Talk:Kisii people
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onKisii people. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)19:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted the page back to a version from June 2019, there were many large problems with the page at this point:
Sorry for the bother, but the page was a mess.RDXL (talk)11:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This ethnic group clearly speaks a bantu language yet its written here that they're likely not bantu but rather cushitic? The sources seem bad.Wojak6 (talk)18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the user claims ekegusii isnt a bantu language yet glottlog puts it as one with 60 cited peer reviewed sources. the sources even say elegusii is a very conservative bantu language that held alot of features from proto-Eastern BantuWojak6 (talk)18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gusi1247Wojak6 (talk)18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.com/books?id=xaNyAAAAMAAJ&q=ekegusii+proto+bantu&dq=ekegusii+proto+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLH87ZDzAhVYDzQIHa2vDysQ6AF6BAgHEAMWojak6 (talk)20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
many gusii words trace back to proto bantu. No Cushitic substratum.https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%CA%8A%CC%80j%C3%B2j%C3%B2https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%C3%A0j%C3%ADj%C9%AA%CC%80Wojak6 (talk)22:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is misplaced and should have been started on the Bantu languages page as it mainly talks about Bantu languages on a wrong article. This article is about the Kisii people and not the Bantu languages or Gusii language. The author seems to be more concerned about Bantu languages and should be discussing such on the relevant Bantu languages page and not the Kisii people article.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)23:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This ethnic group clearly speaks a bantu language yet its written here that they're likely not bantu but rather cushitic? The sources seem bad. Wojak6 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC) the user claims ekegusii isnt a bantu language yet glottlog puts it as one with 60 cited peer reviewed sources. the sources even say elegusii is a very conservative bantu language that held alot of features from proto-Eastern Bantu Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gusi1247 Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)https://books.google.com/books?id=xaNyAAAAMAAJ&q=ekegusii+proto+bantu&dq=ekegusii+proto+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLH87ZDzAhVYDzQIHa2vDysQ6AF6BAgHEAM Wojak6 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) many gusii words trace back to proto bantu. No Cushitic substratum.https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%CA%8A%CC%80j%C3%B2j%C3%B2https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%C3%A0j%C3%ADj%C9%AA%CC%80 Wojak6 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)"
The quoted thread is misplaced since the editor mostly talking about the Ekegusii language being a Bantu language on wrong article. The article is about the Kisii people and not the Ekegusii language. The article only slightly touches on the Ekegusii language and does mention that it is classified as a great lakes Bantu language. There is nowhere in the article does it state that Ekegusii is not a Bantu language and even in the Gusii language article it is identified as a Bantu language. Bantu is a language family without a genetic or race/ethnic connection. The editor's claims that "Abagusii are Bantu" is wrong as Bantu is a language family and so the Abagusii are Bantu speakers which is clearly stated in the article. There is no where in this article or in the Gusii language article it is stated that Ekegusii is a Cushitic or Nilotic language. So the editor is very wrong and possibly editing a wrong article. The article does acknowledge professional references based on recent research of East African languages that found Ekegusii language and some few other languages mentioned in the article as being structurally different from typical Bantu languages and also have a different tense aspect from typical Bantu languages which makes sense. The Ekegusii and other languages mentioned in the article only have some lexical similarity with some other Bantu languages, but its structure and tense aspect is distinct from that of typical Bantu languages and similar to the Nilotic and Cushitic languages all which makes sense as they are based on a professional research with a lot of evidence. The article is well referenced with professional references based on research than the links that wojak is providing which are unreliable and unprofessional given they are not based on a research. I simply don't find anything wrong on the article. All references in the article are professional and based on research yet Wojak6 since thinks they are wrong and he is unable to provide any reliable references rather than links to websites which are not even research. Wikipedia is about information with reliable professional references which can be verified and not whether the information is correct or wrong. Primary research is also not allowed on Wikipedia articles and all information entered on the article must have reliable resources for verification. The claims and comments made by Wojak6 on the article are primary research as there are no references to verify such claims and comments. The claims by Wojak indicate that he either does not understand the article or did not read through it.
