Talk:Pygmy peoples

Pygmies at US World's Fair in 1904, not 1907?

The "Systematic discrimination" section of this article mentions that pygmies were displayed at a World's Fair in the United States in 1907. It has a citation (a website), but I don't think it's correct. The US World's Fair in 1907 seems to have been the Jamestown_Exposition, and there's nothing in there or elsewhere online about the exhibition of African pygmies. I think this is probably a mistaken reference to the 1904 World's Fair, where Ota Benga and other Africans were displayed in an exhibition. Ota Benga was also later displayed in the Bronx Zoo in 1906, which is also alluded to in that section. So I suggest updating the section to instead mention the very well-documented 1904 World's Fair, and have a wikilinked reference to the Ota Benga article. --2404:130:0:1000:2D8D:6456:24FC:8A10 (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Traditional Medicine

Wikiproject traditional medicine needs your help getting started. Currently there is no page for traditional Pgymy medicine, nor are medicines mentioned on the pygmy peoples page; such a page would be an excellent place to mention the alleged anti addictive properties of Ibogaine, or any of the other alleged properties of organisms and minerals traditionally used in Pygmy medicine. The projects goal is to create a pharmacopoeia that oover's the traditional medicines of all civilizations, to educate the world on the multi cultural anthropology of medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence

So are pygmies in the same league of intelligence as the rest of humanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.142.109 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough question. Surprised it hasn't caused a racial flamewar with major trolling yet. REST OF HUMANITY, YOU ASK? Humanity doesn't exactly have the same league of intelligence across the board, fyi, although the nature vs. nurture aspect of it is nowhere near conclusive. Asians appear to have the highest IQs but a very narrow dispersion (more 100-120s), Europeans ("white", "caucasians") have a lower average but significantly wider dispersion (more 140s, but also more 60s), and blacks, native americans, and hispanics have the lowest averages AS TESTED (which doesn't really show anything whatsoever, since Africa and South America have the most dismal education systems and the worst childhood nutrition on the planet; hence, it is unclear what IQ ranges they would show with quality nutrition and decent early education).

So, you cannot really compare anyone to the 'rest of humanity', since there aren't reliable data on what intelligence said humanity has. The only two things we DO know about intelligence are that a) good nutrition and decent basic education boost average IQ a lot, b) conformist and guilt societies achieve higher averages but narrower spreads than more independent-minded individualistic societies, which get a more-Nobel-laureates-but-also-more-utter-idiots tradeoff. Aadieu (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent answer from Aadieu; I only add that IQ-tests are also critisized as they tend to overevaluate a narrow defintion of 'intelligence' and that malnutrition can even affect the offspring generations later via epigenetics. That means that after a famine of an ancestor even the great-grandchildren could still be slightly impaired. Combine that with 'ethnogeographic' theories like those of Jared Diamond and the effects of colonialism and still on-going hidden neocolonialism and you can see that it's really quite senseless to measure 'intelligence' on such an unfair basis. Alexander Illi 196.201.51.20 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the racist reasoning "they're not as intelligent as us, they don't deserve to be respected and treated well" is quite odious. Even if they were somehow innately (on an absolute genetical basis) less intelligent, that would make them effectively disabled and the racist additionally ableist. Civilised people don't mistreat disabled people just because they can. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation, but not useful

Origins
A commonly held view [citation needed] is that African Pygmies are the direct descendents of the Late Stone Age hunter-gatherer peoples of the central African rainforest...

Here's your citation, but it doesn't exactly perform the role the original author wanted the citation to perform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Uganda
24.17.178.36 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone erased the portion about African pygmies with the word "weird." I restored it to the previous version. 140.247.249.71 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Honey-related

Under Origins, what is "honey-related"? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Related to honey or the collecting of honey: presumably species of honey-producing bees, types of honey, places honey is found, how it is collected. kwami 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Day of the Drones. I think you clarified it now. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Diet/Nutrition

Should someone mention this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinum inc (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Negritos

This section seems o be self contradictory: "...they are related to Africans..." and "...more closely related to the surrounding Asian population...". I think it's trying to say there's a distinction from Africans, but it's unclear, and the section is a stub anyway. Leushenko (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrasing was not clear. The article says they migrated from Africa about 60,000 years ago, making them perhaps some of the earlist emigrants from Africa to settle Asia, and hence further genetically to current Africans than other Asians - who arrived from Africa later. --Ezeu (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian "Pygmies"

