Jump to content

Talk:Belizeans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Belizean people)
[edit]

The image File:AndyPalacio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2015

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed (except for Saudi Arabian peolpe, which has been withdrawn); there is a clear consensus favoring the remaining moves, and substantial evidence that the proposed targets are both more frequently found in Google searches. It is also correctly noted that the proposed targets are also more concise, eliminating the often-unnecessary "people", and are consistent with general naming schemes for other peoples . bd2412 T 15:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Its time for the main phase of the mass migration.
prelude: There were those that were already there, and these included the Albanians, Americans, Armenians, Australians, Austrians, List of Bahranis, Belarusians, Bosnians, Brazilians, Bulgarians, Lists of Cameroonians and Canadians. May their names be remembered.
scouting: Then, not so long ago, and despite some confusion with a typically undercover issue, the Basques (impelled by the noble RGloucester and despite the initial opposition for which I was shamefully responsible) also made the move.
moves that began with the ABCs: The Azerbaijanis, Bahamians, Bangladeshis, Barbadians, Bolivians, Chileans and Colombians then followed.
"man(ual)ing up: other peoples whose path was unimpeded by any redirect that might have otherwise hampered their path, then manually made their moves.
main phase: It is now, it is hoped, the turn of the main contingent of peoples to follow. Please pledge your support so that they may make their moves with success.
epitaph - those left behind: In all the cases above enquiries were made in regard to the predominantly used identity of the peoples concerned. In some cases usage was less certain. In some of these cases any concept of appropriate changes that might be made remained unclear and in certain cases queries were raised so that specific cases might be discussed.
GregKaye 12:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose In my opinion, for example, when you say "Venezuelans", it means people with Venezuelan citizenship while when you say "Venezuelan people" it includes all people of Venezuelan ancestry whether or not they are citizens of Venezuela. So I would suggest that the change is not helpful.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a distinction that exists in RS, so it is irrelevant. Both mean the same thing, only one is shorter and more common. RGloucester — ☎ 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. Citizenship is completely different from membership in a greater group. When you say Estonian it can mean either Estonia citizens (which include large numbers of ethnic Russians) or it can mean solely the Estonian people as an ethnic group. Should we then edit all the various ethnic groups around the world and remove "people" e.g. Baygo people becomes Baygos? I think that all ethnic groups should be consistent and use the term "people" while non-ethnic groups (e.g. Americans, Canadians...etc) should be handled on a case-by-case basis.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we followed the Germans page and add something similar "This article is about Germans as an ethnic group. For other uses, see Germans (disambiguation). For the population of Germany, see Demographics of Germany. For an analysis of German nationality and citizenship, see German nationality law. For the term "Germans" as used in a context of antiquity (pre AD 500), see Germanic peoples."Patapsco913 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citizenship is different from membership in an ethnic group, but "Estonian people" or "Estonians" have the exact same meaning. Neither distinguishes between those with Estonian citizenship and ethnic Estonians. The only difference is that "Estonians" is more concise. Not all ethnic groups have a singular plural form ending in "s", e.g. there is no such thing as "Frenchs". The traditional word in that case is "Frenchmen", but that is gendered. In cases where such a form does exist, however, we use it. It is more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that to say someone is Estonian may either mean that 1) they are an Estonian citizen (which would include the 25% of the population of Estonia that is Russian) or 2) it may mean that they are an ethnic Estonian (which would exclude the 25% of the population that is Russian and add those Ethnic Estonians that are not resident in Estonia. Ethnic groups typically have the designator "people" after tham so we know that it is the ethnic group that we are talking about. We had a consistent approach before and now we do not.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"People" does not indicate an "ethnic group". It merely means "people that are Estonian", which is the same thing that "Estonians" means. The ambiguity exists one way or the other. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the standard we have used on wikipedia is that "people" means ethnicity see Navajo people, Dinka people, Xhosa people, Achi people, Kikuyu people, Thai people, Khmer people, Rajasthani people, Cebuano people. I am sure I could find many many more. I am not sure why we should treat the ethnic groups for Europe differently.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can mean "ethnic group", but it often doesn't. It can mean "people from a given place". The word is ambiguous. It has no coded meaning that implies unified ethnicity. Most of our articles are about specific ethnic groups. French people is primarily about ethnic Frenchmen. Germans is primarily about ethnic Germans, but it excludes ethnic Germans in countries other than Germany, such as Austrians. Romanians explains that Moldavians may or may not be considered Romanian, and that the issue is politicised. Japanese people defines the "Japanese" as an ethnic group, but then goes on to say that "Article 10 of the Constitution of Japan defines the term Japanese based on the Japanese Nationality. Indeed, Japan accepts a steady flow of 15,000 new Japanese citizens by naturalization (帰化) per year". What's more, we've also got Yamato people, Ryukyuan people. Are these Japanese, or are they not Japanese? Ethnicity is a mess, and it is a subjective categories. There is no consistency, because the word "people" can be interpreted in many different ways, just as the word "German" can be. The only effect that this move would have is to shorten the title. Both mean exactly the same thing, and embody the exact same ambiguity. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem then. If we include Ryukyuan people as Japanese then why not include German Turks as Germans? It does not matter what governments define things as. The Kurds used to be defined by the Turkish government as Mountain Turks...so I guess they were not Kurds then? We are trying to convey a common understanding of things. Yes, ethnicity can be imperfect but we should try our best to be consistent. If we are talking ethnicity then we should use the term "people" as we have consistently in the past. The fact that we reduce a designation by one word to create a more muddled designation seem silly. So you are saying we should have some groups where we use the name with an "s" attached and others we should leave as xxxx "people"? So we should change Baygo people to Baygos?00:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no muddle in the article titles themselves. "Germans" and "German people" mean the exact same thing, again. The only difference is in WP:CONCISEness. The "x people" form has never been standard. It is only used when disambiguation is required, or when a shorter form does not exist. We should not change "Baygo people" to "Baygos" because the word "Baygos" does not exist. I explained that below. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of other candidates where the short form exists such as Kikuyu people to Kikuyus; Thai people to Thais; Khmer people to Khmers; Rajasthani people to Rajasthanis; Hindustani people to Hindustanis; Mohawk people to Mohawks; Zulu people to Zulus; Gujarati people to Gujaratis. There are hundreds more where the shorter form exists but we use "people" so I would argue that it is more the standard on Wikipedia when referring to ethnic groups. If we used the term "people" across the board, it then makes it clear that we are talking about the ethnic group (which includes the diaspora) rather than the population of the country. I don't see any benefit in shrinking things from the more precise to the less precise all for the reduction of one word.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering then, would the category "Hungarians" include ethnic Slovaks or ethnic Gypsies that have Hungarian citizenship?Patapsco913 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (except oppose for 'Saudis', see EDIT, should be 'Saudi Arabians') Common sense, common name, concise, and logical (EDIT: except for the Saudi Arabian name change, see my comment below). But keep the redirect links humming along. Randy Kryn 14:49 2 April, 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, Native Americans are not and never were Indians. I think it gives the Native Americans respect to give them their identity to the same extent that it gives Indians respect to give them theirs. GregKaye 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Side comment: The word "Indian" as applied to Native Americans is indeed offensive to some (but not all) Native people, but it also is embedded in United States law, so there does exist sufficient ambiguity that we cannot pretend it isn't there. Columbus' propaganda (and alleged confusion) is still wreaking havoc. even 500 years later. Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, incl. Saudis, per common English usage. The current names confuse nationality with ethnicity. The solutions for e.g. Germans are a decent model. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Saudis" is disgusting. You are reducing the people of a country to the name of their ruling family. They are not mere serfs, to be treated like dirt, and to be denied their own name. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. They are Arabians who happen to live in a kingdom ruled by the al-Saud family, that is, "Saudi Arabians". We cannot commit this great crime against the people. Would you call Jordanians "Hashemites"? No. RGloucester — ☎ 17:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the name change. It should read 'Saudi Arabians' to follow the example of the other renamings. Randy Kryn 18:33 2 April, 2015 (UTC)
Imagine if someone tried to rename Americans as "Obamas" or "Bushes"! Fury would reign. I certainly don't want to be called a "Windsor". RGloucester — ☎ 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree with you about the reason for the name, but 'Saudi Arabians' goes along with the other proposed names. And RGloucester, I call you a Windsor. Ha! Randy Kryn 19:35 2 April, 2015 (UTC)
Comment: RGloucester, the term "Saudis" is actually perfectly ok (not disgusting, or Saudis would not use it to refer to themselves in English and Arabic) and the only common term for Saudi nationals. Other terms like "Saudi Arabians" are extremely rare when compared to "Saudis" as the Google Books results confirmed for us. Khestwol (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all: First off, the plural is not always preferable (i.e. "Pakistani" versus "Pakistanis"). That alone is a problem, albeit minor. More to the point, the addition of "people" is often needed as natural disambiguation to clarify from other uses, be it animals, family names, geography, plants or whatever. As pointed out by others, above, there is also a confusion in some cases with language, ethnicity versus nation, and so on. This is an example of appropriate disambiguation. Not sure where the "main" discussion on this is actually occurring, but this is at best not a suitable list for a RM discussion, and frankly, at worst, I see racism in its overtones because ALL the nations listed are sometimes considered "third world" countries... I guess their people don't deserve to be called people, either. Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many absurd things at Wikipedia, Montanabw, but that takes the cake. Did you stop to wonder why Greg did not suggest a move of, say, Canadian people to Canadians? Oh yeah, that's right. Canadians already is the article. So is Americans. Australians. Even New Zealanders. I guess that residents of those countries enjoy not deserving to be called people. Thanks for the laugh, but that's a heavy accusation to throw before taking a split second of time to check even one "first-world" country. Red Slash 23:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to recall that "Canadiens" could - at least in Canada - also refer to a hockey team (and in the USA is often misquoted as "Canadians"). Potential for confusion exists. This whole thing is really a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said that racism may be in play when there could not possibly be anything racist about the nomination, at least not according to the reasoning you gave. I don't know what your deal is, but it's not appropriate to throw out accusations of possible racism without even comparing how the encyclopedia treats "first world" countries. That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I once suggested a requested move of feces to poop and yet I have never done anything as ridiculous as that on Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed that there was an alphabetical list going, you must agree that all the RMs on this list are third world nations. Also, saying something like "Native Americans are not and never were Indians" is historically ridiculous - Native American people were called "Indians" until about the 1970s or so. THAT, my friend, is ignorance at best. So put away your outrage and pick up any US History book published prior to about 1975. Montanabw(talk) 08:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not outraged, simply baffled, and you changing the subject by mentioning the Indian thing (where you are, of course, correct) is weirder still. You still haven't recanted that bizarre allegation of racism against Greg, as if proposing Jamaican people -> Jamaicans (following the example of American people -> Americans from a couple years ago) could possibly in a trillion years be considered racist. Next time, would you please explore the facts on the ground a little more before throwing out a somewhat defamatory statement like that? It's like you didn't know that Australians was a thing. Why did you think it was a good idea to throw out your suspicions of racism before even considering how first-world peoples were treated? Regardless, an apology to him would be appropriate, especially after even you have admitted your prior ignorance about how we treat other people groups here. Red Slash 19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste further bandwidth on you, you may or may not prevail on this mass move request, but if you do, sure as sunrise, in a year of two someone else is going to raise a number of arguments that have been raised here and everything will be moved back to Foo people. You don't get what I am trying to explain to you, but some day I hope you will. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please. On a scale of 1-10, my caring about this move is like a 2. My caring about Greg's reputation and the general level of civility on Wikipedia is like a 6. I understand your many, many points (as you keep changing the subject) exactly; you are dodging mine. Red Slash 02:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is outrageous. Please read WP:CONCISE. We favour concise titles. There is no issue of disambiguation. "Pakistanis", a plural demonym, can only refer to the people, not to anything else (unlike "Pakistani"). That's what the word means. We don't need ANY disambiguation, so WP:NATURAL does not apply. "Racism"? Why not look at some of the examples given? For example, Italians, Germans, Swedes, Belgians, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks. Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Slovenes, and Serbs. The whole point of this proposal is to bring these articles in line with other articles using the standard WP:CONCISE titles. RGloucester — ☎ 23:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think those were ill-considered too, but I didn't know about those until now. Frankly, let's take Shetlands - could be people, islands, wool, dogs or horses. Best to have clear titles. Conciseness doesn't trump clarity. And don't attack other editors. Nothing outrageous about a pointed observation given the known systemic bias problem on wiki. Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you speak English? "Shetlands" does not exist. The place is called Shetland. People from Shetland are Scots, and stuff from Shetland is called "Shetland x", e.g. "Shetland pony", "Shetland wool". I'm a Scot, myself. That's not even remotely comparable to this situation. The plural demonym for people from Shetland is "Sheltanders". Likewise, "Pakistanis" can only refer to people. It is a plural demonym. The "demo" in "demonym" means "people". It is a noun. It is not an adjective. It cannot be applied to things, only people. There is no disambiguation problem. It is quite clear that English is not a language you understand, and therefore I fear your should not be making determinations on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try the dab: Shetlands - goes to the islands. And don't attack other editors with remarks like "Are you sure you speak English?" Dial it back a few notches. Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "dialling anything back" until you "dial back" the idiocy encompassed in your opposition comment. "Shetlands" is a redirect because we usually always have redirects for common typos. "Shetlands" does not exist, certainly not as an adjective or anything capable of modifying a noun. I've pointed out your errors. Please correct them. RGloucester — ☎ 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Scotland, "Shetlands" is nonexistent, and "Shetland Islands" is extremely rare. The place is always called "Shetland", the people "Shetlanders". The adjective is "Shetlandic", but that's very rare. It is mainly used in reference to the dialect of the Scots language that is found in Shetland. My uncle was a Shetlander, as a matter of fact... RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we do about the following? Jingpo people; Karen people; Kuki people; Mon people; Bamar people; Rakhine people; Shan people? do we change them to Jingpos; Karens; Kukis; Bamars under WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE. I can find 100s more...Should we change them all? Patapsco913 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Those groups do not have plural demonyms, which is why they use the "X people" form. That's why "French people" is used, as well. There is no plural demonym for "French people" that is unambiguous and non-gendered, e.g. there is no such thing as "Frenchs" and "Frenchmen" is gendered. We don't invent forms with "-s", only use ones the exist in the English language. Are you a native English speaker? RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, I suggest you dial it back and take a few chill pills before someone hauls you to ANI for making too many personal attacks. Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, fellow. Civility is not going to change your being wrong. Instead of making comments about me, perhaps you could read what I wrote, and then be enlightened by the common sense embodied therein. RGloucester — ☎ 05:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you wrote, and my point is that there are clearly many people raising concerns with one example or another here, and that should give you a clue that you are trying to ram something down people's throats in a bullying and arbitrary manner. Foo people is precise, adequately concise, doesn't raise issues of whether we are talking about ethnicity or nationality and so on. You are simply defensive because you have been caught trying to do mass moves that raise more problems than they solve. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People "raising concerns" is irrelevant if the "concerns" have no basis. There is no difference grammatically between "Belgians" and "Belgian people", or similar constructions. No one has provided a source saying that there is a difference. There isn't. The nominator and I have provided detailed sources and logic based in facts, not in some abstract WP:OR that has no basis in reality. In reality, your opposition might as well not exist, because it has no basis. I'm not "defensive", nor did I initiate the move. I just have a low tolerance for obstinate stupidity, though. No problems have been demonstrated. We're through. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patapsco913 Thank you for raising those various titles and I think that it would be important to consider each of them in turn. I think that in these debates centrally important issue will typically be how do we most faithfully represent the group of people concerned. For instance I have known many Filipinos, they always described themselves as "Filipinos" and I cannot even imagine them describing themselves as "Filipino people". I think it sounds odd. RGloucester is right to note the difference between Demonyms that readily go into plural form in which case a designation such as Americans may be commonly used and demonyms that do not readily go into plural form in which case a designation such as British people may be commonly used. The important thing in each case is what is commonly used and what gives fair representation. We don't shoehorn formats. GregKaye 09:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Belgians is not exclusively a demonym, so in that case at least there would still need to be disambiguation. Bromley86 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom as per WP:UCRN, though, as per comments above think that Saudis can well be reconsidered.
Search results in books are as follows:
Disassociated adjectives are well used in Wikipedia as navigation pages to titles with more complete forms of syntax and examples of this are the navigation pages American and British. Dissassociated adjectives have also be used as redirects to other pages and, for example, Australian redirects to the article regarding Australians.
However, in my search on Malasian, the results referenced: Malaysian Industrial Policy; Malaysian Development (×2); Malaysian Architecture; Malaysian Politics; Malaysian Cinema; the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago; Malaysian Folk Tales, Malaysian Foreign Policy, Malaysian legal system, (with this listing all items on the first page of the books search).
There is overwhelming external support for the moves as requested.
Articles such as Albanians are replete with examples of Albanian historic figures and I see no difference in the would see no benefit in having the content of this article entitled "Albanian people". Albanian people of the present and Albanian people of the past can equally be regarded as being Albanians of the present and Albanians of the past.
It is only with regard to demonyms that are not readily brought into the plural with which terms such as British people are normally used. Where the demonym can be readily pluralised then terms such as Americans, Argentines and Australians become the common terms.
For the time being I withdraw support for the specific move Saudi Arabian people → Saudis in consideration to comments above. I have replaced this, for the time being, with: Saudi Arabian people → Saudi Arabians. This is not to say that I don't think that the WP:UCRN issues do not matter and, if considered necessaries, a move of Saudi Arabians → Saudis can be considered while giving full attention to the topic. This is not to say that I do not think that the WP:UCRN may not be an important factor in a future discussion but, IMO, that such a discussion warrants focussed attention. I do think that Wikipedia editors, as members of the human race, have responsibility on ethical issues but am also aware that Wikipedia has a guideline on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. GregKaye 08:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the research. How do we know that the term "Germans" used in all those books is referring to the ethnic group which is the subject of the articles to be renamed? Germans can just as well refer to the population of German citizens or German residents and exclude the German diaspora.Patapsco913 (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patapsco913 Thank you. That's an interesting and thought provoking question, more than I first imagined. First it should be noted that the title of this topic as used in Wikipedia is Germans and, arguably, fits in with WP:UCRN. "Germans" got 16,400,000 hits "German people" got 1,220,000 hits.