From my understanding, Wojak6 seems to equate Bantu languages to a genetic ethnic group or race which is rather inaccurate. Bantu is a linguistic classification of several thousands of unrelated African tribes which speak unrelated languages that share some lexicon by interaction and borrowing of words. The speakers of this languages don't real understand each other and were loosely grouped together in 1950s for purposes of linguistics. Prior to colonization of Africa, Bantu/niger-congo and other language families of Africa did not exist. What is proto-Bantu, a concept that did not exist in pre-colonial Africa. Claims that many Gusii words trace back to proto-Bantu are rather baseless and the references provided by Wojak6 are not reliable resources. The Ekegusii is classified as Bantu particularly great lakes bantu as shown in the wikipedia article, but does Bantu equate to an ethnicity? No Bantu is just a linguistic classification without genetic attachment.
Are the Bantu speakers genetically homogenous? The correct and logical answer is no. The Bantu speaking tribes are genetically diverse and don't share a common origin other than being classified together as Bantu in the 1950s by Joseph Greenberg and other scholars. Some Bantu speakers, share genetic origins with the nilotes, khoisan, cushites, pgymies or west Africans. It is logical to say that the East African Bantus especially Kenya are genetically related to the Nilotes and Cushites taking into consideration the history of Kenya and east africa. The Bantu in southern Africa are related to Khoisan and those in central Africa are related to the pgymies and west africans considering histories of such regions. Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found. Does speaking a Bantu language mean, one cannot be related to nilotes, cushites etc? the answer is no.
The Abagusii do speak a Bantu language. Does that mean they can't be genetically related to the cushites or nilotes? I don't see where the wikipedia article is wrong. The Abagusii despite speaking a Bantu language, they are also genetically related to the Nilotes and Cushites which have been part of their history and considering the history of Kenya. The Abagusii are diverse with most sharing origins with Nilote and cushites and some with Bantu speakers that is if Bantu even exists which makes sense. The article is very accurate about the Kisii and well referenced. The article is written comprehensively taking into account the history of Kenya which include the ( Nilotes, Cushites and Khoisan) which account for the pre-Bantu history of Kenya and includes all aspects necessary to understanding the origin of Abagusii. I don't understand why the Cushites, Nilotes, Khoisan and Omotics which are the pre-Bantu inhabitants of Kenya should not be mentioned in the article since they have heavily influenced the history of the Kisii people and contributed heavily onto their ethnogenesis. The history of the Kisii people is very much connected to the pre-Bantu inhabitants of Kenya hence I don't understand why the editor thinks it is wrong for such populations should not be mentioned in the article. I don't see why Wojak6 thinks there are errors in the article and keeps deleting content without providing solutions. There are simply no errors on the article and it is well referenced with reliable and professional resources than the links provided by Wojak6. If the editor thinks the article is wrong, he should provide alternative information with reliable references and not just links to unreliable websites. If the editor cannot do that, then he should leave the article alone and should not delete anything from the article if he can't provide alternative information. Deletion or blanking of articles is simply vandalism of the article and is not allowed.
Wojak6 seems to equate Bantu to an ethnicity with a common origin which is inaccurate. He needs to correct some misconceptions and preconceived beliefs. The article provides more reliable resources than the links he is posting here. He should read and understand staff before deleting content from the articles and other articles he has edited.
Nyanza Cushitic (talk)22:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These six tribes should indeed be treated as independent/isolate or even assigned a separate language family rather than being lumped into the Bantu language group where they clearly don't belong." this is clearly a biased personal opinionWojak6 (talk)23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bantus are not a single ethnic group. im not claiming that. It is proven by science that those speaking bantu languages are genetically related to certain degrees and the migration has been proven by scholars.https://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13296#:~:text=Bantu%20migrations%20swept%20out%20of,tip%20of%20the%20African%20continent.