The claim that Australian pygmy's are not a relict of a previous wave of migration is supported by a link which is polemic in nature. There is legitimate scientific evidence that they may be a relict from a previous wave of migration and that debate should be acknowledged. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/ 92.237.254.166 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

They were not "driven to extinction in the 1960s". The article referred to does not say this. It claims that the concept of the Australian "pygmies", usually called "negritos", was abandoned for political reasons. There are Australian "negritos" still living, although many have interbred with other tribes and with whites. They were certainly not driven to extinction, and this claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.9 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

but they were... it would be revisionistic to not say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.112.196 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

better map please

current map has very nice detail, but you can't see the political geopgraphy or the context in terms of rest of African continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.52.106 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need to? kwami (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh...to put information in context? Seriously, that you would not even understand this, just underscores how bad the typical Wikipedian is as an editor. 72.82.52.106 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in context. It's under the section heading 'African pygmies'. I think any normal reader would understand from that that the map is of Africa. kwami (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Provenance of image

I'm a bit concerned about the provenance of the image used on this page. It's listed as being from a 1921 cyclopedia, but is supposed to be of Professor K. G. Murphy, who wasn't born until 1908 - which would have made him at best 13 when the image was taken. He clearly isn't 13 in that image.

Professor Murphy was active in the Congo during the 1930s, and his style of dress in the image is in keeping with that period. I suspect the image has been mis-dated - in which case it may still be in copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.180.52 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pygmies of South America

The article briefly mentions pygmies in Brazil and Bolivia, but says nothing more about them. Can anybody add anything? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Bolivia, it's an error in the source article in Time magazine, there are no known ethnicities in Bolivia measuring under 5 ft tall on average. But it's kind hard to prove a negative, so it will probably stay on there for about twenty years. Isn't wikipedia great?

Boynamedsue

Forest People?

I read elsewhere (I don't have a reference) that pygmies around the world tend to be forest people. Is this true and does anyone have a reference? If so, it would be worthwhile to say so in the article. That may be the factor that produces convergent evolution.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a common theory, at least for Africa. kwami (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also isolation on islands could lead to reduced body size (e.g. the Andamanese, possibly Aeta...; also compare: extinct dwarf-forms of mammoths and elephants and many other animals have been found on diverse islands)

Plenty speculation possible, also the other way round, e.g.: - since they were smaller than the others, they could possibly have been driven off into the forests, mountaineous, recluded areas

Alex Illi 196.201.51.20 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Homo sapiens?

Are these people of the Homo sapiens species, or do they belong to a different species of the genus Homo, like Homo floresiensis? 72.134.97.155 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All humans are the same subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens. Genetic studies show African pygmies don't even have a single origin. kwami (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The person who first asked the question don't seem to understand the species concept. All humans alive today belong to the same species (Homo sapiens). To me Pygmies are just a population of very short humans. They look like any Africans except being shorter on average than they neibours. They may also have lighter and more yellowish skin. The physical differences between present-day humans are very small compared to the differences between the human species living at different times. Homo floresiensis was not comparable to modern Pygmies. Members of this species where about 2/3 as tall as present Pygmy peoples. More important, the anatomy of their heads where quite unlike any humans during historic times. The heads of Homo floresiensis was most similar to those of Homo erectus which is thought to have evolved into them.

2010-12-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

OF COURSE Homo sapiens, many fertile babies have been born from relationships between 'pygmies' and other human beings.

Alexander Illi 196.201.51.20 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That means nothing. Dogs and wolves produce successful offspring, but are considered separate species. Chihuahuas and Great Danes, to my knowledge, do not create successful offspring, despite being the same species. Having a single genetic origin, (as referenced above) also wouldn't determine it, as modern h Sapiens itself contains genetic admixture from other species, eg, Neanderthals and Denisovans, and yet humans are considered a species. Ultimately, Pymgmies are considered human because they can think and feel and love and suffer, just like everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.21.88 (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being pedantic, species other than humans can "think and feel and love and suffer". (Which in no way lends any credence to the ridiculous idea that Pygmies aren't human.) The lead paragraph of Human summarizes the unique defining characteristics of the species, I think. Rivertorch (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent merge

I just merged in a large block of text from an inappropriately titled article that was up for deletion, as it seemed reasonably well sourced. It would be best if an interested editor merged and distributed the text more skillfully.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Life Expectancy

According to this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/05/05/short-lives-short-size-%E2%80%93-why-are-pygmies-small/

