Talk:Kisii people

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kisii people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202213527/http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php to http://www.knbs.or.ke/censusethnic.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510231620/http://www.ekegusii.org/ to http://www.ekegusii.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Errors with the page before reversion

I just reverted the page back to a version from June 2019, there were many large problems with the page at this point:

• lack of sources; the page never gained more than 4 references, despite the information changing
• plagiarism; large amounts of the additions were lifted from https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-01332864/document
• formatting; the formatting wasn't consistent, didn't fit the general formatting required for articles, and abused parentheses
• notability; the notable people section was large and didn't follow WP:LSC in who got added

Sorry for the bother, but the page was a mess. RDXL (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Abagusii are Bantu

This ethnic group clearly speaks a bantu language yet its written here that they're likely not bantu but rather cushitic? The sources seem bad. Wojak6 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

the user claims ekegusii isnt a bantu language yet glottlog puts it as one with 60 cited peer reviewed sources. the sources even say elegusii is a very conservative bantu language that held alot of features from proto-Eastern Bantu Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gusi1247 Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=xaNyAAAAMAAJ&q=ekegusii+proto+bantu&dq=ekegusii+proto+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLH87ZDzAhVYDzQIHa2vDysQ6AF6BAgHEAM Wojak6 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

many gusii words trace back to proto bantu. No Cushitic substratum. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%CA%8A%CC%80j%C3%B2j%C3%B2 https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%C3%A0j%C3%ADj%C9%AA%CC%80 Wojak6 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This thread is misplaced and should have been started on the Bantu languages page as it mainly talks about Bantu languages on a wrong article. This article is about the Kisii people and not the Bantu languages or Gusii language. The author seems to be more concerned about Bantu languages and should be discussing such on the relevant Bantu languages page and not the Kisii people article. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on Misconceptions by Wojak6

This ethnic group clearly speaks a bantu language yet its written here that they're likely not bantu but rather cushitic? The sources seem bad. Wojak6 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC) the user claims ekegusii isnt a bantu language yet glottlog puts it as one with 60 cited peer reviewed sources. the sources even say elegusii is a very conservative bantu language that held alot of features from proto-Eastern Bantu Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC) https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gusi1247 Wojak6 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC) https://books.google.com/books?id=xaNyAAAAMAAJ&q=ekegusii+proto+bantu&dq=ekegusii+proto+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLH87ZDzAhVYDzQIHa2vDysQ6AF6BAgHEAM Wojak6 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) many gusii words trace back to proto bantu. No Cushitic substratum. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%CA%8A%CC%80j%C3%B2j%C3%B2 https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%C3%A0j%C3%ADj%C9%AA%CC%80 Wojak6 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)"

The quoted thread is misplaced since the editor mostly talking about the Ekegusii language being a Bantu language on wrong article. The article is about the Kisii people and not the Ekegusii language. The article only slightly touches on the Ekegusii language and does mention that it is classified as a great lakes Bantu language. There is nowhere in the article does it state that Ekegusii is not a Bantu language and even in the Gusii language article it is identified as a Bantu language. Bantu is a language family without a genetic or race/ethnic connection. The editor's claims that "Abagusii are Bantu" is wrong as Bantu is a language family and so the Abagusii are Bantu speakers which is clearly stated in the article. There is no where in this article or in the Gusii language article it is stated that Ekegusii is a Cushitic or Nilotic language. So the editor is very wrong and possibly editing a wrong article. The article does acknowledge professional references based on recent research of East African languages that found Ekegusii language and some few other languages mentioned in the article as being structurally different from typical Bantu languages and also have a different tense aspect from typical Bantu languages which makes sense. The Ekegusii and other languages mentioned in the article only have some lexical similarity with some other Bantu languages, but its structure and tense aspect is distinct from that of typical Bantu languages and similar to the Nilotic and Cushitic languages all which makes sense as they are based on a professional research with a lot of evidence. The article is well referenced with professional references based on research than the links that wojak is providing which are unreliable and unprofessional given they are not based on a research. I simply don't find anything wrong on the article. All references in the article are professional and based on research yet Wojak6 since thinks they are wrong and he is unable to provide any reliable references rather than links to websites which are not even research. Wikipedia is about information with reliable professional references which can be verified and not whether the information is correct or wrong. Primary research is also not allowed on Wikipedia articles and all information entered on the article must have reliable resources for verification. The claims and comments made by Wojak6 on the article are primary research as there are no references to verify such claims and comments. The claims by Wojak indicate that he either does not understand the article or did not read through it.

From my understanding, Wojak6 seems to equate Bantu languages to a genetic ethnic group or race which is rather inaccurate. Bantu is a linguistic classification of several thousands of unrelated African tribes which speak unrelated languages that share some lexicon by interaction and borrowing of words. The speakers of this languages don't real understand each other and were loosely grouped together in 1950s for purposes of linguistics. Prior to colonization of Africa, Bantu/niger-congo and other language families of Africa did not exist. What is proto-Bantu, a concept that did not exist in pre-colonial Africa. Claims that many Gusii words trace back to proto-Bantu are rather baseless and the references provided by Wojak6 are not reliable resources. The Ekegusii is classified as Bantu particularly great lakes bantu as shown in the wikipedia article, but does Bantu equate to an ethnicity? No Bantu is just a linguistic classification without genetic attachment.

Are the Bantu speakers genetically homogenous? The correct and logical answer is no. The Bantu speaking tribes are genetically diverse and don't share a common origin other than being classified together as Bantu in the 1950s by Joseph Greenberg and other scholars. Some Bantu speakers, share genetic origins with the nilotes, khoisan, cushites, pgymies or west Africans. It is logical to say that the East African Bantus especially Kenya are genetically related to the Nilotes and Cushites taking into consideration the history of Kenya and east africa. The Bantu in southern Africa are related to Khoisan and those in central Africa are related to the pgymies and west africans considering histories of such regions. Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found. Does speaking a Bantu language mean, one cannot be related to nilotes, cushites etc? the answer is no.

The Abagusii do speak a Bantu language. Does that mean they can't be genetically related to the cushites or nilotes? I don't see where the wikipedia article is wrong. The Abagusii despite speaking a Bantu language, they are also genetically related to the Nilotes and Cushites which have been part of their history and considering the history of Kenya. The Abagusii are diverse with most sharing origins with Nilote and cushites and some with Bantu speakers that is if Bantu even exists which makes sense. The article is very accurate about the Kisii and well referenced. The article is written comprehensively taking into account the history of Kenya which include the ( Nilotes, Cushites and Khoisan) which account for the pre-Bantu history of Kenya and includes all aspects necessary to understanding the origin of Abagusii. I don't understand why the Cushites, Nilotes, Khoisan and Omotics which are the pre-Bantu inhabitants of Kenya should not be mentioned in the article since they have heavily influenced the history of the Kisii people and contributed heavily onto their ethnogenesis. The history of the Kisii people is very much connected to the pre-Bantu inhabitants of Kenya hence I don't understand why the editor thinks it is wrong for such populations should not be mentioned in the article. I don't see why Wojak6 thinks there are errors in the article and keeps deleting content without providing solutions. There are simply no errors on the article and it is well referenced with reliable and professional resources than the links provided by Wojak6. If the editor thinks the article is wrong, he should provide alternative information with reliable references and not just links to unreliable websites. If the editor cannot do that, then he should leave the article alone and should not delete anything from the article if he can't provide alternative information. Deletion or blanking of articles is simply vandalism of the article and is not allowed.

Wojak6 seems to equate Bantu to an ethnicity with a common origin which is inaccurate. He needs to correct some misconceptions and preconceived beliefs. The article provides more reliable resources than the links he is posting here. He should read and understand staff before deleting content from the articles and other articles he has edited.

Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"These six tribes should indeed be treated as independent/isolate or even assigned a separate language family rather than being lumped into the Bantu language group where they clearly don't belong." this is clearly a biased personal opinion Wojak6 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I know Bantus are not a single ethnic group. im not claiming that. It is proven by science that those speaking bantu languages are genetically related to certain degrees and the migration has been proven by scholars. https://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13296#:~:text=Bantu%20migrations%20swept%20out%20of,tip%20of%20the%20African%20continent.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-genetic-analysis-reveals-patterns-migration.html

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/697474v1.full

Wojak6 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

"I know Bantus are not a single ethnic group. im not claiming that. It is proven by science that those speaking bantu languages are genetically related to certain degrees and the migration has been proven by scholars." Your assertions are completely misplaced and your references are mainly centered on the Niger-Congo hypothesis which postulates of expansion of Bantu expansion from west central Africa. The references you provide here are very irrelevant and they don't state that Bantu languages are genetically related. Your references are not based an an actual research to determine that the Bantu speaking tribes are actually genetically homogeneous. The sources you have here are based on the assumption of the niger-congo hypothesis of Bantu expansion and not an actual research. It is unrealistic of you to think that the 1000s of unrelated and diverse African tribes grouped together in 1950s are genetically homogenous. The so called tribes don't even understand each other than sharing some lexical items in their languages. If there is no single Bantu ethnic group, then why do you think Bantu languages which are hundreds of thousands of languages with some minor similarities in lexicon are genetically related? if there is no single bantu ethnic group, then there is no such a thing as Bantu languages. Bantu is an hypothetical language family with the larger hypothetical niger-congo language family. If it is a hypothetical language family why do you even think there is a genetic connection between the 1000s of distinct African languages which were primarily grouped together on the basis structure? it is very absurd of you to think that. Your references don't state that the Bantu languages are genetically related. Your references are very irrelevant on this page as they are talking on the Bantu languages and this article is specifically about the Kisii people. You should open this discussion on the Bantu languages page. Your assertions are based on your personal assumptions and ignorance. You should not be discussing Bantu languages here or the 1000s of tribes that speak such languages on this page because it is irrelevant. This article is about the Kisii people. So talk about the Kisii not bantu languages or Bantu speakers or Ekegusii language. Ekegusii language and the Kisii people and two separate entities hence why there are two wikipedia articles on Kisii people and Gusii language. You have mostly talked about the Ekegusii language being a Bantu language which is clearly stated on the article, but that is irrelevant to the Kisii people article which mainly talks about the Kisii people and only touches slightly on the language. ""These six tribes should indeed be treated as independent/isolate or even assigned a separate language family rather than being lumped into the Bantu language group where they clearly don't belong." "this is clearly a biased personal opinion""...why is this a clearly biased opinion? it is based on a research on the East African Bantu languages which found the Ekegusii and the other mentioned five languages to be distinct from typical Bantu languages in terms of structure and tense aspect which is fact and the six languages only have some lexical similarities with other Bantu languages. The six languages have a structure and tense that is similar to the Nilotic and cushitic languages. If the six languages only share some lexicon with Bantu languages and are similar to the nilotic and cushitic languages in terms of tense and structure? shouldn't they be assigned a independent/isolate classification? If the six languages don't share structure and tense with Bantu languages, why should they be called Bantu languages? Tense and structure are the core parts of any language. Why should they be classified as Bantu just based on some lexicon shared with some Bantu languages? I don't see any bias in that statement as it is a discussion of the recent findings of the six languages. If you understand English then there is no bias on that statement. Again the article is about the Kisii people and not Ekegusii language. You are probably commenting on a wrong article. You should be commenting on the Gusii language article as your thread is about Ekegusii being a Bantu language by family. There is a difference between Ekegusii as a Bantu language and the Kisii people as Bantu speakers. The language does not equate to the genetics/origins/history of the Kisii people because Bantu is not an ethnicity but rather an hypothetical language family created in 1950s. Your thread is very unnecessary or misplaced and should have been discussed on the Bantu languages page since you are discussing about Bantu languages and speakers. Each of the 1000s of the tribes labelled Bantu have their own distinct history that have nothing to do with the so called hypothetical Bantu language family that has been there since 1950s. There is no connection between the individual histories of the thousands of the very diverse Bantu speaking tribes with diverse origins, histories and genetics. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Source from UNESCO on the Gusii https://books.google.com/books?id=YeKwW3vzQMUC&pg=PA300&dq=unesco+history+of+africa+gusii+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjttbHHmJbzAhVQqZ4KHfgoB0EQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=unesco%20history%20of%20africa%20gusii%20bantu&f=false Wojak6 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Gusii absorbed and assimilated nilotics and couthern cushitics and they adopted a gusii identity UNESCO source https://books.google.com/books?id=HwV2a-lPB70C&pg=PA193&dq=unesco+history+of+africa+gusii+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjttbHHmJbzAhVQqZ4KHfgoB0EQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=unesco%20history%20of%20africa%20gusii%20bantu&f=false Wojak6 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

how is glottlog not a reliable source? Every language in wikipedia has a link to glottlog??? All their cites sources are peer reviewed Wojak6 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

gusii being different from "typical bantu languages" is a rather vague term. there are over 500 bantu languages. which ones are typical and which are atypical?? the grammar of gusii and nilotic and cushitic languages are vastly different and but its much the same as most other bantu languages (nasal prefixes, SVO word order etc). Wojak6 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Haplogroup common among bantu speakers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Sub-Saharan_Africa

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M2

Dna test on Kenyan peoples https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497321000739?dgcid=rss_sd_all Wojak6 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found." doesnt make much sense. Are you saying the pygmies, cushitics khoisans etc somehow out of the blue created these groups who not only look physically different to them but also speak completely unrelated languages and have different culture(farmers rather than hunter gatherers for example) and genetics etc to them? Wojak6 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There are certain genes that are common among nilotoc speakers (haplogrou A for example) and cushitic speakers (haplogroup E1b1b) same with Bantu speakers. its not that hard to grasp. u talk about cushitics and nilotics like they're valid groups but not bantus despite the overwhelming valid evidence. Wojak6 (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All these stuff you are writing here is kind of unnecessary and irrelevant to this page. You are clearly talking about Bantu languages and Bantu tribes in an article about "Kisii people" Since you seem to be concerned about Ekegusii language being a Bantu language, you should have posted this thread on the Gusii language page. The links you consider reference are also unreliable and irrelevant and not based on an actual research. Since when are google books and wikipedia articles reliable references? Since some of the links you provided touch on the general history of Africa and general information of the people of Kenya, why did you post them here since they are irrelevant here. All this Wikipedia links you are providing here with Sub-saharan African DNA haplogroups were all based on a general study based on various Sub-saharan African populations. Even if you check on those links you provided, Bantu, Nilote, Cushite, etc have been identified as language families and not races or ethnic groups. According to those Wikipedia articles that you posted, non of the people within those language families are genetically homogenous. So why do you even think the 1000s of African tribes labelled Bantu by language share a common origin. All your comments here are based on your personal opinions and preconceived beliefs. Since when did glottlog which is a language family online database of languages across the world become a reliable resource? All languages families of Africa created in the 1950s by Greenberg and other scholars have been assigned glottlog codes within that database. But how is that even relevant on this page that is clearly not about languages? "gusii being different from "typical bantu languages" is a rather vague term. there are over 500 bantu languages. which ones are typical and which are atypical?? the grammar of gusii and nilotic and cushitic languages are vastly different and but its much the same as most other bantu languages (nasal prefixes, SVO word order etc)."...how does this even fit in here? The recent research on East African Bantu languages indicate that Ekegusii and the other six languages are distinct from typical Bantu languages in terms of Structure and tense which is very similar to Nilotic and Cushitic languages. The Ekegusii only share some lexicon with the typical Bantu languages which is a fact and I concur with the research findings. Your assertions are just your opinions and how you think things should be. You are directing your questions to a wrong person Wojak6. Why do you address me as though as the one who wrote the article or did the research on East African Bantu languages? You are relying on old knowledge, but recent research indicate that Ekegusii is different from typical Bantu languages which I find to make sense. Again this article is not about Ekegusii language but about the Kisii people and so your comments on Bantu languages are misplaced. There is no need to post the rather irrelevant and unreliable links here and I don't want to get too much into such links which are very unhelpful. Interestingly in most of the sources you have provided, Bantu is a language family, so why do you think they are genetically related? ""Is there such a thing as Bantu ethnicity? the answer is no and the bantu most likely originated from the pgymies, nilotes, cushite, khoisan depending on regions where they are found." doesnt make much sense. Are you saying the pygmies, cushitics khoisans etc somehow out of the blue created these groups who not only look physically different to them but also speak completely unrelated languages and have different culture(farmers rather than hunter gatherers for example) and genetics etc to them?"... why doesn't this make sense? The pgymies, Khoisan, Nilotes and Cushites are the most ancient people in Africa compared to the Bantu speakers and Niger-Congo speakers who are not even ancient. The southern African Bantu languages have clicks just like Khoisan languages, so why doesn't it make sense to you that the southern Bantu are related to Khoisan which is a fact. Your assertions indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd. Why do you think the nilotes, pgymies, khoisan and cushites came out of the blues to create Bantu? Eastern African and Northern Africa were originally inhabited by the Cushites, Khoisan and nilotes, Southern Africa and south-central Africa were originally inhabited by the Khoisan, Congo basin and lower western Africa was originally inhabited by the pgymies, while the nile valley, central sahara, Northern central Africa and upper western africa was originally inhabited by the nilotes. Which area of Africa was originally inhabited by the Bantu and Niger-Congo? None. So where did the Bantu and Niger-Congo come from they were not first anywhere in Africa? did they come from Heaven? The only logical answer is that the Bantu and niger-congo speakers originated from the pgymies for the central and west African Niger-congo speakers which are only slightly taller than the pgymies. So why do you think they look different from the pgymies? The Bantu speakers in southern Africa most likely originated from the Khoisan which makes sense since their languages have clicks just like khoisan and they also look more like khoisan. The Eastern African Bantu speakers most likely originated from the Nilotes, Cushites, and khoisan which were also found in east Africa. Most of the Bantu speakers in East Africa especially Kenya look more like Nilotes and cushites. So why do you think the Bantu speakers look different? The Bantu speakers have diverse looks depending on geographical region where found. So how come you seem to imply that there is one specific look for Bantu speakers which are very diverse in looks? "There are certain genes that are common among nilotoc speakers (haplogrou A for example) and cushitic speakers (haplogroup E1b1b) same with Bantu speakers. its not that hard to grasp. u talk about cushitics and nilotics like they're valid groups but not bantus despite the overwhelming valid evidence."... how did you decide this? this are your own opinions based on preconceived beliefs. You really have some serious issues that you need to address.