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-genetic-analysis-reveals-patterns-migration.html
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/697474v1.full
Wojak6 (talk)23:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I know Bantus are not a single ethnic group. im not claiming that. It is proven by science that those speaking bantu languages are genetically related to certain degrees and the migration has been proven by scholars." Your assertions are completely misplaced and your references are mainly centered on the Niger-Congo hypothesis which postulates of expansion of Bantu expansion from west central Africa. The references you provide here are very irrelevant and they don't state that Bantu languages are genetically related. Your references are not based an an actual research to determine that the Bantu speaking tribes are actually genetically homogeneous. The sources you have here are based on the assumption of the niger-congo hypothesis of Bantu expansion and not an actual research. It is unrealistic of you to think that the 1000s of unrelated and diverse African tribes grouped together in 1950s are genetically homogenous. The so called tribes don't even understand each other than sharing some lexical items in their languages. If there is no single Bantu ethnic group, then why do you think Bantu languages which are hundreds of thousands of languages with some minor similarities in lexicon are genetically related? if there is no single bantu ethnic group, then there is no such a thing as Bantu languages. Bantu is an hypothetical language family with the larger hypothetical niger-congo language family. If it is a hypothetical language family why do you even think there is a genetic connection between the 1000s of distinct African languages which were primarily grouped together on the basis structure? it is very absurd of you to think that. Your references don't state that the Bantu languages are genetically related. Your references are very irrelevant on this page as they are talking on the Bantu languages and this article is specifically about the Kisii people. You should open this discussion on the Bantu languages page. Your assertions are based on your personal assumptions and ignorance. You should not be discussing Bantu languages here or the 1000s of tribes that speak such languages on this page because it is irrelevant. This article is about the Kisii people. So talk about the Kisii not bantu languages or Bantu speakers or Ekegusii language. Ekegusii language and the Kisii people and two separate entities hence why there are two wikipedia articles on Kisii people and Gusii language. You have mostly talked about the Ekegusii language being a Bantu language which is clearly stated on the article, but that is irrelevant to the Kisii people article which mainly talks about the Kisii people and only touches slightly on the language. ""These six tribes should indeed be treated as independent/isolate or even assigned a separate language family rather than being lumped into the Bantu language group where they clearly don't belong." "this is clearly a biased personal opinion""...why is this a clearly biased opinion? it is based on a research on the East African Bantu languages which found the Ekegusii and the other mentioned five languages to be distinct from typical Bantu languages in terms of structure and tense aspect which is fact and the six languages only have some lexical similarities with other Bantu languages. The six languages have a structure and tense that is similar to the Nilotic and cushitic languages. If the six languages only share some lexicon with Bantu languages and are similar to the nilotic and cushitic languages in terms of tense and structure? shouldn't they be assigned a independent/isolate classification? If the six languages don't share structure and tense with Bantu languages, why should they be called Bantu languages? Tense and structure are the core parts of any language. Why should they be classified as Bantu just based on some lexicon shared with some Bantu languages? I don't see any bias in that statement as it is a discussion of the recent findings of the six languages. If you understand English then there is no bias on that statement. Again the article is about the Kisii people and not Ekegusii language. You are probably commenting on a wrong article. You should be commenting on the Gusii language article as your thread is about Ekegusii being a Bantu language by family. There is a difference between Ekegusii as a Bantu language and the Kisii people as Bantu speakers. The language does not equate to the genetics/origins/history of the Kisii people because Bantu is not an ethnicity but rather an hypothetical language family created in 1950s. Your thread is very unnecessary or misplaced and should have been discussed on the Bantu languages page since you are discussing about Bantu languages and speakers. Each of the 1000s of the tribes labelled Bantu have their own distinct history that have nothing to do with the so called hypothetical Bantu language family that has been there since 1950s. There is no connection between the individual histories of the thousands of the very diverse Bantu speaking tribes with diverse origins, histories and genetics.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source from UNESCO on the Gusiihttps://books.google.com/books?id=YeKwW3vzQMUC&pg=PA300&dq=unesco+history+of+africa+gusii+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjttbHHmJbzAhVQqZ4KHfgoB0EQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=unesco%20history%20of%20africa%20gusii%20bantu&f=falseWojak6 (talk)23:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Gusii absorbed and assimilated nilotics and couthern cushitics and they adopted a gusii identityUNESCO sourcehttps://books.google.com/books?id=HwV2a-lPB70C&pg=PA193&dq=unesco+history+of+africa+gusii+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjttbHHmJbzAhVQqZ4KHfgoB0EQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=unesco%20history%20of%20africa%20gusii%20bantu&f=falseWojak6 (talk)23:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how is glottlog not a reliable source? Every language in wikipedia has a link to glottlog??? All their cites sources are peer reviewedWojak6 (talk)23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
gusii being different from "typical bantu languages" is a rather vague term. there are over 500 bantu languages. which ones are typical and which are atypical?? the grammar of gusii and nilotic and cushitic languages are vastly different and but its much the same as most other bantu languages (nasal prefixes, SVO word order etc).Wojak6 (talk)23:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haplogroup common among bantu speakershttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Sub-Saharan_Africa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M2
