Talk:ǀXam and ǂKhomani heartland

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title[edit]

Per this comment,User:Blarcrean has suggested moving the article to /Xam Khomani Heartland. My first concern is that the introduction calls it the "/Xam and Khomani Heartland", which seems to indicate it should include the second. Second, while Bernard's work in 1992 (citation 1) calls /Xam the correct spelling, the UNESCO link uses !Xam and seems much more recent. I don't know about the Deacon citation, so we'll see. Third, if ǀXam_language is from the same group, convention would say to go with that, for consistency. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/Xam (or |Xam) is the correct spelling, while !Xam is a common mistake, probably due to people making it being familiar with !Kung or !Xun for other possibly better-known groups in Namibia/Botswana/Angola. The / and ! represent different kinds of clicks in Khoe-San languages. The UNESCO link uses incorrect orthography. Blarcrean (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be pointed out that the /Xam were historically of the Karoo and the Khomani of the Kgalagadi Tranfrontier Park area, perhaps at one time extending down to the Gariep or Orange River - and so, yes, I would go with /Xam and Khomani rather than /Xam Khomani - which is a bit like the difference between say "English and French" and "English French". Blarcrean (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if it's the same group, would you agree to ǀXam and Khomani heartland for the title (no need to capitalize heartland)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine. Blarcrean (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done now. Would you agree? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so - I've made one or two links to the site from elsewhere so that it is not quite the orphan it was. Thanks for your help. Blarcrean (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.khomanisan.com/about-us/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. eviolite (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]