To summarize you comments and thread that you started, I think you are commenting on a wrong article. According to most of your comments including the thread you started, you have mostly talked about Bantu languages and Bantu speakers as well the general African history which is very irrelevant and unnecessary on a page talking specifically about the Kisii people. You should have opened you thread on the Bantu languages or Bantu peoples page, or Gusii language page as you seem to been concerned about Bantu languages and Ekegusii being a Bantu language. Your comments and assertions are very unnecessary on this page. Just discuss about the Bantu languages elsewhere where that is relevant. This article is about the Kisii people and that is what should be discussed here and not bantu languages, Bantu peoples or Ekegusii. If your plan is to discuss Bantu languages, then you should not be doing such discussions on this page as they are unnecessary. Why do you even edit articles since you clearly lack knowledge of many things? Your lack of knowledge is what contributes to your vandalization and destructive editing of Wikipedia articles. It is time you paid attention to the feedback from other editors on your talk page because your destructive editing habits are unacceptable. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion of edits by Wojak6

I recently reversed the edits by Wojak6 to earlier version before his edits because he edits had issues.

• Vandalism of the article-the editor deleted and blanked entire sections of the article without providing sufficient explanations for doing so and most of his edits on the article lack edit summaries and if he provides any summaries they are not detailed enough and don't justify deletion of entire sections. Rationales provided such as, "alot of strange and wrong info. plus its justan introsuction no need for it to write a book. leave it in the history section of the group", "Doesn't even post any genetic tests. just pure conjecture", "ekegusii does belong to the bantu group. it has been proven by linguists. your claims are baseless conjecture.", "more conjecture. the Abagusii found themselves surrounded by invading luo, nandi maasai etc that and where surrounded by them on most sides. the proto Gussi did have contact with other bantus but simply branched off and migrated to their location.", and "no genetic tests were provided. pseudoscience. just personal opinions" comments on the edit summary are not good and/or logical rationales for deletion of entire sections and almost blanking entire article of content. To add onto that, the editor largely leaves no edit summaries for most of his editors all which constitute vandalism of the article. The editor's claims are simply wrong and misplaced and indicates that he does not understand the article or did not read through before deleting content. His rationales for deletion of content are merely based on preconceived beliefs and not on research. Claims such as "more conjecture. the Abagusii found themselves surrounded by invading luo, nandi maasai etc that and where surrounded by them on most sides. the proto Gussi did have contact with other bantus but simply branched off and migrated to their location.", and "no genetic tests were provided. pseudoscience. just personal opinions" are just preconceived beliefs and ignorant assumptions not based on research and not good reasons for deletion and blanking of article. Claims that "ekegusii does belong to the bantu group. it has been proven by linguists. your claims are baseless conjecture." is also misplaced as the article is not about the Ekegusii language, but about the Abagusii people which are distinct entities. The article only gives a brief overview of the language since there is already a Gusii language page. The article clears states that the Abagusii speak Ekegusii which is classified with great lakes Bantu languages hence the editor's comment on the language is misplaced. The article also incorporates various research findings on the Ekegusii language which is necessary to understanding the origins of the Kisii people. The editor's claim that the article has "alot of strange and wrong info. plus its justan introsuction no need for it to write a book. leave it in the history section of the group", "Doesn't even post any genetic tests. just pure conjecture." is simply incorrect as there is nothing that is incorrect in the Article. The article is well referenced and with reliable and professional references compared to the links such as: https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/gusi1247 https://books.google.com/books?id=xaNyAAAAMAAJ&q=ekegusii+proto+bantu&dq=ekegusii+proto+bantu&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLH87ZDzAhVYDzQIHa2vDysQ6AF6BAgHEAM https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%CA%8A%CC%80j%C3%B2j%C3%B2 and https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Bantu/m%C3%A0j%C3%ADj%C9%AA%CC%80 provided by the editor on the article talk page on his thread that Abagusii are Bantu. His thread is also misplaced as the article is about the Abagusii people and not the Ekegusii language which is only slightly touched in the article. The editor did not make any attempts to provide constructive edits rather than deleting content from the article based on his opinions and what he thinks should be right and is not able to provide reliable resources other than irrelevant links to websites. Blanking of articles is not good practise and is vandalism.

• Editor criticizes article but does not provide solutions. For instance, states that certain information is wrong and does not explain why it is wrong or provide alternative information. Deletion is not a solution. Editors claims that sources are bad, but does not provide the alternative sources. Only provides links to websites which are less reliable than article in the article.

• Editor attempted to destruct an article by deleting content from article without proper explanations.

Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

About the "Kisii People" Article

Hello Wikipedians,

I just want to bring to everyone's attention that this article is strictly about the Kisii people and not about Bantu languages or Bantu speakers or any other topic. If you wish to discuss about Bantu languages, or Bantu speakers or any other topic, please discuss at the relevant pages. It will be irrelevant and unnecessary to discuss about another topic such as Bantu languages, Bantu speakers etc., on an article that is specifically about the Kisii people. The Kisii people being linguistically Bantu speakers does not necessarily mean that the Bantu languages and Bantu speakers should be discussed here. Anyone that wishes to open threads on this article should only talk about the Kisii people and nothing else because this article is about the Kisii people. The Kisii like the other tribes grouped as Bantu speakers is a distinct entity within that group with their own distinct history, origins, cultures and genetics that is not necessary the same as another tribe within that group. Therefore, this article should only discuss the Kisii people and not the entire Bantu language family, or the thousands of unrelated African tribes linguistically grouped as Bantu. Some editors never pay attention to what different articles are about and as a result end up posting wrong/irrelevant information on wrong articles. Please pay attention to the article titles before opening discussions.

Secondly, the Kisii people article has undergone a lot of transformations to reach where it is now. This article started with only four unreliable and unprofessional references with largely plagiarized content and the article was really in very bad shape with a lot of issues. The article now has 39 mostly reliable and professional references from originally having just four simple links. The article now has sufficient intext citations from professional references which were originally absent. The article has really been transformed in many aspects ranging from references, grammar, intext citations, and many other aspects. All those Wikipedians that have contributed to the current situation of the article are very much appreciated. Those editors that are trying to return the article where it started through destructive editing should please stop. We need Wikipedians with good intentions that work towards constructive editing of articles and not destructive editing and vandalizing of articles. Destructive editing or vandalism include, blanking entire or sections of articles without good reasons, editing without leaving clear edit summaries for making any changes as well as interfering with content of articles with negative motives. Constructive editing include adding onto the articles and not deleting/blanking content from sections or entire articles, providing edit summaries so that others can understand the rationales behind making changes and changes made to articles and avoiding any acts of vandalism as much as possible.