Dna test on Kenyan peopleshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497321000739?dgcid=rss_sd_allWojak6 (talk)00:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found." doesnt make much sense. Are you saying the pygmies, cushitics khoisans etc somehow out of the blue created these groups who not only look physically different to them but also speak completely unrelated languages and have different culture(farmers rather than hunter gatherers for example) and genetics etc to them?Wojak6 (talk)00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain genes that are common among nilotoc speakers (haplogrou A for example) and cushitic speakers (haplogroup E1b1b) same with Bantu speakers. its not that hard to grasp. u talk about cushitics and nilotics like they're valid groups but not bantus despite the overwhelming valid evidence.Wojak6 (talk)00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All these stuff you are writing here is kind of unnecessary and irrelevant to this page. You are clearly talking about Bantu languages and Bantu tribes in an article about "Kisii people" Since you seem to be concerned about Ekegusii language being a Bantu language, you should have posted this thread on the Gusii language page. The links you consider reference are also unreliable and irrelevant and not based on an actual research. Since when are google books and wikipedia articles reliable references? Since some of the links you provided touch on the general history of Africa and general information of the people of Kenya, why did you post them here since they are irrelevant here. All this Wikipedia links you are providing here with Sub-saharan African DNA haplogroups were all based on a general study based on various Sub-saharan African populations. Even if you check on those links you provided, Bantu, Nilote, Cushite, etc have been identified as language families and not races or ethnic groups. According to those Wikipedia articles that you posted, non of the people within those language families are genetically homogenous. So why do you even think the 1000s of African tribes labelled Bantu by language share a common origin. All your comments here are based on your personal opinions and preconceived beliefs. Since when did glottlog which is a language family online database of languages across the world become a reliable resource? All languages families of Africa created in the 1950s by Greenberg and other scholars have been assigned glottlog codes within that database. But how is that even relevant on this page that is clearly not about languages? "gusii being different from "typical bantu languages" is a rather vague term. there are over 500 bantu languages. which ones are typical and which are atypical?? the grammar of gusii and nilotic and cushitic languages are vastly different and but its much the same as most other bantu languages (nasal prefixes, SVO word order etc)."...how does this even fit in here? The recent research on East African Bantu languages indicate that Ekegusii and the other six languages are distinct from typical Bantu languages in terms of Structure and tense which is very similar to Nilotic and Cushitic languages. The Ekegusii only share some lexicon with the typical Bantu languages which is a fact and I concur with the research findings. Your assertions are just your opinions and how you think things should be. You are directing your questions to a wrong person Wojak6. Why do you address me as though as the one who wrote the article or did the research on East African Bantu languages? You are relying on old knowledge, but recent research indicate that Ekegusii is different from typical Bantu languages which I find to make sense. Again this article is not about Ekegusii language but about the Kisii people and so your comments on Bantu languages are misplaced. There is no need to post the rather irrelevant and unreliable links here and I don't want to get too much into such links which are very unhelpful. Interestingly in most of the sources you have provided, Bantu is a language family, so why do you think they are genetically related? ""Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found." doesnt make much sense. Are you saying the pygmies, cushitics khoisans etc somehow out of the blue created these groups who not only look physically different to them but also speak completely unrelated languages and have different culture(farmers rather than hunter gatherers for example) and genetics etc to them?"... why doesn't this make sense? The pgymies, Khoisan, Nilotes and Cushites are the most ancient people in Africa compared to the Bantu speakers and Niger-Congo speakers who are not even ancient. The southern African Bantu languages have clicks just like Khoisan languages, so why doesn't it make sense to you that the southern Bantu are related to Khoisan which is a fact. Your assertions indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd. Why do you think the nilotes, pgymies, khoisan and cushites came out of the blues to create Bantu? Eastern African and Northern Africa were originally inhabited by the Cushites, Khoisan and nilotes, Southern Africa and south-central Africa were originally inhabited by the Khoisan, Congo basin and lower western Africa was originally inhabited by the pgymies, while the nile valley, central sahara, Northern central Africa and upper western africa was originally inhabited by the nilotes. Which area of Africa was originally inhabited by the Bantu and Niger-Congo? None. So where did the Bantu and Niger-Congo come from they were not first anywhere in Africa? did they come from Heaven? The only logical answer is that the Bantu and niger-congo speakers originated from the pgymies for the central and west African Niger-congo speakers which are only slightly taller than the pgymies. So why do you think they look different from the pgymies? The Bantu speakers in southern Africa most likely originated from the Khoisan which makes sense since their languages have clicks just like khoisan and they also look more like khoisan. The Eastern African Bantu speakers most likely originated from the Nilotes, Cushites, and khoisan which were also found in east Africa. Most of the Bantu speakers in East Africa especially Kenya look more like Nilotes and cushites. So why do you think the Bantu speakers look different? The Bantu speakers have diverse looks depending on geographical region where found. So how come you seem to imply that there is one specific look for Bantu speakers which are very diverse in looks? "There are certain genes that are common among nilotoc speakers (haplogrou A for example) and cushitic speakers (haplogroup E1b1b) same with Bantu speakers. its not that hard to grasp. u talk about cushitics and nilotics like they're valid groups but not bantus despite the overwhelming valid evidence."... how did you decide this? this are your own opinions based on preconceived beliefs. You really have some serious issues that you need to address.
