a broader term would take some of the "heat" out of these concerns, and it more in line with what this article is. Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• The sources use the terms "people in the mountains", "mountain inhabitants", "mountain communities", "high-altitude human groups", "mountain population(s)" etc., but much the most common term is "mountain people", probably because of the influence of Huddleston et al. See Wikipedia:Article titles: we should follow the sources rather than invent our own term. "Mountain people" is short, natural, and easy to link to. The first sentence of the lead should be changed to:

Mountain people is a term used by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to refer to residents of mountain regions as defined by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC).

That gives a reputable source and definition, and sets the tone for the article. I doubt that any editor would launch another AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is no single source in this article that is titled "Mountain People" (or has "Mountain People" in its title). "Mountain People" means that this article will probably be heading back to AfD? Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• The overarching theme which turns the broad topic “Mountain People” into one that is backed-up by sources as a notable, non-trivial subject is "Human habitation in mountainous regions" (or something in this direction) as suggested by Britishfinance, and this is what makes up the the content of the current version created in a tour de force by Aymatth2. But if it comes with a short (and less bone-dry) title like "Mountain people", that's perfectly fine, though personally I would prefer "Mountain peoples" or "Mountain populations" (cf. Huddleston et al. in the Bibliography). –Austronesier (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• A search in Google for Human habitation in mountainous regions gets just one result, ALPECOLe: About. A search in Google Books for "Mountain people" gives many results, e.g.
  • American mountain people / National Geographic Society - 1973
  • Dogon Cliff Dwellers: The Art of Mali's Mountain People / Pascal James Imperato - 1978
  • Experience-worlds of Mountain People: Institutional Efficiency in Appalachian Village and Hinterland Communities / Martin Taylor Matthews - 1937
  • Legacy of a Mountain People: Inventory of Cultural Resources of Ladakh / Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi art & Culture - 2008
  • Mountain People / Colin Turnbull - 1987 (Ik, African tribesmen)
  • Mountain People, Mountain Crafts / Elinor Lander Horwitz - 1974 (Appalachian region)
  • The Kalasha: Mountain People of the Hindu Kush / Mytte Fentz - 2010
  • The Mafulu - Mountain People of British New Guinea / Robert W. Williamson - 2018
  • The Pre-colonial History of the Tepes: A Mountain People of Southern Karamoda in North-eastern Uganda / John Weatherby - 1974
  • These My People: Serving Christ Among the Mountain People of Formosa / Lillian Dickson - 2013
  • Utes: The Mountain People / Jan Pettit - 2012
  • Voice of Mountain People: Capacity Building of Community Based Organisations in Advocacy in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas / Rosemary Thapa - 2005

"Mountain people" is common, short and simple. A longer term that is rarely used by reliable sources could be considered original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• You are missing the point Aymatth2. There are lots of people in the world who live in cities, and if I did a google search on "city people" I would get thousands of hits. However, if I wrote a WP article on City people, I have a problem (especially if I cannot produce major RS on the topic of "city people"). However, if I write a WP article on "Human habitation in cities" or "Urban living", then I am on more solid ground. I am not trying to create the term "City people" as a notable concept, which is going to be repeatedly brought to AfD as OR/SYNTH because there is no major RS on "city people" as a unified concept. An article titled "Human habitation in cities" is on more solid ground and while editors may grumble that it is an "essay" or "collection of different themes" etc., as long as has quality RS, and talks about themes that are important to Humans living in cities, it will not get deleted. Trying to help you here. Britishfinance (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• The title should be something that is a likely search term and that cannot be challenged as original research. "Human habitation in mountainous regions" fails both tests. I dislike "Mountain peoples" because that implies a survey of the different ethnic groups. That title could have been used for the earlier list-type article. Huddleston et al. uses the term "Mountain populations" in the title, and once in the body of the report, but uses "Mountain people" 67 times. The term "Mountain populations" perhaps reflects that statistical nature of the report, but also seems unlikely to be used by readers as a search term. Let's keep it simple. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this, per section above. I'm not seeing consensus for this at all. The present situation seems best. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Rename to Mountain Communities - is how the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations words it here: --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

That article, titled "Bringing mountain peoples together", uses the terms "mountain communities", "highland communities", "mountain people" and "mountain dwellers". I tend to think of a community as a type of settlement, although I suppose it can be used in the sense of a group with common interests. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Isn't this contradictory?

There is no strong evidence that people who live at high altitudes have become genetically adapted to the low levels of oxygen. They are not genetically isolated from the people of the lowlands, and typically move through a much wider range of altitudes than other mountain species.[27] However, studies have shown that some positive selected genes or gene regions do contribute to adaptation to high altitude in Andeans and Tibetans.[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.83.223 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is what the sources say, and they do seem a bit contradictory. I puzzled over these two authoritative-sounding sources. My guess is that mountain people are much the same genetically as lowland people, but there are some differences of emphasis. I would prefer to leave these slightly contradictory statements as they are for now. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)