Talk:Ancestral Puebloans/Archive 4#Requested move (June 2012)

:The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ended by ad hominem. No further discussion is needed. --bender235 (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus to move. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ancient Pueblo Peoples → {{no redirect|1=Anasazi}} – I decided to tackle this issue for a third time, because I hope this time, common sense will prevail. Per WP:UCN, Wikipedia uses title that are "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." As I already pointed out in 2010, in scientific literature the use of [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi&hl=en "Anasazi"] outnumbers [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+Peoples%22&hl=en "Ancient Pueblo Peoples"] at a ratio of 200 to 1. One argument, that was already wrong in 2010, was that "Anasazi" was an archaic term only used in older scientific literature. Obviously, that is not the case, compare [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=2012&q=Anasazi&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Anasazi"] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=2012&q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+Peoples%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Ancient Pueblo Peoples"] for scientific literature from 2010 or younger. And just to clear up this misunderstanding: Google Scholar is not a "poll of computer geeks", it is a search engine of scientific literature. Also, I'd like to point at the fact that every other language-version of Wikipedia uses "Anasazi" instead of the current, conjectural and unscientific title that the English Wikipedia uses. Yes, "Anasazi" has a negative connotation, but so do "Seminoles", "Maroon", and "Slavs". But those are common scientific names, and therefore we use them. --bender235 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. The name does need to be changed due to capitalization problems, but not to a term offensive to the people's descendents. "Ancient Pueblo peoples" clearly explains to laypeople who these people are. Linda Cordell's explanation about how this term is offensive to Pueblo people is already cited in the text. Here's a few other sample citations of Pueblo people finding the term offensive: [http://www.archaeology.org/0607/news/insider.html "What's in a Name?"], Archaeology; [http://www.travellerspoint.com/guide/Mesa_Verde_National_Park/ "Mesa Verde National Park"]; [http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/anasazi.htm ICE Case Studies]; [http://books.google.com/books?id=0MIqNXvxNNUC&lpg=PR26&ots=BcoIJCoEmK&dq=anasazi%20offensive%20people&pg=PR26#v=onepage&q&f=false Native American Mythology A to Z, page 4]; and [http://books.google.com/books?id=LTW1Rf-NfJsC&lpg=PA176&ots=15zBSy6UZV&dq=anasazi%20offensive%20people&pg=PA176#v=onepage&q&f=false Archaeological Ethics, p. 176]. There's nothing more inherently scientific in the the term "Anasazi" over "Ancestral Pueblo peoples," and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) states "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::And then again, Wikipedia does not censor stuff that people might find offensive, and it does not rewrite science just because some people living today, considering themselves descendents of an archaeological culture, find a scientific term offensive. I've named three examples above, and I could add a couple dozens more, if you like. BTW: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identitification obviously does not apply, because this article is not about an existing ethnic group, but an archaeological culture, which cannot "self-identify". --bender235 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Nothing is being censored. The term "Anasazi" is explained in this article. No one living today considers themselves the "ancestors" of Ancient Pueblo Peoples. Pueblo peoples are the descendents of the Ancient Pueblo Peoples. I have Pueblo and Navajo colleagues, as well as anthropologists, including archaeologists (even Navajo archaeologists). The term "Anasazi" is not preferred, as I have cited. Your last two proposals to move this page have been rejected, and you are simply repeating your previous discussion, so this move will also be rejected. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::None of the proposals have been rejected. They ended with "no consensus".

::::Even if Anasazi is "not prefered" by people considering themselves descendents, it does not negate the fact that the term [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi&hl=en "Anasazi"] is still used, and by far outnumbers [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+Peoples%22&hl=en "Ancient Pueblo Peoples"], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancestral+Puebloans%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Ancestral Puebloans"], and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancestral+Pueblo+People%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Ancestral Pueblo People"]. Why do Wikipedia authors all of sudden believe they are in a position to ignore scientific consensus, and instead establish their own reality?

::::I see that "Anasazi" is being mentioned and explain in the article. But why can't it be the other way round? Using the correct WP:UCN title, and then explain the controversy in the article. --bender235 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::There is no scientific consensus for using "Anasazi." I'm surrounded by the people writing and studying Ancient Pueblo people on a daily basis IRL. Linda S. Cordell, the author of Ancient Pueblo peoples among many other books on the subject, is a respected archaeologist [http://sarweb.org/?senior_scholar_linda_s_cordell]. The Navajo language term is appropriately used in the [http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaas%C3%A1z%C3%AD Navajo language Wikipedia]. This is the English language Wikipedia, and WP naming conventions are against using offensive terms when an accepted neutral term is available. BTW both Seminole Tribes use the term "Seminole"; it means "runaway"; and is not offensive to those communities, so you might consider dropping that one from your arguments. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