To summarize you comments and thread that you started, I think you are commenting on a wrong article. According to most of your comments including the thread you started, you have mostly talked about Bantu languages and Bantu speakers as well the general African history which is very irrelevant and unnecessary on a page talking specifically about the Kisii people. You should have opened you thread on the Bantu languages or Bantu peoples page, or Gusii language page as you seem to been concerned about Bantu languages and Ekegusii being a Bantu language. Your comments and assertions are very unnecessary on this page. Just discuss about the Bantu languages elsewhere where that is relevant. This article is about the Kisii people and that is what should be discussed here and not bantu languages, Bantu peoples or Ekegusii. If your plan is to discuss Bantu languages, then you should not be doing such discussions on this page as they are unnecessary. Why do you even edit articles since you clearly lack knowledge of many things? Your lack of knowledge is what contributes to your vandalization and destructive editing of Wikipedia articles. It is time you paid attention to the feedback from other editors on your talk page because your destructive editing habits are unacceptable.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reversed the edits by Wojak6 to earlier version before his edits because he edits had issues.
Nyanza Cushitic (talk)11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wikipedians,
I just want to bring to everyone's attention that this article is strictly about the Kisii people and not about Bantu languages or Bantu speakers or any other topic. If you wish to discuss about Bantu languages, or Bantu speakers or any other topic, please discuss at the relevant pages. It will be irrelevant and unnecessary to discuss about another topic such as Bantu languages, Bantu speakers etc., on an article that is specifically about the Kisii people. The Kisii people being linguistically Bantu speakers does not necessarily mean that the Bantu languages and Bantu speakers should be discussed here. Anyone that wishes to open threads on this article should only talk about the Kisii people and nothing else because this article is about the Kisii people. The Kisii like the other tribes grouped as Bantu speakers is a distinct entity within that group with their own distinct history, origins, cultures and genetics that is not necessary the same as another tribe within that group. Therefore, this article should only discuss the Kisii people and not the entire Bantu language family, or the thousands of unrelated African tribes linguistically grouped as Bantu. Some editors never pay attention to what different articles are about and as a result end up posting wrong/irrelevant information on wrong articles. Please pay attention to the article titles before opening discussions.
Secondly, the Kisii people article has undergone a lot of transformations to reach where it is now. This article started with only four unreliable and unprofessional references with largely plagiarized content and the article was really in very bad shape with a lot of issues. The article now has 39 mostly reliable and professional references from originally having just four simple links. The article now has sufficient intext citations from professional references which were originally absent. The article has really been transformed in many aspects ranging from references, grammar, intext citations, and many other aspects. All those Wikipedians that have contributed to the current situation of the article are very much appreciated. Those editors that are trying to return the article where it started through destructive editing should please stop. We need Wikipedians with good intentions that work towards constructive editing of articles and not destructive editing and vandalizing of articles. Destructive editing or vandalism include, blanking entire or sections of articles without good reasons, editing without leaving clear edit summaries for making any changes as well as interfering with content of articles with negative motives. Constructive editing include adding onto the articles and not deleting/blanking content from sections or entire articles, providing edit summaries so that others can understand the rationales behind making changes and changes made to articles and avoiding any acts of vandalism as much as possible.
However, there are a few hit and run editors who normally have destructive editing habits and vandalize articles when they have an opportunity to do so until their vandalism actions are detected by the system and reversed back to original state. For instance, the Kisii people article has been a victim of such hit and run editors more than once which have either been reversed by other editors or automatically by the system. For example, what happened to the Kisii people article recently was very disgusting and disturbing. The article was simply being blanked of content. I'm sure such destructive editing has also happened to many other Wikipedia articles. Please let us stop such vandalism habits and work towards building an encyclopedia and not damaging articles. Rather than deleting content from articles, let us add onto the articles. Deletion is simply wrong and not a solution. All editors with such destructive editing habits should please address that. Edit articles only if you have something to add onto them, otherwise it is a good idea to just leave the articles alone if your aim is to delete content all blanking articles. Sorry for the long message, but please promote constructive editing of articles and discourage vandalism of articles.