However, there are a few hit and run editors who normally have destructive editing habits and vandalize articles when they have an opportunity to do so until their vandalism actions are detected by the system and reversed back to original state. For instance, the Kisii people article has been a victim of such hit and run editors more than once which have either been reversed by other editors or automatically by the system. For example, what happened to the Kisii people article recently was very disgusting and disturbing. The article was simply being blanked of content. I'm sure such destructive editing has also happened to many other Wikipedia articles. Please let us stop such vandalism habits and work towards building an encyclopedia and not damaging articles. Rather than deleting content from articles, let us add onto the articles. Deletion is simply wrong and not a solution. All editors with such destructive editing habits should please address that. Edit articles only if you have something to add onto them, otherwise it is a good idea to just leave the articles alone if your aim is to delete content all blanking articles. Sorry for the long message, but please promote constructive editing of articles and discourage vandalism of articles.

Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting

This page suffers from huge blocks of texts and redundant sentences that do nothing but stress a point already made. It would be great if someone could chop off a lot of the fat here, though given the beef happening between editors here, it may be some ways away. Also, is there really a need for Kisii in Precolonial Era and Kisii in Postcolonial era? I would suggest merging these sections into the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdonghan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wdonghan, thank you for the very constructive formatting on the etymology section. That is the kind of formatting that is needed for some sections of the article.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. lots of spelling and grammar mistakes too. Wojak6 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 your claims of a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes are false and baseless. The article only has some mistakes some of which have been corrected thus far and only in some sections. Your criticism of this article is rather destructive and not adding anything. Since you think there are grammar errors, what have you done to fix that rather vandalizing the article several times? You are only making false claims to invalidate the article. As you usual you only criticize articles and vandalize them without providing solutions. Your claims are simply false. Reformatting does not mean there are several spelling or grammatical errors. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

In the genetics section there isnt a single source on the genetic of the gusii posted. just conjecture and personal opinion.

here is a link to gusii people who took genetic tests such as ancestrydna, 2eandme etc. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7619-My-fellow-Africans-share-your-ancestral-results-from-different-DNA-companies/page26 Wojak6 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 Why is this thread even here? It is very unnecessary. It provides DNA results of not only Gusii but also other ethnic groups and it is only very few individuals that took the tests from various companies back in 2018 with updates of up to 2019 and a lot have changed since then. To add onto that there were issues of the Bantu label where DNAs collected from non-Bantu speaking tribes were labelled Bantu. For instance, the South-Eastern Bantu/Eastern Bantu are basically Nilotic genes, Southern Bantu are Khoisan genes. The only genes collected from Bantu speaking tribes are those labelled Cameroon-Congo. The Bantus speaking have simply been given a false positive and/or favored in labelling of DNA. To add onto that, those results only represent those very few individuals and not the entire millions of Gusii people. It is also not clear that the individuals that took those results real belonged to the tribes or countries that they claim to belong to. That is a very unreliable reference and is not even a reference. Also the results from the various DNA companies change on a yearly basis hence unreliable and does not equate to genetic studies. This does not equate to genetic studies and does not invalidate the fact the it is the Gusii people have very diverse origins. It does not change the fact that not all Gusii are related to the Bantu genetically. It does not change the fact that most Gusii are descendants of the pre-existing populations which were southern Cushites, Khoisan/Ogiek, Omotics and Nilotes. "In the genetics section there isnt a single source on the genetic of the gusii posted. just conjecture and personal opinion."... this is really baseless. I don't know if you do really understand English. But the genetics sections is just an overview of the expected genetic composition of the Abagusii population on the basis of the history of Kenya and their own history. It is already clearly stated on the article that there has not been any extensive genetic studies carried on the Gusii to determine their ethnogenesis. So why do you still think there should be a source on genetics since it is already stated that no extensive genetic studies have been carried out on the Gusii population? you are simply wrong. There is no conjecture/personal opinion as you put it. Whose personal opinions? The link you provided up there is not even a reference and does not equate to genetic studies. So you have not provided any sources either. All you have done is criticize this article and several other articles based on your edits on several articles, but have not provided any solutions. You don't have to keep posting all this unnecessary staff on this page if you are not providing any constructive solutions. All you have done here is to criticize the article dishonestly.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Omotics?

omotics reside in southwest ethiopia. the Cushite claims kisii people are somehow related to them yet no source can be found for this? Have omotics ever lived anywhere near where kisii are in nyanza? Wojak6 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 I understand where you come from, but this is very unnecessary. It is a very known fact that the Bantu speakers were not the first inhabitants of Kenya. Most linguistic and archeological studies on the history of Kenya and Eastern Africa indicate that, Kenya was originally inhabited by Khoisan/Ogiek and other hunters like hadza, sandawe, Southern Cushites, Eastern Cushites, Omotics, and Nilotes and the Bantu speakers are the most recent people in the entire region of Eastern Africa. " Have omotics ever lived anywhere near where kisii are in nyanza?".... why do you even ask such a question? Nyanza is part of Kenya and so originally inhabited by khoisan/hunters, southern cushites, nilotes and omotics which is a fact. Just because omotics are currently found in southwest Ethiopia, khoisan in southern Africa, sandawe/hadza in Tanzania, it does not mean they were not found in other regions of Eastern Africa. Most of them were Bantunized and/or evolved into the current Bantu speakers hence why they are only found southwest Ethiopia for Omotics as you claim. The article states that the heritage of Gusii is derived from the pre-existing populations which were the southern cushites, khoisan/hunters, omotics and nilotes and there are sources provided on those pre-existing populations. It is also state that the heritage of some of the Gusii is derived from Bantu speakers. All these I find to be facts. You are trying to say the all Gusii are related to the Bantu speakers which is a lie given that they are a fusion between Bantu speakers and the pre-existing populations. you are trying to say that the Gusii are homogeneous which is a plain lie. It clearly shows that you don't really understand the history of Kenya. The fact is that the first inhabitants of Kenya and Eastern Africa were the khoisan/hunters, followed by the southern cushites and omotics, followed by the Nilotes and lastly Bantu. Most of those people living in Kenya were Bantunized and/or evolved into various Kenyan Bantu tribes which include the Gusii. So it is a fact that most of the Gusii are descendants of the pre-existing populations which means they are related to those populations namely cushites,nilotes, khoisan/hunters, and omotics. it is only some Kisii who are related to the Bantu speakers. Those pre-existing population contributed the most to the heritage and history of the Gusii and the Bantu only made some very minor contributions since it is only a minority of the Gusii that were part of the Bantu expansion. You have only criticized the article and not provided any solutions and your claims are very wrong. the reference you provided to invalidate the genetics section was not even a reference, but a link to handful of individuals that took DNA tests and it is not even clear that they belong to the tribes or countries they claim. To add onto that Eastern Africa, southeastern bantu are nilote genes which is why most nilotes like luo, kalenjin have a huge amount of that. The Cameroon-congo is the only label that is legitimately Bantu. So then, those tribes on the list have a huge amount of Nilotic genes and some Bantu genes. So why do you still think they are bantu despite having a huge amount of Nilote genes compared to Bantu? You are very wrong and your arguments are very unnecessary. you don't need to keep posting this kind of unnecessary threads here. Your criticism is destructive and not needed here. So far you have not added anything to the discussion rather than dishonestly criticising it. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Omotics are not closely genetically related to cushitics https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863221/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5863221/ Wojak6 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 Do you understand English? This is very irrelevant and does not fit in the discussion. The discussion is about the earlier inhabitants of Kenya and not whether or not Omotics are related to the Cushites. The fact is that the entire Kenya was originally inhabited by Khoisan/Ogiek and other hunters like hadza, sandawe, Southern Cushites, Eastern Cushites, Omotics, and Nilotes and the Bantu speakers are the most recent people in the entire region of Eastern Africa. Most of them merged with the incoming Bantu immigrants forming the various present-day so-called Bantu tribes in Eastern Africa especially Kenya. Since this article is about the Gusii, they are a fusion between the pre-existing populations already mentioned and Bantu immigrants from central Africa. This means that it is only some Gusii who are related to the Bantu speakers, the rest are descended from the pre-existing populations. You don't need to post all these irrelevant staff here.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

i can understand them having some genetics from cushitics, nilotic speakers but omotic seems like a reach. Wojak6 (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 you real have very serious issues. Do you ever even pay attention to feedback from other editors on your talk page? you probably should start paying attention. This is all very irrelevant. How do you know? and why do you think Omotics seem like a reach? That is very condescending,but does not change the fact that Omotics, cushites, nilotes, khoisan/ogiek, sandawe, hadzabe are the original inhabitants of Kenya and Eastern Africa.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