Pygmies have exceptionally short life expectancy. (16-24 years on average, though I assume this varies between pygmy groups). The article suggests that this might explain their small size. I thought it worth mentioning that they die so young, even if the theory is controversial, but I have no idea how to go about including this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.50.202 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's about the average life expectancy of all groups living under harsh natural conditions (tropical rainforests, deserts, small islands etc.) without much civilisation (meaning outward-material-technical standard) protecting them, due mainly to extremely high infant mortality rates. From the site http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter5/text5.htm :

"The often childlike Andamanese faces lead most observers to underestimate their age, sometimes grossly so. The Andamanese themselves have never had and still do not have any sense of the passing of time, do not count years and are indifferent to their own age. Males are reported to mature at 15, attain full growth at 18, marry at 26 and live to an old age at around 55 to 65. Of the Onges in the 1950s it has been reported that none reached an age above 60, that they were old by 45 and that most died before age 50. The menopause of the women sets in at age 38. Estimates on the average life expectancy vary greatly, starting at 22 and peaking in the mid-thirties. Women married a few years younger than the men but lived longer. The child-bearing years lasted from 16 to 35 and children were not generally weaned before age 3 or 4." Alexander Illi 196.201.51.20 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note Life expectancy#Life expectancy vs. life span. There's nothing unusual about a life expectancy at birth of 16–24 in a pre-modern society. The figure doesn't indicate a typical life-span.

By the way, the observation about the "childlike faces" in the above quote makes me wonder if the short stature of pygmy peoples could not be interpreted as neoteny. It certainly doesn't mean that early humans were necessarily that short. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Systematic discrimination -- Needs Work!

Right now it's a huge wall of text that scares off the reader. It needs paragraph breaks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.190.91 (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also contains factual errors: "Belgium colonial authorities captured and exported Pygmy children to zoos throughout Europe, including the world's fair in the United States in 1907." That's a neat trick considering there was no Belgian Congo in 1907. Not saying it didn't happen at all, however, it was most certainly not "Belgium colonial authorities" as Congo was still a free state at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.225.217 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the name of the Ethiopian pygmy tribe?

What is the name of the Ethiopian pygmy tribe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duozopt (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

All I can find so far is in scare quotes: "the 'Sogenannten' Ethiopian Pygmoids". Addressed in Cavalli-Sforza (1986), but I don't have access. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sogenannten" is not a tribe name. It means "so-called." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.142.19 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thus the scare quotes. — kwami (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Too wide a definition?

Is not the definition of Pygmy peoples a little too wide? To me all dark-skinned, short peoples don't appear to form a natural group. I would only use the word Pygmy about those indigenous to Africa. These look like Black Africans except being much shorter on average. The may also have lighter, more yellowish skins. The short, dark-skinned peoples of South-East Asia I would call Negritos. (If it sounds too much like Negro the Malay term orang asli may be preferred.) They may look a bit African but their head shape is usually more similar to other East Asians. They are not quite as short as African Pygmies either. However, the most important difference is that the ancestors of the Negritos have lived in Asia for tenmillenia. Most likely they are direct descendants of the first anatomically modern humans in South-East Asia. It is also worth noting that the majority of South-East Asians today mostly descend from southern China and especially Taiwan. This island was the home of the Proto-Austronesians.

The “Pygmies” in New Guinea, Australia and South America are even less related to the African Pygmies. They are probably only tribes – or groups of tribes – which are shorter than their neighbours. If so they are just unusually short Papuans, Aborigines or Native Americans. To call these Pygmies would at best be at best misleading and at worst racist. Pleas note that races as genetically homogeneous, sharply bordered groups does not exist. What exist are genetically heterogeneous populations which gradually blend into each other. Refusing to accept variation within populations is racist to me. So is classifying a group of people as a biologically separate entity based on just a couple of traits. Empirical evidence simply don't support such ideas.

2010-11-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I agree. This definition is too wide. The sources that talk about Pygmy people refer to African groups. --Maulucioni (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Olde Photographe: "European Explorer" hugging and showing off the pygmies

First of all I'ld throw out the picture of "Professor K. G. Murphy" putting pressure on these pygmies, as they obviously don't like it (body language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.51.20 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC) oops, unsigned...Alex Illi 196.201.51.20 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy Religion

What are the religious beliefs of Pygmies?--Splashen (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Baka religion is animist, they worship a forest spirit known as Jengi. (See also [1]) --Maulucioni (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that some pygmy tribes are claimed to (gasp) have not had any religious beliefs at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 20 July 2011

Hello,

I saw an article today in the journal, Science Daily, which is entitled, "Ancestors of African Pygmies and Neighboring Farmers Separated Around 60,000 Years Ago." The article can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090410075110.htm. I just thought that the information contained in the article might be a nice addition to your page and certainly a good reference source.