Nyanza Cushitic (talk)03:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page suffers from huge blocks of texts and redundant sentences that do nothing but stress a point already made. It would be great if someone could chop off a lot of the fat here, though given the beef happening between editors here, it may be some ways away. Also, is there really a need for Kisii in Precolonial Era and Kisii in Postcolonial era? I would suggest merging these sections into the history section.— Precedingunsigned comment added byWdonghan (talk •contribs)18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. lots of spelling and grammar mistakes too.Wojak6 (talk)14:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the genetics section there isnt a single source on the genetic of the gusii posted. just conjecture and personal opinion.
here is a link to gusii people who took genetic tests such as ancestrydna, 2eandme etc.https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7619-My-fellow-Africans-share-your-ancestral-results-from-different-DNA-companies/page26Wojak6 (talk)14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
omotics reside in southwest ethiopia. the Cushite claims kisii people are somehow related to them yet no source can be found for this? Have omotics ever lived anywhere near where kisii are in nyanza?Wojak6 (talk)14:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omotics are not closely genetically related to cushiticshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863221/Wojak6 (talk)23:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i can understand them having some genetics from cushitics, nilotic speakers but omotic seems like a reach.Wojak6 (talk)23:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i never said bantu people are homogenuos dont put words into my mouth. u said likely didnt exist and just invented by ignorant europeans but u quickly changed after i posted genetic sources ( ur edit of "some kisi hertiage is derived from bantu like suba" for example)Wojak6 (talk)23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
khoisan in kenya? no proof of that by any anthropologist or archeologist. sounds like your source is outdated from the 1950s or somethingWojak6 (talk)23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Bantu speakers are the most recent people in the entire region of Eastern Africa" not quit as the Luo (western nilotes) came and found the kisii and invaded/conquered their land and drove them away from the lakseshore.https://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htmthe Maasai also came down and found Bantu speakers in tanzania that were there long before themWojak6 (talk)23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a minority assimilating the majority is rare. the Bantus toook over much land in east africa because they were farmers and could produce more food so had a larger population than the smaller hunter gatherers and herders. There were more bantus so they overwhelmed those before them due to sheer force of numbers. since there were more bantus their genes passed on more and the genes they got from assimilating the hunter gatherers is not as large on average as their bantu genes.Wojak6 (talk)00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
another source showing omotics are not closely related to cushiticshttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01837-7Wojak6 (talk)00:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
u said kisii are mistaken facially with cushitics? wow. kisii look nothing like somalis. seems like some strange complex u have with cushitics.Wojak6 (talk)00:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even a cursory reading of this article leads me to suspect that much of the content is based on contributors opinions, rather than that of the sources cited. This is of courseoriginal research, and forbidden by Wikipedia policy. An an indication of the more obvious issues, notice the following phraseology:
...and so on. Search the article, and you will find a whole series of 'conclusions', cited to nobody. If they cannot be properly and directly cited to an appropriate source which states exactly those conclusions, they must, per policy, be deleted. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.AndyTheGrump (talk)06:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've been slowly working on reformatting and editing the Kisii people page, fixing grammar and typos, and cutting out redundant sentences and anything off-topic. I have yet to get to the "Etymology of Bantu and relevance to Abagusii" subsection. As you probably saw in my edit summaries, I do not have access to many of the sources cited, and would greatly appreciate if others could confirm them and their reliability. Thanks!— Precedingunsigned comment added byWdonghan (talk •contribs)00:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1.https://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htm
2.https://journals.openedition.org/eastafrica/473?lang=en
3.Ochieng, William (1986). People Of The South-Western Highlands: Gusii.
4.Niane, Djibril Tamsir; Joseph, Ki-Zerbo (1998). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. UNESCO General History of Africa. IV. Berkeley, United States: University of California Press. p. 193. ISBN 9780520066991.
While these references have been used in this article they are largely unreliable and have a lot of issues listed below:
NB: Source twohttps://journals.openedition.org/eastafrica/473?lang=en was removed in recent edit. There is a lot of copyright issues in the source. The source contains fragments of content plagiarized from several sources with Ochieng being the major source of the article.
