Talk:Nilotic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sudan. See also The Sudan Portal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya. See also The Kenya Portal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania. See also the Tanzania Portal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda. See also the Uganda WikiPortal.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Improvement Drive

The article on Acholi language is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you can contribute or want it to be improved, you can vote for this article there.--Fenice 16:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamitic / Semitic roots

Keep out the crap about "the semitic roots" nonsense. We don't need to resurrect 19th century Imperialist theories, please, thank you. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teth22 (talk • contribs)

I agree, and disagree. Precisely because this keeps coming back it's good to keep something about it in the article, with the modifier "traditional ethnographic literature". Rather than just omitting information that is widespread although it's falsified, it would be advisable to specifically debunk this information. — mark ✎ 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless the author can give sources on this "tradtional ethnographic literature," I say delete the modifier, debunked or not. Kemet 13 March 2006

I'n not sure if I understand what you're saying. Deleting the modifier amounts to saying that members of these groups descended from 'Hamitic' or 'Semitic' roots. That theory has been discredited, as outlined for example in Hamitic. I agree that it needs sources eventually (WP:V), but it makes no sense at all to delete the modifier for the time being. I'll look around for sources, but don't expect me to fix this very soon. Others are invited to help of course. Meanwhile, I will not agree with deleting the modifier; then, the whole sentence has to go (but as I said above, it will keep coming back). — mark ✎ 08:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Genetic research indicates that Nilotes may in fact be descendants of a very archaic African population distantly related to Khoisan. Only recently they mixed, to a limited extent, with Arabs and surrounding black Africans (or Neo-Negrids, if you want). Cartouche, 16.September 2006

Strothra, don't erase statements that you don't understand. You are a narrow-minded person that has nothing to say to the Nilotic physique. If you meddled into my "West African type", I could take it as a controversal topic. But erasing such well-established, documented and measured fact like the body build of Nilotes that you can find in the presented references, that's really too much! Centrum99 08:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)