:::::::Well, if there is no consensus for using "Anasazi", how do you explain the 200:1 ratio of [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi&hl=en "Anasazi"] compared to the current conjectural title [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+Peoples%22&hl=en "Ancient Pueblo Peoples"].--bender235 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. WP:COMMONNAME Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If the people most affected by the label find a term derogatory or offensive, then don't use it. Even if it's simply archaic, replace it. Simple. We don't use other ethnic slurs, so why is it that Native people always seem to be treated differently? Just because the dominant culture has been late to "get it" doesn't mean that we ignore the consensus of both those culturally affected and the scientific community. "Anasazi" is popular, but it's a Navajo word. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

::Since this is an archaeological culture, there are no people affected by this term. No more than today's Greeks are offended by the international use of the name "Macedonia" for a country they do not believe to be the actual Macedonians. While Wikipedia recognizes this controversy, it adheres to WP:UCN, naming "Macedonia" the common way. Why do you believe some Wikipedians are entitle to overule all of science, and establish a conjectural name for the Anasazi culture?

::Also, Wikipedia sometimes use terms that others might consider offensive. That is exactly when its the common name. For example Baster. --bender235 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Of course there are people affected by this term. Ancient Pueblo peoples are ancestors of Pueblos peoples, including Hopi and Zuni people, and not so distant. The time period for the Ancient Pueblo people, the Pueblo IV Era runs as late as 1600, well after Spanish contact with Pueblo people. NAGPRA Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects connect Ancient Pueblo peoples to contemporary Pueblo peoples (e.g. [http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/fed_notices/nagpradir/nic0552.html], [http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/fed_notices/nagpradir/nic0637.html], [https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/16/2012-6323/notice-of-inventory-completion-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-southwest-regional-office-albuquerque-nm], [https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/09/24/2010-23919/notice-of-inventory-completion-the-colorado-college-colorado-springs-co-correction], etc., etc.) -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::A parallel is Kennewick man, no one modern tribal nation could claim him, but it was important to all that his remains be treated in accordance with Native traditions. The tribal nations were not able to claim him, but at least his remains are not on public display, so respect is shown. As for offensive and censorship, we name the relevant articles Woman and Man, not "c--t" and "d--k." Simple. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm beginning to see that this is some sort of unduly political correctness. Of course Wikipedia should not insult anyone, but on the other hand we can't rewrite history. Even tho "nigger" is an offensive term, we can't establish a new name for the 1926 novel Nigger Heaven. Just like that "Anasazi" might be offensive to some people today, but it is the established name for this archaelogical culture, and it is not upon Wikipedia to rewrite science. If one day scientists decide to use a different term, we can change it. But not before a new consensus in science has been established. --bender235 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::The cultural continuity from Ancient Pueblo peoples to contemporary Pueblo is unbroken. They are the exact same people. "Anasazi" isn't censored; it mentioned freely throughout Wikipedia. "Nigger" has its own Wikipedia article; however, it's not the title of the Black people article. This article was named "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" eight years ago, and the term is used in published, scholarly literature. No one's rewriting science. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::::::"The cultural continuity from Ancient Pueblo peoples to contemporary Pueblo is unbroken. They are the exact same people."

::::::::No, there are not. Just like Ancient Greeks are not identically equal to contemporary Greeks. They might share culture, language, etc., but still one is an archaeological culture, one are modern people. --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, if you look at the eras they continue from precontact into historical times. This is explained in: Adams, E. Charles and Andrew I. Duff. "Settlement Clusters and the Pueblo IV Period" in [http://books.google.com/books?id=fhVTpGYlFXEC&lpg=PA3&dq=Pueblo%20III%2C%20IV%2C%20V&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false The Protohistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1275-1600]. The entire book explains the concept, but I've linked page 3. I have daily provided more citations, while you have simply run numbers at Google Scholar. I have no idea why you have repeatedly called for a move of an article you have never contributed to the content of, but basically you are just repeating yourself over and over. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Oppose. Doesn't seem necessary. Many of our articles in this area use what could be considered incorrect tribal names and the world hasn't spun off its axis as a result. If this has been tried twice before, it seems that there's no major desire to change. "No consensus" is really the same thing as a no when you get right down to it. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

::"Many of our articles in this area use what could be considered incorrect tribal names..."