The Book by Ochieng and thehttps://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htm have been used in the article because they have a physical version of the Oral literature of the Kisii people. Other than that, most of their content is largely unreliable and guesswork based on opinions of Ochieng and not on research. Some of the allegations made in these books are unrealistic.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)03:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The references 1 to 3 listed above have been removed from article and substituted with more reliable and neutral resources. The fourth reference has been left for the time being because it does not have as much issues as the first three. The reference may also be removed later with more research.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)11:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Ochieng seems like an unreliabke source himself. He appears to be one of the fringe Afrocebtric scholars who desoerately try to connect every black african group to ancient egypt/Nile Valley and north africa.Wojak6 (talk)18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"During the century that the Gusii were living in the Kano Plains, the Luo invasion of the north-eastern shores of Lake Victoria began, culminating in the total expulsion of the Gusii from the lakeshore by the eighteenth century (the year 1755 is given in some versions, and 1770 in others.Being a cattle-herding people, the Luo were also more mobile than the predominantly agricultural Bantu living on the lakeshore. Many of the Bantu tribes were assimilated by the new-comers, but some chose to flee: some to the north and south, but mostly eastwards into the fertile hills flanking the lake.[1][2]"
The content above was added to settlement in Gusiiland byWojak6 and has been removed for the reasons listed below:
and several other books for the[5] source. The allegations made on the sources are only attributed to Ochieng and other authors whose works have been used for the sources listed. The allegations are not based on research, but opinions of authors.
authors and far from reality and facts.
and the Luo presided them in the lake shore. So they never displaced them as alleged. They have assimilated some of them recently through language shift.
traditional areas to major towns of Homa Bay, Siaya, Kisumu and migori counties which are the lakeshore counties traditionally inhabited by the Luo together with minority Kuria and Suba which are the late comers in the area.
content has largely be copied and pasted from "William R. Ochieng's "Kenya's People: People of the South-Western Highlands - Gusii" with very minimal modifications per the blog. The content in the book is based on opinions by Ochieng hence he is the source of the information.
several sources and claims the work as her own. The source has serious plagiarism issues hence unreliable.
NB: Please pay attention to the issues raised about the content and the sources mentioned. Continuous addition of the content to the article is very unnecessary. Also please add reliable and professional resources based on research and not links to blogs/websites for very serious issues and books largely based on fantasy and imaginations of authors rather than reality.
Thank you for your understanding!
Nyanza Cushitic (talk)00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those others should check out the sources first. You're the one who kept spamming your own bias "conclusions" cited to nobody that all had to be removed remember.Wojak6 (talk)02:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also why did you remove the "full citations needed" part of your source on the gusii language added on by andy? you keep removing it. That indeed needs a full citation.Wojak6 (talk)02:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
Based on recent edits byHim bin Sadic,102.68.78.159 andEmman.nya, it is clear that there are some misconceptions that people have about the Kisii people. It is these misconceptions that cause some editors to attempt removing large junks of content from the article in the case of102.68.78.159 andEmman.nya. Some also make absurd edits to the article in the case ofHim bin Sadic. Some of those misconceptions can be addressed and/or clarified by responding to the question above.
Nyanza Cushitic (talk)23:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder which ethnicity you are really from. I'm an omogusii and no we are not a fusion of different ethnicities, we are Bantus we are related to other great lakes bantus linguistically, culturally and genetically but at the same due to the fact that we have Nilotic neighbors we intermarried with them although at a smaller extent only on the borders (especially the kalenjin)
We never came into contact with the ogiek who are found in the mau forest (a considerable distance away from kisii Highlands or the mara plains where we spent a significant time in) the ogiek were absorbed by the kalenjin and maasai and never the abagusii and Cushites were in northern Tanzania and we never came into contact with them. I wonder where you get these claims from.
And I saw in some part you wrote that apparently Gusii language together with ngurimi,kuria, Suba-simbiti and others are more of Nilotic than bantu and I didn't know whether to laugh or be angry. I can't speak for the other closely related languages in the logooli-kuria branch but I'm sure it's the same but I know for sure that Gusii is very similar to other great lakes bantu languages in many aspects and as well to other North eastern bantu languages I'm yet to find one Nilotic language that Gusii is similar to
It is pretty clear you're set on keeping to your misguided opinions and I originally meant to ignore you but I decided to give my two cents and I don't like you for spreading lies about my own people, language and culture. It's sad that Wikipedia allows these kind of edits without doing proper research as the ones before you edited were perfect and also funny how your links don't really support the things you wrote. Also other thing I noticed right from your name it's clear you have ulterior motives, Nyanza isn't Cushitic no matter how much you try to spread that false notion.