Thank you!

70.134.190.49 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

External links (update needed?) Reference to original film.

The external link: Undated footage of Pygmy tribe constructing a vine bridge is a clip from African Pigmy Thrills (Castle Films): -- which includes this in the description: Footage from this subject is available for licensing from www.travelfilmarchive.com -- An ad for the original is ostensibly dated: Castle Films African Pygmy Thrills Movie (1942). Note however, the '42 ad includes "..._{FAMOUS CASTLE ADVENTURE MOVIES YOU CAN OWN!}", implying ("famous") that it had been previously released (other sources date it as c.1930). Perhaps a more accurate attribution is in order? Note also that the original title is African Pigmy [sic] Thrills! The following is probably a better source: http://www.archive.org/details/african_pygmy_thrills ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012

OK, so the whole article needs re-working and citations added and stuff. Particularly the "Systematic discrimination" needs a lot of work. The website at http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/pygmy.htm does not appear to be a wonderful source, lacking in-line references. Yet it is used for three or four references.

So, my main request is to add one of those "please help fix this article up" templates at the top of the page.

41.204.74.75 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The {{Cleanup}} template is probably what you're referring to. However, that template is usually most productively used when there's ongoing discussion about improvements to the article. Drive-by tagging is usually not too helpful to get things cleaned up. If you have specific ideas for how the article can be improved, feel free to re-enable the requested edit template and list them! Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE REAL PEOPLE CONCERNED DIRECTLY? --> www.osapy.org / www.batwa.org They could provide a much clearer picture than any of us "outsiders" and would be glad to assist. (please add also the link www.batwa.org to the orig. wiki references) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.181.14.67 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cameroon and demographics of Cameroon articles

I have made one small effort (2 details, one link) to improve the former but the latter needs even more help from an editor working on this article.

G. Robert Shiplett 20:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Major ethic groups?

see Africa/Relationship with other Africans/Slavery, it refers to Pygmies as 2% of the DRCs population and also a 'major ethnic group.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.199.74 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They're culturally important, though not numerically so. Better wording is needed. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Identify Pygmies As Humans

Please change the first sentence, "Pygmy is a term used for various ethnic groups worldwide whose average height is unusually short; anthropologists define pygmy as any group whose adult men grow to less than 150 cm (59 inches) in average height," to "Pygmy is a term used for various human ethnic groups worldwide whose average height is unusually short; anthropologists define pygmy as any group whose adult men grow to less than 150 cm (59 inches) in average height" (without the emphasis). It needs to be clarified early on that pygmies are of the same species, indeed the same sub species, as other people, due to some popular misconception (of which some of the consequences are delineated later in the article). 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ethnic groups is implied as only humans have ethnic groups.--Inayity (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that in saying, in effect, "BTW, they're not monkeys", the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've considered this as well. That's why I proposed the mere insertion of the word "human" rather than a full separate sentence explaining that despite some popular misconception, pygmies are humans.

