Talk:Lango people

Original research

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, BanyanTree 13:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in use of Lango/Langi

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)

found a picture

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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) Ngunalik (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)