i never said bantu people are homogenuos dont put words into my mouth. u said likely didnt exist and just invented by ignorant europeans but u quickly changed after i posted genetic sources ( ur edit of "some kisi hertiage is derived from bantu like suba" for example) Wojak6 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 your assertions imply they are homogenous. ...."u said likely didnt exist and just invented by ignorant europeans but u quickly changed after i posted genetic sources ( ur edit of "some kisi hertiage is derived from bantu like suba" for example)".... why do you seem to assume that I am the one who do this and that? why is this even here. The Kisii article has been edited by several people so it does not make sense for you to keep pointing fingers towards me. The article is normally improved time to time and not because a specific editor says this. what you are saying here does not make sense. Nobody quickly changed anything in the genetic sections as you put it here and you never posted any genetic sources, but a link of individuals that took DNA testing in 2018 which claimed to be Kisii, Luo and other tribes and countries on the list and it is not clear whether the individuals came from the countries or tribes they claim. The link you provided there is not a genetic source and does not equate to genetic studies. The fact is that there are no genetic studies carried on the Gusii which is clearly stated in the article. A handful of individuals taking DNA tests with some DNA companies back in 2018 does not equate to genetic studies. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your post is unnecessary.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

khoisan in kenya? no proof of that by any anthropologist or archeologist. sounds like your source is outdated from the 1950s or something Wojak6 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 The truth can hurt and is very hard to accept. The fact is that the Khoisan are the original inhabitants of Kenya and Eastern Africa, Southern Africa and South Central Africa. There is overwhelming archeological evidence. The Ogiek, Hadza, and Sandawe among others are also the original inhabitants of Eastern Africa. I am really sorry, but the fact remains that the Bantu were the last people to settle in Eastern and southern Africa. You can say what you want but those facts remain and can't be changed.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Bantu speakers are the most recent people in the entire region of Eastern Africa" not quit as the Luo (western nilotes) came and found the kisii and invaded/conquered their land and drove them away from the lakseshore. https://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htm the Maasai also came down and found Bantu speakers in tanzania that were there long before them Wojak6 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 I Know you want the article to say that the Bantu were first, but it will be a lie to say so. They were the last ones which is a fact. The source you provided is just a link to website and is not based on a research and is really adopted from a book by Ochieng. The archeology research indicate the Bantu were the last people in eastern Africa which is fact. Your claims that the Luo invaded the Kisii are rather misplaced. According to Ochieng the Bantu were first, but research indicates they were the last ones. You don't need to keep posting this stuff here as it does not change some facts. I am very sorry, but facts can be hard to accept.Nyanza Cushitic (talk)

a minority assimilating the majority is rare. the Bantus toook over much land in east africa because they were farmers and could produce more food so had a larger population than the smaller hunter gatherers and herders. There were more bantus so they overwhelmed those before them due to sheer force of numbers. since there were more bantus their genes passed on more and the genes they got from assimilating the hunter gatherers is not as large on average as their bantu genes. Wojak6 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6Is this even necessary here? To be honest I think you are wasting time writing all these irrelevant stuff here. It is really based on your preconceived beliefs derived from the Niger-Congo hypothesis and Bantu expansion. This article is specifically about the Kisii people and not Bantu so you are misplaced.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

another source showing omotics are not closely related to cushitics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01837-7 Wojak6 (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 why did you provide this source on relationship between Omotics and Cushites? how does this fit here? you don't need to provide such sources as the discussion is not about such a relationship. Maybe you should post that to the Omotics article because it fits there. I am really sorry, but you can't change some facts.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

u said kisii are mistaken facially with cushitics? wow. kisii look nothing like somalis. seems like some strange complex u have with cushitics. Wojak6 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 Stop putting words in my mouth that I said this and that. You should say that the article states that...... because the article has been edited by many people. I don't know why that is wrong. The fact is that the Kisii are very diverse in appearance with a majority sharing physique with some cushites, Nilotes, East African hunter tribes, and some sharing appearance with some Bantu speakers. The fact is that the Kisii are a fusion between pre-existing populations and Bantu immigrants from central Africa. So why is it strange that some of them can be mistaken for cushites? you really have issues with cushites. Are somalis the only cushites? I am really sorry, but I think this is uncessary here. It does not change some facts sorry. It is only some of the Kisii who are from central/west Africa hence part of the Bantu expansion. The rest were not part of the so called expansion. In short, it is only some Kisii who are related to the Bantu speakers, the rest are not and originate from the pre-existing populations. I am sorry but the truth can be hurting sometimes and cannot be changed.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 Your posts on this talk page are not adding anything to the discussion. Most of your posts are very irrelevant and unnecessary. You should stop blindly pointing fingers on other editors that they did this and that. All Wikipedia articles are editors by several editors and it is not good practice to just assume that a particular editor did this and that. The articles are not edited to impress or annoy a particular editor. All Wikipedia articles undergo improvements and changes frequently and it is not done so because a particular editor said something or provided a link on a talk page. An editor does not need to look at a talk page to edit an article, so they probably never paid attention to the link you posted of a handful of individuals claiming to be Kisii took DNA tests in 2018. You never really provided a genetic source as the link you provided is not even a reference because the individuals can lie about their tribes and countries. That link could not even influence the editing on the genetic section. The link was most likely not even looked at. For example your claim that...."u said likely didnt exist and just invented by ignorant europeans but u quickly changed after i posted genetic sources.".... is wrong. Most editors really don't have the time to look at talk pages and most likely don't even pay attention that. The genetic section has only been reformatted and nothing has changed. Your claims are basically false and baseless. Stop pointing fingers at other editors because an article does not agree with your preconceived beliefs. The article has not be written to impress or annoy a particular editor/person. The article like other articles will have different effects on different people. Some people will be annoyed, some will be neutral and some will be happy. Should the article being changed to make you or some people happy? unfortunately, that is not how things work. Some You are very wrong and probably should accept that. Just stop making unnecessary posts on this talk page. It is just a waste of time as it will not change anything. You have already done enough deconstructive criticism of the article and has not added anything so far other than writing unnecessary stuff here. It will be respectful of you to stop posting unnecessary content on this talk page. Just because this talk page exists, it does not mean that you should be posting anything that you feel like. This is not a debate as you seem to make it look. This page is meant for discussions and not where you express your personal feelings about a group of people or an editor. This discussion is already unnecessary because the original thread was also unnecessary. You are not debating or fighting with a particular editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This article appears to contain a great deal of original research.

Even a cursory reading of this article leads me to suspect that much of the content is based on contributors opinions, rather than that of the sources cited. This is of course original research, and forbidden by Wikipedia policy. An an indication of the more obvious issues, notice the following phraseology:

From the 'Origins and the Nile Valley' section: "The general conclusion is that some of the so-called Bantu speakers originated..."

From the 'Settlement in Gusiiland' section: "The main conclusion that can be made here..."

From the 'Origins and the Niger-Congo Hypothesis...' section: "The general conclusion is that Bantu speaking peoples neither introduced the iron tools nor agriculture..."

From the 'Origins and Migrations According to Oral Literature' section "The general conclusion is that the Kuria and the mentioned related tribes of Northern Tanzania, were part of the Abagusii, but split..."

And further on in the same section: "The general conclusion is that the Abagusii are indigenous to and traditionally inhabit Kisii and Nyamira counties as well as sections of Kericho and Bomet counties. Therefore, the assumptions by some scholars that the Abagusii migrated from Kisumu County at the shores of Lake Victoria are too far fetched and absurd and are just mere opinions and guesswork."

...and so on. Search the article, and you will find a whole series of 'conclusions', cited to nobody. If they cannot be properly and directly cited to an appropriate source which states exactly those conclusions, they must, per policy, be deleted. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Thank you for you very constructive suggestions. I have implemented them in the mentioned sections as well as other sections where such original statements are made.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a start, but there is still far too much content in this article which lacks any clear sourcing, and appears to be synthesis. And even when sources are cited, it is evident even without looking at them that they sometimes cannot possibly support the claims being made. The section entitle 'Genetics' for example cites multiple sources, none of which appear to actually discuss the genetic makeup of the Abagusii. Instead, the section contains unsourced claims regarding 'physical appearance'. This is entirely inappropriate, and arguably downright offensive. Comments in the article about groups having a "false sense of superiority" certainly are.

