Talk:Iraqw people

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC
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. -- Katan gais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

POV
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)

Kerio Valley section
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)