Talk:Lango people

Africa: Uganda 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.
	Uganda portal This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda (assessed as Top-importance).

Ethnic groups

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Original research[edit]

I have removed a paragraph of what appears to be original research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept content when there are no sources to be found. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks, Banyan Tree 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in use of Lango/Langi[edit]

This article says "Lango will be used in the text instead of "Langi". Driberg used Lango, not "Langi" in his study "The Lango: A Nilotic Tribe of Uganda (1923)." Kihangire (1957), interviewed Lango elders for his dissertation, and "Langi" is not mentioned in the text, but Lango or Lango people."

Who is Driberg? Who is Kihangire? Why is there a question in the use? Is it because in the Lango language, one says 'one Lango, two Langi'? If the article uses Lango, why is the article name Langi people? Shouldn't this be changed? DBlomgren (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

found a picture[edit]

already on wikimedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nilotic_Negroid_Lango_chief_of_Unyoro_Kingdom.png

Lango chief of Unyoro Kingdom

"This media file is in the public domain in the United States"

Why the Debate template[edit]

I added the debate template before the section where it seems the editor(s) wanted to air their view on the proper use of the terms "Lango" and "Langi." I suggest all editors decide, debate, and agree on the correct term on this edit page, not in the article.

By the way, the Langi I met said that "Langi" is the plural of "Lango." DBlomgren (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus on articles Kumam, Lango, Ateker peoples[edit]

@McOmbat @Denelianey @Haumbaeric @Arctic Circle System @Wdonghan @Alwoch Sophia @Fyrael

Request to review articles Lango people/Lango language ultimately linking this to Ateker peoples article

Hi Everyone The above articles seem to be in a mess if you can help or invite others who can help that would be helpful.

In summary researchers placed groups as Nilotic when they meant geographical location rather than ethnic i.e. people who settled along river Nile. However, in contrast to geographical, the term Nilo-Hamitic referred to ethnic groups of Ateker peoples such as Koramojong, Teso, Lango, Kumam, Turkana etc. Then Nilo-Semitic aka Shemitic are ethnic grouping of Lwo peoples e.g. Acoli, Alur, Jo Padola, Lwo/Luo of Sudan, Lwo/Luo of Kenya, Tanzania, Congo etc and some other groups that I am yet to study, I am not very well versed with this part.

Two groups of the Ateker peoples i.e. Langi and Kumam who although currently use borrowed Lwo/Luo words and speak a mixture of their Ateker languages and Lwo/Luo, they are not Lwo and their languages cannot be classed as Lwo/Luo either. This is the view of some editors who are trying to correct what was wrongly placed in Ethnolgue and other sources. The editors noticed that there has been erros in placing the Langi and Kumam groups under Luo/Lwo, they are not Lwo/Luo nor is their language classification.

Please google http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/013.html Scores of articles are listed there. In addition there are some articles such as

https://web.archive.org/web/20201210010927id_/https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29330/1/10731425.pdf

From page 50 onwards show that Lango, Kumam, Teso etc are grouped under Paranilotes, Plain Nilotes aka Nilo-Hamites, the anthropologists noticed that Lango and Kumam had language shift in the 18th centuary and borrowed Lwo/Luo words as well as cultures but that Kumam or Lango clans are not Lwo/Luo up todate. They are known as Nilo-Hamites of Ateker peoples together with Teso, Karmojong etc.

The Wikipedia article is currently showing the first paragraph of Lango article stating the opposite from the second pargraph if you see it under Early History section. We need to first start a review from this article if possible. Two citations have been placed in Lango article and one of them appears in Ateker peoples article already. They mention the points which contradict the contents of the first paragraph (please see below).

Uzoigwe, G. N. The beginnings of Lango society : a review of evidence. OCLC 38562622.

Webster, James Bertin (1973). The Iteso during the asonya. East African Pub. House. pp. xxi.

Therefore, please see what you can do to improve these articles. If we can suggest the changes that should be made here in the Talk page first then an editor can transfer that to the relevant pages that would help. Ngunalik (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review articles Lango people/Lango language ultimately linking this to Ateker peoples article[edit]

Hi Everyone

In summary researchers placed groups as Nilotic when they meant geographical location rather than ethnic i.e. people who settled along river Nile. However, in contrast to geographical, the term Nilo-Hamitic referred to ethnic groups of Ateker peoples such as Koramojong, Teso, Lango, Kumam, Turkana etc. Then Nilo-Semitic aka Shemitic are ethnic grouping of Lwo peoples e.g. Acoli, Alur, Jo Padola, Lwo/Luo of Sudan, Lwo/Luo of Kenya, Tanzania, Congo etc and some other groups that I am yet to study, I am not very well versed with this part.