I also think that this type of question can potentially cuts both ways. Questions can either be posed such as:

  • "How do we know that the term "Belizeans" used in all those books is referring to the ethnic group which is the subject of the articles to be renamed?"
or as
  • "How do we know that the term "Belizean people" used in all those books is referring to the ethnic group which is the subject of the articles to be renamed?"

Either way it is certain that we cannot practically be certain about all the reference uses. To this point I had considered terms such as: "Belizeans" and "Belizean people" to be at least largely synonymous and I think that this is reflected in the article content at Belizean people which begins: "Belizeans are people originating in the Central American nation of Belize whether they live there or in the Belizean diaspora."

In this debate I have also got to wondering whether we have rightly named contents such as Finns. The article on British people has not been moved to Brits but I guess that this is more of a common name concern than anything:

I think that, if anything, this may be a better illustration of your point as the UK is an extreme example of a nation that is made of constituent parts and all of them are extremely rich in heritage. While the concept of "Brits abroad" is well established, and people in places like the Falkland Islands may regard themselves as more "British" than anyone, many people in the UK will first may foremost consider themselves to be English, Irish/Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh.

However, in the case of a country like Venezuela the country has one demonym, Venezuelan. Here I am finding it hard to find a distinction. To me both terms, "Venezuelans" and "Venezuelan people" both mean people described as "Venezuelan". In this case I don't see any/any significant difference.

In any case I am sure that the ways in which these that people are referred to and in which they refer to themselves should be taken into account. I also think that content issues work both ways and that, while article titles should reflect content, content can reflect title. There is always the possibility of starting other articles and, in the case of most countries, there will also be a "Demographics of ..." type article offering a present time country specific content. It would also be possible to generate/develop, in each case, an "Ethnic groups in ..." type article of which there are already many and which would be well supported by, for instance, Category:Ethnic groups by country. GregKaye 12:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye 12:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plural demonym for the British. It is "Britons". RGloucester — ☎ 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT the other 23 but OPPOSE "Saudi Arabians". "Saudi Arabian people" should instead be moved to Saudis, per WP:COMMON. According to GregKaye, in Google Books "Saudis" got about 315,000 results, but "Saudi Arabians" got only 18,500 results. This proves that "Saudis" is the only common name for these people in English. Plus, "Saudis" correlates with their original Arabic national self-identification (سعوديون, saʿūdiyyūn), and "Saudis" is also more WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No "Saudis" never means the House of Saud (English uses Al Saud or "House of Saud" to refer to that royal family). "Saudis" as a noun can never refer to the national government of Saudi Arabia either, because of the plural number (Saudis). "Saudis" is exclusively used for people from Saudi Arabia or people of Saudi Arabian descent, only. Khestwol (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never? What about the usage in all of these news articles? Did the referendum suddenly become practice in Saudi Arabia? —  AjaxSmack  04:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Saudis" is used as a demonym referring to nationals of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Correct me please if I am wrong? Khestwol (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I pointed out to one user before, other terms like "Saudi Arabians" are used extremely rarely in English as demonym when compared with "Saudis". Some users seem to not have known that before writing their views here. They did not express their views about it. Simply saying "Saudis" sound disgusting to them and therefore refraining from using the term (when all the world uses the term in not only English but also Arabic etc.) is not a neutral position. Khestwol (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but NO SAUDI ARABIANS: user makes good proposal too many words in titles i convinced by soruces. as for the saudis, no use to try no good "saudi arabians"? who use that? in japanese yes never english. use "saudis". as for the other requests, support. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestion - let's forget Saudis and Turks for now