As it is currently written, the entire structure of the article is far too essay-like. It appears to set out to prove specific hypotheses regarding the origins of the Abagusii, and of their relationships to other peoples. That is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Thank you for your input, the genetic section is an overview of the expected genetic composition of the Gusii population on the basis of the history of Kenya and the history of Abagusii. There has not been any extensive genetic studies carried out on the Gusii population which is stated in the article. I believe that opening statement covers the lack of sources specifically touching on the genetic make-up of the Abagusii population. The sources provided there touch on the History of Kenya based on linguistic and archeological based sources. The Abagusii population is a fusion of the pre-existing inhabitants of Kenya and Bantu speakers from central Africa thus the genetics discussion has been largely based on the history of Kenya and the Bantu expansion. I believe it is only the genetic sections that does not have genetic based sources and provides mostly non-genetic based sources, most of the other sections of the article are well sourced. What are your suggestions for the genetic section?

As for the entire structure of the article, most sections of the article have been reformatted and the article is still going through reformatting. There is so far a lot of improvement as far as the structure of the article is concerned.

I have also implemented some of your suggestions. Thank you for your input again.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Which source providing an 'overview of the expected genetic composition of the Gusii population' is the genetics section based on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Like I said there are not genetic based sources specifically on the genetic composition of the Gusii population. The opening of that section, states that there has not been extensive genetic studies done on the Gusii population which accounts for the lack of genetic based studies. As a result the genetics sections has been discussed on the basis of the linguistic sources and the history of Kenya. None of the sources specifically touch on the genetic composition as there are no such studies carried out thus far. The section hence provides a general overview of expected genetic composition of that population on the basis of linguistic sources and the history of Kenya.

To cut the story short, what are your suggestions on the genetics section? In the mean time, I have asked the editor that has been reformatting the article to take a look at that section as well as other parts of the article. Again thank you for your input and for you positive language.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion, in concurrence with Wikipedia policy, is that any 'overview' of a topic needs to be cited to one or more sources directly stating the specific conclusions that the overview provides. Since no such sources appear to exist, a genetics section doesn't belong in the article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Thank for your input. Will let the other editor reformatting the article to look at the section first. Thank you once again for your suggestions.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the 'Genetics' section entirely, as WP:OR. And given the obvious similar problems with much of the current content, I shall be doing the same thing with other unsourced content and conjecture, if it isn't remedied in the next few days. This article isn't going to be fixed by requesting other people to 'look at it'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed large portions of the Origins section and condensed the three (!!!) subsections due to original research and off-topic references, but haven't reorganized the content yet. Book references need to be verified before I can balance NPOV. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Correction: There were four Origins sections, the last of which I deleted wholesale for containing no new material that is relevant to the Kisii people. There is also a major problem with duplicate and ill-titled links for names of places ethnic groups. We should default to the names of the relevant article(s). The original text also had almost no commas. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) Thank you for you constructive edits. That is very much what the article needed. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Source Confirmation

Hello, I've been slowly working on reformatting and editing the Kisii people page, fixing grammar and typos, and cutting out redundant sentences and anything off-topic. I have yet to get to the "Etymology of Bantu and relevance to Abagusii" subsection. As you probably saw in my edit summaries, I do not have access to many of the sources cited, and would greatly appreciate if others could confirm them and their reliability. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdonghan (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wdonghan Thank you for your very constructive edits and reformatting of the article as well as addressing most of the issues highlighted in the maintenance tags. That is very much what the article needed. If you can also work on the "Etymology of Bantu and relevance to Abagusii" subsection at your soonest available time will be great. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nyanza Cushitic No problem, I've just taken a look and made the appropriate edits for the "Etymology of Bantu and relevance to Abagusii" subsection- glad to help! Wdonghan (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wdonghan Thank you! You have helped the article a lot. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable Resources with issues.

1.https://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htm

2.https://journals.openedition.org/eastafrica/473?lang=en

3.Ochieng, William (1986). People Of The South-Western Highlands: Gusii.

4.Niane, Djibril Tamsir; Joseph, Ki-Zerbo (1998). Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century. UNESCO General History of Africa. IV. Berkeley, United States: University of California Press. p. 193. ISBN 9780520066991.

While these references have been used in this article they are largely unreliable and have a lot of issues listed below:

• They are written on the basis of the opinions of their respective authors and their contents are not based on a specific research to support most of their claims and/or allegations.
• some of the sources like the second source have a lot of copyright issues. Most of the content on the article has been copied and pasted from several other sources mostly from books by Ochieng and Ogot among other several authors. The content on this resource is largely based on opinions of the authors of the sources plagiarized by the author of source number 2
• The first source is also largely adopted from a book by Ochieng that is source number 3 and the content is largely on the basis of his opinions rather than an actual research to back up the allegations made in the book.
• The third source is also a book by Ochieng which is largely based on his opinions with no research carried out to back up such claims. The book by Ochieng lacks neutral point of view and largely has very Bantucentric views and very stereotypical and negative views against the Nilotic speaking populations. The second source also has the same issues as most of its content is copied and pasted from Ochieng and other authors with similar views as Ochieng. These authors never conducted a research but wrote the books on the basis of their opinions. The allegations made on these sources can only be attributed to the authors and not to a research to back up their allegations.
• The fourth source does not seem to have as much issues as the first three, but seems to be a synthesis and interpretation of various hypotheses especially the Niger-Congo hypothesis and other hypotheses. The allegations made on this source are based on the interpretation of such hypothesis. The sources 1-3 also derive their views from such hypothesis.

NB: Source two https://journals.openedition.org/eastafrica/473?lang=en was removed in recent edit. There is a lot of copyright issues in the source. The source contains fragments of content plagiarized from several sources with Ochieng being the major source of the article.

The Book by Ochieng and the https://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/gusii/history.htm have been used in the article because they have a physical version of the Oral literature of the Kisii people. Other than that, most of their content is largely unreliable and guesswork based on opinions of Ochieng and not on research. Some of the allegations made in these books are unrealistic. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The references 1 to 3 listed above have been removed from article and substituted with more reliable and neutral resources. The fourth reference has been left for the time being because it does not have as much issues as the first three. The reference may also be removed later with more research.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

William Ochieng seems like an unreliabke source himself. He appears to be one of the fringe Afrocebtric scholars who desoerately try to connect every black african group to ancient egypt/Nile Valley and north africa. Wojak6 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 Please use a positive and neutral language. This page is for discussions only and not debate. The discussions should be limited to the Kisii people and there should be no out-of-topic discussions.

Wojak6 So far you have note paid attention to the concerns raised on the links to the websites and blogs above and have continued to use those resources on the article. Your attention to concerns raised about the sources will be much appreciated! Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

While I cannot attest to the reliability or veracity of other sources, the General History of Africa was launched by UNESCO in 1964 after newly African Member states expressed a desire to spread knowledge of their culture and write their history on their own terms. It's the result of countless efforts from scholars across the world over several decades. That's the reason for why it's more so meta-study and compilation of multiple hypotheses. It's considered a very important contribution to African historiography and meant to be written, led, and funded by primarily Africans, so I view it this as a trustworthy source. Wdonghan (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of content added by Wojak6

"During the century that the Gusii were living in the Kano Plains, the Luo invasion of the north-eastern shores of Lake Victoria began, culminating in the total expulsion of the Gusii from the lakeshore by the eighteenth century (the year 1755 is given in some versions, and 1770 in others. Being a cattle-herding people, the Luo were also more mobile than the predominantly agricultural Bantu living on the lakeshore. Many of the Bantu tribes were assimilated by the new-comers, but some chose to flee: some to the north and south, but mostly eastwards into the fertile hills flanking the lake."

The content above was added to settlement in Gusiiland by Wojak6 and has been removed for the reasons listed below:

• Copyright issues- the content was copied and pasted from and
• Out of topic- The content talks of settlement in Kano plains while the section it was added to talks of settlement in Gusiiland. The content also largely talks of Bantu with very minimal reference to the Kisii. The article is about the Kisii and not Bantu speakers.
• The content is largely unsourced. The allegations made in the content are largely opinions of Ochieng as the sources listed have copied and pasted contents from Ochieng's book

and several other books for the source. The allegations made on the sources are only attributed to Ochieng and other authors whose works have been used for the sources listed. The allegations are not based on research, but opinions of authors.

• There is lack of evidence to support the allegations made in the content which are largely unrealistic. The allegations made seem more of a fantasy and imaginations of the

authors and far from reality and facts.

• There is lack of evidence of the Kisii settling in Kano plains and that area is traditionally inhabited by the Luo people.
• There is lack of evidence of the Luo expelling the Kisii from the lake shore and the Kisii never lived at the lake shore.
• There is lack of evidence of the alleged migrations and the only migrations that occurred are those of some clans of the Olosuba speaking Suba from Buganda and Busoga in 1800s

and the Luo presided them in the lake shore. So they never displaced them as alleged. They have assimilated some of them recently through language shift.

