Talk:ǃKung people

message: If this is the name that the people refer to themselves as, this page should be moved to Ju/wasi people I believe.  I would do this myself except the contributor of this information was anonymous and provided no reference to support it ... as I don't know the veracity of this, I leave it to another to second this information or provide some backup support for it's truth before making the move.  Regards, Courtland 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me as part of the complications of Khoisan languages. I think Ju/wasi people are supposed to speak the Ju/’hoan language rather than the !Kung language.  But  suggests that some writers think they are the same and others different.  I will take it out. --81.131.164.155 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ju/wasi 

message: Prishiboro does not sound like a real Khoisan word. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 23:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology 

message: I'm sure many people, myself included, would be curious as to how the name of the tribe is pronounced. Perhaps a pronunciation key or something alike would be useful. Also, I believe that their native name isn't "!Kung" isn't it? Please include information about their original name and the origin of the 'curious' exclamation mark. Thanks 219.74.50.44 17:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ! indicates a clicking sound. 129.21.40.218 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Suggestion to merge !Kung people with Bushmen, which are known as the !Kung or San the same ethnic group. This group has had many names, originally called Bushmen by the Dutch, the term became derogatory by the British Colonialists and the San or !Kung were applied. However the term Bushmen has had a comeback taking precedence and this article is not as complete as the Bushmen -Kain Nihil 11:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that "Bushmen" is more or less a term used for the Khoe & San people in the Kalahari, who (originally) speak Khoisan languages. The ǃKung people, however, are merely one single subgroup of them. The Nama people, for example, are Bushmen, but not ǃKung. Thus I strongly oppose the merge. — N-true 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the merge makes sense as a sub category because as you said, the !Kung are a subdivision of the San which are bushmen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.49.178 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to merge with [[Bushmen]] 

message: I added to the existing Hunting Rituals section and created the Social Structure and Hierarchy section for my anthropology class; Environment & Society[[[User:Bda1991|Bda1991]] (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  For ANTH Environment & Society 

message: As is evident from the section heading, this section appears to be a little biased and unreferenced.  I copy edited for clarity and removed some of the worst of the assumptions, but the original writer seemed to have an unsupported affinity for:
#disease
#growing equality of the sexes due to white man's influence
While I could see at least some aspects of these two points being true (particularly with disease), I wouldn't think that they would be that clearly cause and effect, but someone who knows about the subject should clarify.Editfromwithout (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent History 

message: Hi. I am concerned about this extensive edit (and the next one) by an IP. It sounds like WP:OR, with the same source added here and there. I can't locate the source in Google books, but most of it sounds a bit like "parachute ethnography" and primary source by Nancy Bonvillain (page created by one of her students). Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender roles etc 

message: After having a look at the introduction, I can safely claim I have no idea what the !Kung people are like.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radnompieceofgarbage (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Introduction 

message: Or perhaps satire.  Either this isn't a real ethnic group, or someone is playing a cruel joke by couching ethnographic research in the most condescending way possible.  The text drips of "isn't it amazing how unsavage these people are!"  This is the noble savage trope on steroids.
Joeedh (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead section is especially bad (I haven't taken a look at the rest of the article in depth). "men and women live together in a non-exploitative manner, displaying a striking degree of equality between the sexes"? "Today, the great majority of ǃKung people live sedentary lives"? I think this might be a case of bad word choices (that are just non neutral-sounding, regardless of the editor's original intention). Some of the content might be easily improved just by removing some of these words/phrases, at least in the lead. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at an earlier version, the origin of these problems makes more sense - someone rewrote quoted anthropological observations as fact, and anthropology can have bias formed from the anthropologist's cultural background or opinions (even though it is technically a scientific field). The article seems to have had some non-neutral writing for years. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads Like Propaganda