::Which one? --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Apache for one, if we're going to get ultra-technical about it. The same could be said for Navajo, Yavapai, Hualapai...I could go on. With many of the Southwestern tribes you find disagreement in outside sources based on the community doing the writing (historians as opposed to sociologists/anthropologists, for example). Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose based on my personal experience and reading, Ancient Pueblo People is correct. No one is trying to "overrule all of science", and this is not a "conjectural name", whatever that is. Anasazi is too narrow a term and doesn't encompass all the groups in the article. It also has a lot of baggage attached to it, one reason why it is gradually being replaced. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I could just as well end this move request right now. It seems like this article is destined to be the only one on Wikipedia not bound by WP:UCN. Essentially, this debate has been going on for two years, and I am still waiting for a compelling explanation why a [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi&hl=en term ("Anasazi")], that allegedly is both "archaic" and "derogatory", is still used in scientific publications two-hundred times more often than the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=2012&q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+Peoples%22&hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=0%2C5 current title of this article]. Maybe someone could come up with a plausible reason, that all these scientific authors (and me) did not see until now. I'd love to hear it. Two years, and I am still wondering. --bender235 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:Take the initiative to start reading works written by Pueblo authors or attend conferences with Pueblo presenters, if you actually truly care. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::Looking at the first 4 Google Scholar hits for Anasazi, I find Purification and characterization of a lectin from Phaseolus vulgaris cv.(Anasazi beans) and Anasazi software for the numerical solution of large-scale eigenvalue problems. And why is Google Scholar showing books such as Anasazi Intrigue: The Adventures of John and Julia Evans, Sign of the Anasazi: A Dov Bar Lev Mystery and Sign of the Anasazi: A Dov Bar Lev Mystery (all on the first page of hits). I didn't realise it was so bad. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Make it [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Anasazi culture"], and it still gives 9000 results, compared to 73 (yes, you read that right, seventy-three!) for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+peoples%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Ancient Pueblo peoples"]. If you only count the very recent publications (since 2010) it is still [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010 900] to [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+peoples%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 15] for "Anasazi". Could anyone please give a rational explanation for this? Why is science still using this term, when a majority of Wikipedians consider it "archaic" and "offensive"? --bender235 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:@Uyvsdi: "Take the initiative to start reading works written by Pueblo authors or attend conferences with Pueblo presenters, if you actually truly care." Now — if that is your approach, would you support renaming anything that bears the title the xyz myth and creation legend of xyz to the truth about the origin of the xyz people? Will you have wikipedia reject/leave out the Bering strait theory for any article about a people that rejects it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Yet according to one of your scientific studies (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/30246362) "Anasazi and ‘Anaasází: Two Words, Two Cultures", the word Anasazi didn't enter into scientific literature until the 1920s or 1930s (see page 318 of the linked article, from the journal Kiva published by the Arizona Archeological and Historical Society) and was, to use the authors' words, "an English word with English meanings". The article goes on to explain the NPS decision to move away from using Anasazi and provides a very nice overview of the roots of the proper term in the Navajo language. In the view of the authors, ancestral Puebloan is "anthropologically and archeologically correct" (p. 319). "Science" isn't always correct or current, especially when you start wandering into the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, and archeology). A quick browse through the term Aryan (for example) in older literature provides just one example. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

::::But unlike Aryan, Anasazi is still used today. And obviously much more often than "Ancient Pueblo Peoples". So why is this? Why is the majority of science wrong here? --bender235 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Go read the article. It should explain some things for you. But, in short, the authors think the name is still in use (even though in their considered opinion it is incorrect) because of both habit and the fact that it is pleasing to the ear. And Anasazi has only been in use for about 80 years and was originally advocated, it seems, by one man (an Anglo, it should be noted). Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Bender, "popular" does not equal accurate. 1) the word "Anasazi" is Navajo; the Ancient Pueblo peoples were NOT the ancestors of the Navajo, thus the term itself is an outsider's word for a culture. 2) There ARE modern cultures who ARE descended from the Ancient Pueblo people, and they have a right to claim their own heritage. This is not a matter of political correctness, it is an old error fixed. It is a matter of historical AND anthropological accuracy. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::to 1) the name originating from another language doesn't mean a thing. The name "German" probably derives from a Latin or Ancient Greek word, with a meaning similar to "barbarian". It should actually be "Deutsche" or "Teutsche", but it isn't, and just because it is an "outsider's word" and theoretically incorrect doesn't mean Wikipedians have to somehow enforce a change in common nomenclature.

::::::::to 2) sure, old errors ought to be fixed. But it is not upon Wikipedians to do this. When scientists decide to abandon the name "Anasazi" in favor of "Ancient Pueblo Peoples", like they decided to abandon "Hottentots" in favor of Khoikhoi, I'm totally fine with it. But until then, I'll oppose it, because (again) Wikipedia is in no position to decide this. Never has been, and never will be. This is not the place to coin new terms.

