Talk:Iraqw people

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Africa: Tanzania Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Top-importance).

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "genetics" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Article sounds highly contrived to present a picture of these peoples as being related more to "Caucasoids" than to surrounding peoples. "Comprehensive anthropological analyses of the ethnic Iraqw by Ikeda et al. (1982) suggests that they share significant affinities with other Cushitic-speaking populations and "Caucasoids" generally" is included in the article. It is sourced from an article whose actual words are "The Iraqw and Datoga bear a close resemblance in physical features to the other members of the Hamitic or Caucasians as well as the Bantu speakers, while the Datoga are closer to the Bantu than the Iraqw do"...point here being that the referenced article makes the point these peoples resemble both "caucasoids" and "Bantus", but the article picks the caucasoid element and emphasises that while leaving the Bantu element out. Dishonest? Certainly. POV? Probably. Misleading? Very. 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC) why has this section not been updated and that out-dated reference been removed. It is not necessary to include the word caucasoid in the section sense they are not caucasians. It's not even referenced correctly. J. Hayes 2021,Jan. 24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CC:4380:330:289B:A263:4A4C:5214 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Valley section[edit]

I'm wondering if anyone would mind some pretty substantial edits (if not the total deletion) of the Kerio Valley section. There isn't any archaeological or historical evidence tying the Iraqw to the Pastoral Neolithic peoples (who were probably not farmers at all) of northern Kenya. The irrigation systems mentioned in the section are Iron Age, not Neolithic, and again we don't have any evidence that they are related to the modern-day Iraqw. The next section about Engaruka is a little better grounded, but from an archaeological perspective these two history sections are really problematic. Thoughts? Ninafundisha (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]