Two groups of the Ateker peoples i.e. Langi and Kumam who although currently use borrowed Lwo/Luo words and speak a mixture of their Ateker languages and Lwo/Luo, they are not Lwo and their languages cannot be classed as Lwo/Luo either. This is the view of by some editors who are trying to correct what was wrongly placed in Ethnolgue or other sources. The editors noticed that there has been erros in placing the Langi and Kumam groups under Luo/Lwo, they are not Lwo/Luo nor is their language classification.

Please google http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/013.html Scores of articles are listed there.

In addition there are some articles such as

https://web.archive.org/web/20201210010927id_/https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29330/1/10731425.pdf

From page 50 onwards show that Lango, Kumam, Teso etc are grouped under Paranilotes, Plain Nilotes aka Nilo-Hamites, the anthropologists noticed that Lango and Kumam had language shift in the 18th centuary and borrowed Lwo/Luo words as well as cultures but that Kumam or Lango clans are not Lwo/Luo up todate. They are known as Nilo-Hamites of Ateker peoples together with Teso, Karmojong etc.

The Wikipedia article is currently showing the first paragraph of Lango article stating the opposite from the second pargraph if you see it under Early History section. We need to first start a review from this article if possible.

Two citations have been placed in Lango article and one of them appears in Ateker peoples article already. They mention the points which contradic the contents of the first paragraph (please see below).

Uzoigwe, G. N. The beginnings of Lango society : a review of evidence. OCLC 38562622.

Webster, James Bertin (1973). The Iteso during the asonya. East African Pub. House. pp. xxi.

Therefore, please see what you can do to improve these articles. If we can suggest the changes that should be made here in the Talk page first then an editor can transfer that to the relevant pages that would help. Thanks a lot Ngunalik (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngunalik: Your RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief. In fact, why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without first exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know it was thirty day. I saw 24 hours. It is my first time to do this though. I had read what was sent I cannot say I am an expert in this. What I really want is to get concensus views on the contents of articles in wikipedia as stated. Any suggestions on how we should proceed please feel free to bring it forward. Ngunalik (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC#Duration says nothing about 24 hours. It says that Legobot automatically removes the {{rfc}} tag 30 days after it begins. Regarding I had read what was sent - what were you sent, and where? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else sent me some leads on how to do this. And from my understanding is that this tag is sent within 24 hrs and can be removed once we are finished, it does not have to be left for 30 days. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else sent me some leads on how to do this - what leads, and where? Also, what do you mean by this tag is sent within 24 hrs? I am minded to pull the {{rfc}} tag straight away since I cannot see why it is justified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 🌹It says it will be sent to editors like request to editors who are willing to contribute on the subject heading within 24hrs. If you do not want to help please do not contribute anything since it was not specifically sent to you. Leave me to discuss with the editors who are willing to help since you are not concentraing on the issues being raised rather you are concerned about the technicalities. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not waste our time: I am now pulling the {{rfc}} tag. You keep referring to vague things without context, like It says it will be sent to editors like request to editors which is meaningless. What is the first "It" here? If you have read some directions somewhere that you are trying to follow, please link to where you read those directions, do not make us guess. For example, I have linked WP:RFCBEFORE, which has some directions, that you appear to have ignored completely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 🌹That was the automatic message I saw. As said you are not asked to do anything in my last message to you. Please leave me to deal with people who might help do not speak for them. Thanks.Ngunalik (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What automatic message? Where did you see it? You're wasting time again.

As for Please leave me to deal with people who might help do not speak for them - you started an RfC, and RfCs are open invitations for anybody to comment, you cannot exclude anyone unless (a) there are people with topic bans in the area concerned or (b) you have an interaction ban in effect. At present, I am not subject to any bans, topic or interaction. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Echoes of Heritage: Navigating the Rich Tapestry of Lango Tradition and Culture into Lango people[edit]

Moot. (non-admin closure) ^Queen of _Hearts 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main topic, information in the other article should be kept but the title doesn't seem plausible. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have draftified the new article. The essay-like title is simply not a good redirect, and it is unclear if anything should be merged at all. The author can contribute to Lango people if they want to. MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.