So sad that Wikipedia makes it hard to right the wrongs that editors like you makeEmman.nya (talk)13:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder in what aspects you think we the abagusii are diverse, we are very homogeneous the only divisive factors are just the different clans but in aspects of language,culture and even phenotypically we are very much alike.
Did you do a research? How did you come up yo the conclusion that we are diverse? Did you do a genetic research?Emman.nya (talk)13:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emman.nya We really go by facts and what can be proofed. The Abagusii are highly diverse and that is a fact. It is very unrealistic to even think that they are homogeneous. It is only a small fraction of the Kisii who are from Congo basin by way of the Bantu migration. The majority of the kisii population are descended of the earlier settlers of Gusiiland and Kenya at large as well as Eastern Africa. Those earlier settlers were khoisan, ogiek, southern cushites, southern nilotes, plain nilotes and other nilotes. the Bantu speakers were the last people to settle in Kenya which is fact. Saying that there were no southern cushites or other people already living in Gusiiland before the Bantu is a total lie. There is alot of linguistic and anthropological evidence to show that. It is a lie to claim that all Kisii all from central Africa/Bantu because they are diverse. It is very visible from physique and even culture. While you consider yourself Bantu, many Kisii may find that term Bantu offensive. There is nothing wrong in the article as you claim. the article is realistically written. saying that all kisii are from central africa is simply a lie. The majority of the Kisii are descended from southern cushites, ogiek, southern nilotes and plain nilotes which were already living in Gusiiland and all parts of Kenya before the Bantu migrated there. Please do not generalize things here. Do not say that all Kisii are from central Africa. it is only a small fraction like yourself who are from central Africa or have Bantu progenitors. The majority of the kisii population are indigeneous to Kenya and East Africa as they have south cushitic, Ogiek and south nilotic progenitors.
Your assertions simply show you do not know history of kenya and east Africa. Yes there was a Branch of southern cushites know as Nyanza cushitic. Nyanza, rift valley and other provinces of Kenya were inhabited by southern cushites before Bantu. There is a lot of evidence to show that. There is no false information on the article. You are the one that is wrong and saying things based on guesswork and ignorance. I understand that some truths can be disturbing but please embrace them. It is misleading to claim that such a highly diverse people are all from central Africa. it is a lie and unrealistic to say so. I respect that you consider yourself Bantu, but please do not generalize the entire population that comes from diverse ancestors. It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not. It is only a fraction of the Kisii population which is from central africa hence Bantu. That has been explicitly stated in the article. No misleading the audience that all Kisii are from central africa/Bantu or even homogenous. To add onto that, Abagusii is a nation, not just a tribe. The truth hurts. since you think the article is wrong, what are your truths? what research have you done to disapprove the researches others have done? Why did you say you are an Omogusii? was that all necessary? Being an Omogusii does not mean that you know it all. It does not mean that others cannot be right about the Kisii. You should be neutral when writing here. You do not need to say that you belong to a certain ethnicity. I respect that you consider yourself Bantu. I am also kindly requesting you to be respectiful of those Kisii that are not from central Africa/Bantu and have non-bantu/central african ancestors/progenitors. Those non-central African Kisii are the reason why the kisii culture and history is rich. Their contributions to the richness of the kisii culture and history have been explicitly acknowledged. Is that why you think that the article is false. The credit should be given where it is due. The Bantu cannot be given all credits, because they are not the reason why the Kisii cultures/history is rich. They only made minor contributions to the richness. This article is about the Kisii nation and/or population as a whole. It is not just about a small fraction of Kisii from Congo basin/bantu. If we had to talk about that small fraction, there will be nothing to talk about. The Kisii native to east africa and Kenya are the reason why we have something to talk about the Kisii. they are the reason why the kisii are popular. So why shouldn't they be given credit? You should consider reviewing your assertions because you are so wrong.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)07:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources of all this information?Emman.nya (talk)21:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a abagusii and I've never heard nor noticed any of this lies you're writing so I need the proof you're writing aboutAnd the proof needs to precise and clear for each opinion you writingEmman.nya (talk)21:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