[edit]

Greg, it seems to me that the issues regarding Saudis and Turks are specific to each individual case, and are not amenable to being discussed here. (As opposed to Uruguayans and Omanis, which are effectively identical as far as the arguments for or against, and so can be very easily discussed together here.) So how about we just toss those two from this long multi-move request, and deal with them later individually? Red Slash 19:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Slash Given the apparent validity of objection on both sides of the argument on the possible moves of the Saudi Arabian people's article, I personally think it would be quite appropriate for any admin not to process that particular move. I'd personally prefer just to leave things to the admin to make a decision which may be partly dependent on further editor inputs. Whatever happens, in this case, I am sure that the titling of the article might be looked at and I personally think that the use of an RfC option or an exploratory RM (that didn't state a proposed destination so as to lead to open "debate") might be appropriate. GregKaye 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Slash: please note though that the discussion regarding "Turkish people" vs "Turks" is not talking place here. It is taking place currently at Talk:Indian people#Requested move 1st April 2015. Khestwol (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: I still think the "Saudi Arabian people" entry needs to be moved to "Saudis". I request to change your move request back to "Saudis", because a move to "Saudis" seems achievable, but the request to "Saudi Arabians" does not seem achievable because "Saudi Arabians" is used so rarely. But if that's not possible for you then strike out and cancel the move suggestion to "Saudi Arabians" altogether from here and open a new, separate discussion for it on the Talk:Saudi Arabian people page. Khestwol (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Lots going on. The current RMs just seem to be muddying the waters. It's time to call a moratorium on such moves and get the big picture sorted out. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't even make sense, Andrewa. Literally every single move of this sort has been supported, occasionally even unanimously (Talk:Costa_Ricans, etc.) There is no water-muddying at all. The nominator just decided that rather than have forty different independent move requests that would almost certainly reach the same exact result, we might as well get them all done here. If you and enough others insist, we can tackle them individually, but they're almost certainly all going to be moved after an individual move request, just like all the others, and it'll just slow things down. Red Slash 03:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, if "every single move" has been supported, it's been because it's only been noticed by a few people at RfA; the reality is that you are making a complex request that will have issues in some ethnicities but not others; you may well be stuck with a case-by-case situation. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, I think we need to look at the big picture, and look at whether we need a topic-specific naming convention covering people groups (or make it a bit more prominent if it's there already and we're all missing it). I'm sorry if that makes no sense to you. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is: [1] Not great, but it's there. Montanabw(talk) 04:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Not sure how I missed that. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) is an official topic-specific naming convention. We should consider each of the proposed moves firstly to see whether it complies, and then in need to see why it might be an exception. Andrewa (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa I do not see how the multiple RM here in any way muddies the waters. A multiple RM will attract a wider range of respondents and hopefully achieve a greater consensus. However I would appreciate you looking at a recent RM at Afghan Canadian regarding which the guideline issues are less clear. Until a decision on any moratorium is decided I would be happy for you to bring this to an early close if considered appropriate.
However I do not see how the current request brings anything but clarity. Editors have fairly presented objection to individual moves and these have, as might have been the case in other situations, been responded to. GregKaye 04:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Belizeans. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belizeans. 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:

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) 11:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belizeans&oldid=1199798623"