Talk:Hadza people

message: Rational: Names of nationalities in Wikipedia do not generally include morphology from the source language. E.g., Swahili people, not Waswahili. Both "Hadza" and "Hadzabe" are commonly used in English, so there is no cultural consensus for the latter. (-be'e is just the feminine plural in Hadza, equivalent to wa- in Swahili.) This is parallel to language articles, e.g. Swahili language, not Kiswahili, which is a redirect. kwami 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the noms reasoning. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Dear Kwamikagami,
Thank You for Your answers, and also the many new things for me (e.g.  about epeme and moon taboos). I tried to answer, but the material turned out to be abundant, the variants diverse, the whole topic complex. Many things support Your approach. Although there are questions yet, but I think the processing of the material takes yet much time from me. I acknowledge the version which You wrote in the article, exactly because there are so many things and questions in the topic, many supporting Your version, and as for the (maybe seemingly) contradicting questions that emerged, we can return to them later. Now I cannot make the choices, decisions, filtering, composing and balancing tasks, first I want to study the sources more deeply, I think that will take one or more halfyears.
I tried to collect everything in User:Physis/Diachronical description of Hadzabe beliefs all that I found till now, but I do not ask more for reverting Your changes, because many things support Your variant, and the (maybe seemingly) contradicting things need that much processing task that I cannot undertake it in the few next months.
Congratulation to Your knowledge about Hadzabe, I hope shall be able to learn something of the language and the folklore (interpretations) in the future.
Physis (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledging Your version, asking time for Hadza questions, they are more complex that I thought 

message: In the article about eyelashes they say Hadzas trim their eyelashes. Can something about that be said here, why do they do that etc... Gnemetropos (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't trim them, they (women) pluck them, apparently for beauty. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  eyelashes 

message: There are some new photoes of Hadza people in Wikimedia. --Молли-1 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos 

message: Tishkoff et al. weakly support the idea of a "Macro Khoisan" language family including Hadza on genetic grounds and summarises the linguistic evidence as "controversial". If we're contending the issue is settled (I really wouldn't know) then I think another, preferably more recent, citation is needed. joe•roet•c 19:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Genetic models are only useful in conjunction with linguistic classification. They can't be used as evidence for classification any more than language can be used as evidence for genetics. So we need to look at historical linguistics, and in that field the idea of Khoisan has been almost entirely abandoned. There may be a couple holdouts, but I think we give that adequate weight given how small a minority they are. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogeny of the Hadza language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hadza 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  tag to http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Khoesan/Handout%20Riezlern%202008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916204930/https://sites.google.com/site/thehadzabushmenoftanzania/map-of-hadzaland-1 to http://sites.google.com/site/thehadzabushmenoftanzania/map-of-hadzaland-1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Multiple people have noted the similarities between what science says happened with hominids/early humans and what the Hazda myth states.
The very first humans were tall, hairy, and didn't use fire. The next race were tall, lived in caves, domesticated certain animals and used medicine, but weren't as hairy. Then the modern people came who were shorter and used bows, bowls, and houses. Then the very modern people, are the ones right now.
According to science and what it currently says, it would seem the first people were Australopiths or early Homo erectus. The next ones were Homo erectus/early sapien, and the moderns are of the modern black race.
It does say the hairy giants would stare at their prey and watch it die, but that doesn't seem true. All the same, the parallels are uncanny.137.118.106.30 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  coincidence in myth/fossil findings? 

message: "The general attitude of neighbouring agro-pastoralists towards the Hadza was prejudicial; they viewed them as backwards, not possessing a "real language", and made up of the dispossessed of neighbouring tribes that had fled into the forest out of poverty or because they committed a crime."
The previous section notes that there has been significant admixture between the Hadza and Bantu. So it's quite possible that there is at least a partial truth in there, namely that individuals from Bantu tribes have joined the Hadza for reasons like the stated ones – a fact that was exaggerated and distorted by the Hadza's agriculturalist neighbours. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions 

message: This article states:" Hadzane is an entirely oral language, but it is not predicted to be in danger of extinction."    
"Ethnologue" states that it is endangered and they use that term when most children do not learn the language as their first one.  https://www.ethnologue.com/size-and-vitality/hts      
UNESCO states that this language is not endangered but vulnerable because most children learn it but the use is restricted to certain areas of life, for example to the home.  http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap/language-id-114.html Because the tribe is keen of its traditions and because of the strong use of swahili in Tanzania I suppose that UNESCO is closest to the truth. Should we change the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasselc (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we believe the UNESCO instead?  

message: Under one photograph in the article it says "The Hadza's way of life is highly conservative. Huts have been built in this style for as long as records have been kept."  The picture shows modern materials used.  So for thousands of years they have used old garbage they found around to make their homes?  Does being "highly conservative" involve using any random garbage you find to make your home?  Dream Focus 13:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  description under picture is odd