Talk:Oromo people

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, no primary topic between the language and the people. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oromo people → Oromo
• Oromo → Oromo (disambiguation)

– WP:Concise LeenchaOromia (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC) —Requested move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request needs much more discussion and is unlikely to be "uncontroversial". You have requested a significant change to the well-developed disambiguation page at Oromo. On whether the term "people" should be used in the title of the article for that group, Wikipedia does it both ways: see Kalmyks vs. French people among hundreds of examples. The difference is whether the name is used for a lot of other things as an adjective or signifier, which is the case with "Oromo". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LeenchaOromia: I concur with Doomsdayer520. If you wish to pursue this, please open a formal move request that lists moving the dab page as well as the people page. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG @Doomsdayer520 Based on these comments, I'm not sure if I'm correct in pursuing a move request yet. Should I address some points here and then if you guys feel like the points are valid, then open a formal move request? Or just go directly to making my points on the formal move request LeenchaOromia (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editors have now launched the more formal discussion process, and the comments below indicate that a simple move request is not getting much support. Do not take it personally, as we all start somewhere and Wikipedia has a lot of policies to learn. If there is any confusion or controversy over how the term "Oromo" is used, that could possibly be explained as enhancements to the existing articles, instead of altering their titles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I'm not taking it personally don't worry lol. Sorry if I gave that impression. Or thanks if you're just simply trying to be proactive. But that won't be an issue with me lol. Everyone brought up valid and completely understandable points that I just simply didn't take into account for reasons that I'll address. Nothing for me to take personally here.

I realize now the formal process was already open below (I'm assuming), but I basically just wasn't sure where I should respond with my thoughts to. Below, or a separate "Formal Process" location. LeenchaOromia (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a pretty important disambiguation page, and I don't think Oromo people would count as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anyway, that is up for a proper RM to decide. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a RM, which oppose in advance. The language is equally notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from RM/TR) – robertsky (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. When people groups drop the "people" from the title, the title is rendered in the plural form. So if this article title is changed, it would be moved to "Oromos". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Ethnic group and language are on the same level of notability (as holds for most ethnolinguistic groups), so there is no primary topic. It might be worth considering to move this page to "Oromos", although "Oromo" often functions a collective plural form (e.g. "The Oromo are" gets more search results than "The Oromos are"); so I basically would oppose that too. But that's another (still hypothetical) story. –Austronesier (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Austronesier: no primary topic between the people and language. – Uanfala (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per In ictu oculi and others above, and as per many ethnolinguistic groups - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others above, the language and the people are notable through "Oromo". It would no further disambiguated. 196.191.60.99 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok I see the issue now. So let me just share my perspective once and you guys can determine if it changes your views in any way.

The main point of contention here is the language. So this is how I view it "The Oromo are an ethnic group. They speak the Oromo language". Where Oromo is self-descriptory as the people, and you add "language" to it to describe that you are speaking of their language. It's like saying "Sheryl" and "Sheryl's hand". Amongst Oromo's, or even generally in Ethiopia, using "Oromo" synonymously with the language of Oromo's, is odd. It is like using "Sheryl's hand" synonymously with "Sheryl". Or to give a more direct analogy, it's like calling Arabic, "Arab". "I speak Arab". Saying "I speak Oromo" sounds the same way from an Oromo perspective at least. This oddity is why I erroneously assumed it would be an uncontroversial move.

It is formally called "Afaan Oromo" in the Oromo language. Which directly translates to "The Oromo Language". And informally called "Oromiffa". Also called "Oromic" or "Oromigna" in the Amharic language of Ethiopia.

So the issue now would be how Oromo's reference their language or view the usage of "Oromo" to reference their language vs. the typical way you see how ethnicity is synonymous with language in the western world. German, French, English.

A possible contention I could make to that argument would be the fact that it is also referenced as "The Oromo Language" by multiple sources whereas the people are seemingly most often referenced simply as "The Oromo" in sources.

Looking forward to your thoughts LeenchaOromia (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying about the naming of things in Oromo is probably also how things work in most other languages of the world. But what's relevant here is how things work in English instead: most commonly, the same term is used to refer to both the ethnicity and the language. For example, "The French are mostly found in France" and "French is a Romance language"; it's partly because of this fact that French, like Oromo, is a disambiguation page. – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. How about the "Arab vs Arabic" point I made though LeenchaOromia (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latter point would only be relevant if "Oromo" alone did not refer to the language, which is however not the case. The following are perfectly formed English sentences: "Oromo has the highest number of native speakers in Ethiopia." "The Oromo people are an ethnic group. They speak Oromo." I am aware of the fact that many Oromo prefer to see the language called Afaan Oromo instead of just "Oromo", but in general English usage, the latter still predominates. –Austronesier (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This would go against common practice, which is well-established because English readers typically refer to both a people and a language using the same term. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Oromo fairly clearly demonstrates that reader behavior. Oppose --Joy (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no primary topic between the people and language. But I would support Oromo people → Oromos. --Onlk (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]