::::::::Maybe without even realizing it, Intothatdarkness added to my point. "Anasazi" maybe incorrect, it may be offensive to some, but it is commonly used because of habit. And Wikipedia does not impose what ougth to be, but merely reflects what is. I'm afraid a lot of people here, feeling some kind of omnipotence due to Wikipedia's popularity, think they can abuse this encyclopedia as a vehicle to break science (and maybe public in general) of a habit they consider "offensive". But this is not what Wikipedia is for. --bender235 (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I am utterly mystified what your emotional involvement in this article is, since you have never contributed to it in the decade + of its existence. You have not responded to any other editor's comments, especially Dougweller's point that "Anasazi" refers to everything from beans to computer programs. Everyone else here who refuted your move suggestion has provided citations and compelling arguments. Your repetitive responses just elucidate the fact that you have neither familiarity with Ancient Pueblo peoples nor Pueblo peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::::::::If you'd read closely again, you'll notice that I in fact responded to that "Anasazi" ambiguity claim. Let me repeat it: Make it [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Anasazi culture"], and it still gives 9000 results, compared to 73 (yes, you read that right, seventy-three!) for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+peoples%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "Ancient Pueblo peoples"]. If you only count the very recent publications (since 2010) it is still [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010 900] to [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=%22Ancient+Pueblo+peoples%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 15] for "Anasazi culture".

::::::::::Second, it doesn't matter how much I contributed to this article, since no one earns any ownership rights based on his amount of contributions. It simply bugs me that this article does not adhere to WP:UCN.

::::::::::BTW: Now I noticed that you didn't react to anything in my comment. How come? Do you think Wikipedia has the right to establish a scientific term against scientific consensus? Simply because we're popular enough? --bender235 (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::I find your obsession with science in this case quite odd, actually. This isn't a matter of classifying an organism or naming a new mineral (although Dougeller did come up with some scientific examples of the word being used...but in a very different context). We're dealing with what used to be called the "social sciences," which are by their nature mutable and often imprecise. Anasazi in this case is not a scientific term. Nor are you dealing with scientific consensus. You're dealing with a word modified by an anthropologist 80 years ago and agreed to by others in that community in part based on the originator's reputation. It's a label. If you're going to argue for the continued use of the word Anasazi, at least frame your argument correctly and stop using GoogleScholar search numbers as a crutch. And as far as Wiki establishing its own rules...please. It does that all the time. Pretending otherwise just makes your argument look even weaker. From looking at the actual articles involved in those searches, and considering the journals they originate from, it seems to me that there is a shift within the social sciences community itself regarding the name (just like there was when Anasazi came into use..it wasn't the original name used for these people in the literature). Search numbers are meaningless without actual context. But it's clear that nothing here will convince you, and you've said nothing to date that would convince me to change my position on this. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm impressed that this debate has reached a point where people in all seriousness argue that science is irrelevant. But, of course, social science is science, too. Labels and terms in social terms aren't some ambiguous wishi washi, but in fact well-defined. I suppose it's not even worth to continue discussing if people question these basic premises.

::::::::::::By the way, the origin of the word "Anasazi" (or any other established term) is irrelevant if the argument is only about common use. The word "atom" has been established by Ancient Greeks, and even tho it is obviously wrong (because they are divisible), it is established. We still use it.

::::::::::::And as far as Wiki establishing its own rules...please. It does that all the time. Pretending otherwise just makes your argument look even weaker.

::::::::::::Please name one article, that violates WP:UCN. I'm waiting. --bender235 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, because the goal was to precisely describe the subject matter. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::::::::::::And what would be the more common name for that article? I can't think of one. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Arts of the Americas, Native American art, but "Native American" is used on Wikipedia to describe indigenous peoples of the United States. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

::::::::::::::::I don't see that. How are those names more common? Are they used in literature, media, more often? --bender235 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Bender, at this point, you are behaving like a troll. There is no reasoning with you, several users who have expertise on the topic have provided excellent references and explanations. There is ample evidence that the scholarly community is changing the term from one that is popular but inaccurate to one that is more accurate. You are now arguing for argument's sake and that is inappropriate. So we are going to stop feeding you. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:"There is ample evidence that the scholarly community is changing the term from one that is popular but inaccurate to one that is more accurate."

:Where is this "ample evidence"? Please name your source. That is all I'm asking for, and I've said this repeatedly. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

::People have. You choose not to listen. And I agree. Time to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intothatdarkness (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 June 2012

:::No one did. Where do [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Anasazi+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2010 all these publications] come from, using a supposedly deprecated term. No one ever explained. Why?

:::And by the way, in eight years contributing to Wikipedia, I've never been called a troll. That's a first. I always appreciate when people losing an argument start using ad hominem. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

: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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

----

:Ancient Pueblo peoples → {{no redirect|Ancestral Puebloans}} – See discussion above ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Support. The google scvholar hit suggets this is the common name. Discussion above suggests it is also the most neutral. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Support Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think that this move required an RM as per article at List of ancient Egyptians and discussion at Talk:Azerbaijani people#Requested move 14 February 2015 GregKaye 12:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment my knee-jerk reaction was to oppose per WP:UE, but this is way out of my area of expertise, so I won't--that said, I think an RM was appropriate. Red Slash 18:30, 5 March 2015 (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.