• The Kisii have traditionally occupied in Kisii, Nyamira and sections of Kericho and Bomet counties hence never lived near the lake shore. They have recently expanded from their

traditional areas to major towns of Homa Bay, Siaya, Kisumu and migori counties which are the lakeshore counties traditionally inhabited by the Luo together with minority Kuria and Suba which are the late comers in the area.

• The resources added are largely unsourced and unreliable. The is a personal blog/website and more of the

content has largely be copied and pasted from "William R. Ochieng's "Kenya's People: People of the South-Western Highlands - Gusii" with very minimal modifications per the blog. The content in the book is based on opinions by Ochieng hence he is the source of the information.

• The is also unreliable resource and largely unsourced since most of its content has been copied and pasted from Ochieng's works among other authors with similar views. The source also has copyright issues. The author of the article has copied and pasted fragments of content from

several sources and claims the work as her own. The source has serious plagiarism issues hence unreliable.

• The content lack neutrality seems to be very stereotypical of the Nilotic speaking populations.

NB: Please pay attention to the issues raised about the content and the sources mentioned. Continuous addition of the content to the article is very unnecessary. Also please add reliable and professional resources based on research and not links to blogs/websites for very serious issues and books largely based on fantasy and imaginations of authors rather than reality.

Thank you for your understanding!

Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think those others should check out the sources first. You're the one who kept spamming your own bias "conclusions" cited to nobody that all had to be removed remember. Wojak6 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 I have no idea what you are referring to? You are really addressing the wrong person. You seem to assume that anything you didn't like on the article was put there by me which is rather inaccurate. You claims of me spamming the article are very false accusations and an assumption. The article has been edited by so many people that it will be false to make such claims. Just because I mostly work on the article it does not necessarily mean that everything that you didn't like there was by me. To cut the story short, the point is that the sources you added are unreliable as discussed above. It is the sources that you have added which have issues. The sources on the article are mostly professional and reliable resources based on research. As stated above, please use a positive language. Stop assuming that a particular editor did this and that because this article like many other articles are edited by several editors. And most articles have been edited long before I even started editing. Also stay relevant to the topic! Please use positive language and no debates please! Thank you! Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot verify the veracity of these sources as I am unable to purchase Ochieng's work, nor has there been much academic discussion or review on his work. I must agree though Wojak6, you should make some arguments for why Ochieng's work, or works sourced from Ochieng are trustworthy sources. The burden of proof is on you, as the one who is adding in these changed sourced by Ochieng. And on the same note, Nyanza Cushitic should source his criticism more, like giving us proof for the lack of "Kisii settling in Kano plains", "Luo expelling the Kisii from the lake shore and the Kisii never lived at the lake shore," and Nyanza's claims that the allegations are a fantasy and imagination of the authors. Wdonghan (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Wdonghan Some things require use of logic. There is just no historical evidence of the Kisii settling in Kano plains which is present-day Kisumu county and there is no evidence of the Luo expelling them from there. Kisumu, Siaya, Homabay and Migori counties are traditionally Luo territories and it is rather inaccurate to claim that the Luo displaced them from there. It is Ochieng and Ogot among other Kenyan Authors who make such claims, but there is no evidence of such settlements or expulsions. The only territory that legitimately belongs to the Kisii people is mainly Kisii and Nyamira counties and sections of Kericho and Bomet counties which is a fact and that is where they traditionally occupied.

Ochieng's book is largely based on his own opinions and perceptions. Ochieng like Ogot and some others never conducted any research but rather wrote their works based on their own opinions and perceptions as well as preconceived beliefs. Ochieng among some other authors have largely exploited the colonial stereotypes of various Kenyan(African) linguistic groups particularly Nilotic speaking peoples in their works. They have use the perceptions of the Nilotics as being warlike and stronger that the Bantu speakers and colonized the Bantu speakers displacing them from their lands to justify most of their allegations. Ochieng's works lack honesty and neutrality and have largely stereotyped the Nilotic speaking peoples. The works by Ochieng and Ogot among others are based on their opinions, perceptions and inventions hence more of a fantasy and imagination. Most of their claims are absurd and far from reality. The only works by Ochieng that seem credible is his journal on the Misri legends which he collected from various tribes hence did some research. Otherwise, his books is just not credible. Ochieng has only distorted history by overlooking some facts and basing his works on his opinions and preconceived beliefs.

For instance, the allegations of settlement in Kano plains and expulsion from Kano plains, a traditional Luo territory are really Ochieng's and Ogot's inventions as there is no evidence to back up those claims. It is a known fact that the Kisii have recently settled in major towns of Siaya, Kisumu, Migori, and Homabay counties which is a Luo territory in the post-colonial period (The Kisii were never relocated from their lands hence their settlement is post-colonial) and are only found in the informal settlements created by the British Government in the mentioned counties. Most of the Bantu speaking non-Luo tribes particularly Luhya were settled in the Luo dominated counties mentioned by the British government during the colonial era and are also found in the informal settlements of Luo-Nyanza. The only Bantu speaking tribes from the Luo-Nyanza counties are the Kuria and Suba which only occupy tiny pockets of Migori and Homabay counties which are dominated by the Luo. The Luo presided the two tribes especially Olusuba speaking Suba which settled in the area in 1800s hence late comers to the Luo-Nyanza counties. It is a known fact that the Bantu speakers were the last group of people to settle in Kenya and East Africa at large hence the allegations of the Luo expelling them from anywhere is false.

It is also a known fact that the Nilotes and cushites are indigenous to the Nile Valley which runs all the way from Lake Victoria of (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania) and Lake Tana of Ethiopia to Egypt. The Nilotes and Cushites are also indigenous to the Great Rift Valley region of Eastern Africa which runs from Eritrea all the way to Mozambique. The claims that they displaced the Bantu speakers from the mentioned regions are just false because the Nilotes and Cushites were there before the Bantu speakers which are believed to have expanded from west central Africa and reached Eastern and Southern Africa between 1AD-1000AD. If there were any displacements, then it is the Bantu speakers who displaced the Nilotes and Cushites from their lands because they presided them in Eastern Africa and Eastern& Northern Central Africa. Ochieng's claims are indeed based on his imaginations and fantasy because he never conducted a research and wrote his book based on his opinions and perceptions and preconceived beliefs. Most of his claims are largely unrealistic and a clear sign that he did not really understand the history of Kenya and Eastern Africa. Most of his claims are disapproved by archeological as well as linguistic evidence of the peopling of Kenya and eastern Africa. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Also why did you remove the "full citations needed" part of your source on the gusii language added on by andy? you keep removing it. That indeed needs a full citation. Wojak6 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 As stated the tag is unnecessary. The sources have been reformatted to reducing crowding. The source is written in full on the reference section of the article. If you hover you mouse on the in-text citation the resource is written in full.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 The discussion is about why the content you added was removed. The discussion should focus on that and not on misplaced false accusations against me and other content that you are posting here.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Who are the Kisii(Gusii people)?

Based on recent edits by Him bin Sadic, 102.68.78.159 and Emman.nya, it is clear that there are some misconceptions that people have about the Kisii people. It is these misconceptions that cause some editors to attempt removing large junks of content from the article in the case of 102.68.78.159 and Emman.nya. Some also make absurd edits to the article in the case of Him bin Sadic. Some of those misconceptions can be addressed and/or clarified by responding to the question above.

• The Kisii people are a highly diverse and/or heterogenous ethnic group and/or nation that speak Ekegusii which is classified as a Bantu language,a sub-category of the Niger-Congo languages. According to research and consensus by most anthropologists, the Bantu speakers expanded from West-Central and West Africa to other regions of Africa where they are found today. There is misconception that Bantu is homogeneous race which is rather inaccurate given that classifications like Bantu among others were created for linguistic purposes and date to the 19th century and have no genetic basis. The Bantu speakers are indeed one of the most diverse groups of people in Africa hence it is absurd to think that they are homogeneous or even a race.
• Before the Bantu migration to Eastern Africa particularly Kenya which is relevant for this article, there were other people already living there with a richer and older history. These earlier people included East africa hunters, Cushitic peoples, and nilotic peoples. It is a known fact that the first inhabitants of Kenya were hunters/gatherers similar to Khoisan, Ogiek and Hadza which were followed the Southern Cushites. The third group of inhabitants were the southern Nilotic speakers and other Nilotic speakers and the fourth and last group of people to settle in Kenya and eastern Africa at large were the Bantu speakers. There is overwhelming anthropological and archeological evidence to support those claims about the peopling of Eastern Africa.
• The incoming Bantu speaking immigrants are believed to have assimilated and/or merged with the pre-existing indigenous populations of Eastern Africa.
• In the case of the Kisii people, the incoming Bantu speaking immigrants from Central and West Africa merged with the earlier peoples of Gusiiland and Kenya for that matter including Hunters/gatherers (related to Ogiek,Khoisan etc), Rift/Nyanza Cushites, and Nilotic speakers specially southern Nilotic speakers.
• It is clear that the Kisii people are indeed very diverse given that they are a fusion of different peoples that settled in present-day Gusiiland including Ogiek, Khoisan, Southern Cushites particularly Nyanza/Rift Cushites, Nilotic speakers and lastly Bantu speakers. It is therefore incorrect to assume that all Kisii people are descendants of Bantu speakers that migrated out of Central and West Africa.
• It is only a fraction of the Kisii people that were part of the Bantu expansion from Central and West Africa. The majority of the Kisii population originated from the mentioned earlier inhabitants of Gusiiland and Kenya as well as Eastern Africa at large.
• It is shocking that some editors remove content mentioning the earlier inhabitants of Gusiiland and Kenya at large claiming that it is false information and/or typo error per some editors. Those earlier inhabitants contributed to the formation of the present-day Kisii people and should be mentioned. Those earlier inhabitants of Gusiiland are the primary reason why the Kisii people have a rich history and culture. It will be unfair to leave them out given that they have heavily influenced the Kisii cultures and history and need to be given credit.
• It is understandable that some editors are of Central/West African (Bantu) origins and could like the article to only talk about Bantu people. Such editors need to be considerate of the fact that the Kisii are diverse. It will be misleading to only talk about Bantu speakers in the article given that it is only a fraction of the Kisii population were part of the Bantu expansion from Central and West Africa. It will be sarcastic and/or offensive to claim that the entire Kisii population is homogenous and descended of Bantu migrants from Central/West Africa given that they are diverse.
• This article is about the Kisii people at large and not just a fraction of the Kisii population. The Bantu migrants from Central/West Africa are progenitors to only a small fraction of the present day Kisii people. Otherwise, the earlier East African inhabitants (hunters, Nilotes and Cushites) are the progenitors of the majority of the Kisii population.
• It is therefore necessary for the article to be written in an all-inclusive manner taking into consideration the history of Kenya and all other earlier progenitors that contributed to the formation of the present-day Kisii people.
• There is no false information and/or typo errors on the article as some editors claim. The article is realistically and comprehensively written taking into consideration the history of Kenya and the formation of the present-day Kisii people which ensures that credit is given where it is due. The article cannot be any better that it is currently.
• Those editors still removing content from the article need to be honest with their edits considering that the article has undergone so much improvement from what it was originally.
• There are not typo error and/or false information which is the common rationale provided by editors that remove large junks of content from the article in an attempt to blank it. The editors need to add to the article rather than removing content from the article.

Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder which ethnicity you are really from. I'm an omogusii and no we are not a fusion of different ethnicities, we are Bantus we are related to other great lakes bantus linguistically, culturally and genetically but at the same due to the fact that we have Nilotic neighbors we intermarried with them although at a smaller extent only on the borders (especially the kalenjin)

We never came into contact with the ogiek who are found in the mau forest (a considerable distance away from kisii Highlands or the mara plains where we spent a significant time in) the ogiek were absorbed by the kalenjin and maasai and never the abagusii and Cushites were in northern Tanzania and we never came into contact with them. I wonder where you get these claims from.

And I saw in some part you wrote that apparently Gusii language together with ngurimi,kuria, Suba-simbiti and others are more of Nilotic than bantu and I didn't know whether to laugh or be angry. I can't speak for the other closely related languages in the logooli-kuria branch but I'm sure it's the same but I know for sure that Gusii is very similar to other great lakes bantu languages in many aspects and as well to other North eastern bantu languages I'm yet to find one Nilotic language that Gusii is similar to

It is pretty clear you're set on keeping to your misguided opinions and I originally meant to ignore you but I decided to give my two cents and I don't like you for spreading lies about my own people, language and culture. It's sad that Wikipedia allows these kind of edits without doing proper research as the ones before you edited were perfect and also funny how your links don't really support the things you wrote. Also other thing I noticed right from your name it's clear you have ulterior motives, Nyanza isn't Cushitic no matter how much you try to spread that false notion.

So sad that Wikipedia makes it hard to right the wrongs that editors like you make Emman.nya (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder in what aspects you think we the abagusii are diverse, we are very homogeneous the only divisive factors are just the different clans but in aspects of language,culture and even phenotypically we are very much alike.

Did you do a research? How did you come up yo the conclusion that we are diverse? Did you do a genetic research? Emman.nya (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Emman.nya We really go by facts and what can be proofed. The Abagusii are highly diverse and that is a fact. It is very unrealistic to even think that they are homogeneous. It is only a small fraction of the Kisii who are from Congo basin by way of the Bantu migration. The majority of the kisii population are descended of the earlier settlers of Gusiiland and Kenya at large as well as Eastern Africa. Those earlier settlers were khoisan, ogiek, southern cushites, southern nilotes, plain nilotes and other nilotes. the Bantu speakers were the last people to settle in Kenya which is fact. Saying that there were no southern cushites or other people already living in Gusiiland before the Bantu is a total lie. There is alot of linguistic and anthropological evidence to show that. It is a lie to claim that all Kisii all from central Africa/Bantu because they are diverse. It is very visible from physique and even culture. While you consider yourself Bantu, many Kisii may find that term Bantu offensive. There is nothing wrong in the article as you claim. the article is realistically written. saying that all kisii are from central africa is simply a lie. The majority of the Kisii are descended from southern cushites, ogiek, southern nilotes and plain nilotes which were already living in Gusiiland and all parts of Kenya before the Bantu migrated there. Please do not generalize things here. Do not say that all Kisii are from central Africa. it is only a small fraction like yourself who are from central Africa or have Bantu progenitors. The majority of the kisii population are indigeneous to Kenya and East Africa as they have south cushitic, Ogiek and south nilotic progenitors.

Your assertions simply show you do not know history of kenya and east Africa. Yes there was a Branch of southern cushites know as Nyanza cushitic. Nyanza, rift valley and other provinces of Kenya were inhabited by southern cushites before Bantu. There is a lot of evidence to show that. There is no false information on the article. You are the one that is wrong and saying things based on guesswork and ignorance. I understand that some truths can be disturbing but please embrace them. It is misleading to claim that such a highly diverse people are all from central Africa. it is a lie and unrealistic to say so. I respect that you consider yourself Bantu, but please do not generalize the entire population that comes from diverse ancestors. It is rude and uncalled for to call people what they are not. It is only a fraction of the Kisii population which is from central africa hence Bantu. That has been explicitly stated in the article. No misleading the audience that all Kisii are from central africa/Bantu or even homogenous. To add onto that, Abagusii is a nation, not just a tribe. The truth hurts. since you think the article is wrong, what are your truths? what research have you done to disapprove the researches others have done? Why did you say you are an Omogusii? was that all necessary? Being an Omogusii does not mean that you know it all. It does not mean that others cannot be right about the Kisii. You should be neutral when writing here. You do not need to say that you belong to a certain ethnicity. I respect that you consider yourself Bantu. I am also kindly requesting you to be respectiful of those Kisii that are not from central Africa/Bantu and have non-bantu/central african ancestors/progenitors. Those non-central African Kisii are the reason why the kisii culture and history is rich. Their contributions to the richness of the kisii culture and history have been explicitly acknowledged. Is that why you think that the article is false. The credit should be given where it is due. The Bantu cannot be given all credits, because they are not the reason why the Kisii cultures/history is rich. They only made minor contributions to the richness. This article is about the Kisii nation and/or population as a whole. It is not just about a small fraction of Kisii from Congo basin/bantu. If we had to talk about that small fraction, there will be nothing to talk about. The Kisii native to east africa and Kenya are the reason why we have something to talk about the Kisii. they are the reason why the kisii are popular. So why shouldn't they be given credit? You should consider reviewing your assertions because you are so wrong. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What are the sources of all this information? Emman.nya (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm a abagusii and I've never heard nor noticed any of this lies you're writing so I need the proof you're writing about And the proof needs to precise and clear for each opinion you writing Emman.nya (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)