At this point it might be better to educate on this than be afraid of drawing attention to it. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Discussion on the point can continue without the edit request being left open. My two cents: there is one extant human species, which has no subspecies, and I don't see a pressing need to specify in the lede that pygmy people are humans—a fact that should be obvious to anyone with sufficient intelligence and education to read the article. Granted, there might be a few readers whose minds are so poisoned by prejudice that they don't think pygmies are humans, but I find it hard to believe that even the most careful wording on our part will enlighten them. Rivertorch (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a good discussion, so I'm re-opening the edit request. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference source, the purpose of which is to educate people who may avail themselves of it. You should read the article in full; pygmies are targeted for ethnic cleansing because there is much popular perception that they are not human. Also, look at the talk page and archives of it; readers have asked if pygmies are homo sapiens several times before there. Finally, the human species does have a subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you're right. I should have said that there's one extant human subspecies of which no further taxonomical refinement is possible. Thanks for the correction! Fwiw, I have read the article in full and was already aware of the misperception. Let's see what others think. Rivertorch (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And if I end up being alone on this, then by all means please do close the request. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is as if you were speaking about some Ethiopian tribes, and someone asked if, because of their being so tall, they are or not human beings. It is a lot of ignorance.--Maulucioni (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ignorance that exists nonetheless. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've marked the edit request as answered. This is an ongoing content discussion and is outwidth the 'uncontroversial changes' of the edit request system. If the IP would still like to get further input into their suggested changes, then WP:3O is the next option. Pol430 talk to me 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a good conversation still going on here, so I'm going to reopen the request. If it stays dead for a couple of of days it can be closed. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be skewing against your proposed change, but very well. My two-cents: I agree with Inayity and kwami that the addition of 'human' is unnecessary because it is implied in the existing sentence -- in my opinion. Moreover, I find the proposed wording patronizing, as a reader of the article and if I were a pygmy, I should think I would find such a caveat borderline racist, or insulting at best. Pol430 talk to me 19:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Once you have established a consensus, feel free to reopen the request. Reopening the request again before a consensus has been established would be disruptive. Thanks you. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the edit suggested wasn't appropriate but I have a different suggestion. In the article pygmy is used as a noun, as in "African pygmies live in several ethnic groups", and an adjective, as in "pygmy peoples". It is also, I think, being used as a noun meaning "pygmy group", as in "the Pygmy have always been viewed". Why not change "Pygmy is a term used for various ethnic groups worldwide" to "Pygmy is a term used for people from various ethnic groups worldwide"? Thincat (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Because we don't say that within an ethnicity, some people are pygmies and others aren't. But the existing sentence doesn't make sense either. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did some general copy editing improvements, such as the confusion between people and ethnicity, that may have addressed your concerns. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Just reading it, that is a lot more satisfactory. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the subject so I cannot comment critically. Thincat (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: So can the edit semi protected template be marked as answered? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The third time's the charm. Rivertorch (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days since anyone has discussed the issue, so I'm fine if it's closed at this point. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: Per discussion Vacation9 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointless reverting does not help

"The best-known pygmy peoples are the Aka, Efé and Mbuti of Central Africa" The sentence is a problem. What does it mean? Clearly a problem fix it and stop pointless reverting. The lead should discuss the pygmy people and who go by that name. It is not only the Aka and Efe that are the best known? Known to who? Is it a NO!. As far as I know the Baka are the ones you always see on TV. either way the sentence can be improved to be more functional. "best known" very strange to challenge this Pygmie people The correct configuration is to say the term is commonly applied to people of C Africa, and then give some examples. Hence the word "Such As list". Only collaboration develops a page. --Inayity (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Citation needed" isn't used because you don't understand the sentence. There are clarification tags for that, though one is hardly needed here. Your suggestion is may be an improvement, but it has nothing to do with citations. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First thing respect other peoples contributions. use the talk page first -I am not a fly by Ip editor. I made an improvement You reverted it. It comes across as arrogant and disrespectful to my contributions. Clearly you do not have to revert everything as it is a minor issue easily fixed (which I am trying to do). you could have just discussed it and then made a plan. The fact is needed as it is not clear who is making this profound statement. I fully understand the sentence and what it is trying to say, so discuss the improvements. I have searched up and down for the first usage of the term (as applied to C Africa, and it is not an obvious fact). So yes the Citation is needed on Large BIG statements. --Inayity (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a , , or tag.If someone tagged your contributions with "Citation needed" and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page(wiki rules).

You said you tagged it because you didn't understand it, which is not what the tag is for. — kwami (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: change "forest habitat" to forest homeland.

because in a section on systematic discrimination (that covers how they were abducted and put in zoos, no less!), "habitat" implies animal too strongly for comfort. Angel (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Simple grammar change:

2nd sentence: "Other anthropologists do not agree to group peoples based on stature as height is neither an accurate reflection of culture nor genetics."

Change to: "Other anthropologists do not agree that to group peoples based on physical stature is an accurate reflection of culture or genetics"

OR "Other anthropologists have expressed that to group peoples based on physical stature is neither an accurate reflection of culture nor genetics

Bungeloe (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Coustum"

I have removed the following text from the Slavery section (which was retitled Slavery/Coustum) as being unreferenced POV-pushing:

The relationship between pygmies and their master bantu cannot be defined as a slavery. Sociologicaly speaking, bantu people and pygmy are citizens of the same country who have a relation that is defined by the types of service that they provide to each other. Pygmies work in the forest where they get their ressources for living on a daily basis. Because there is not a maket in bantu towns, the only person who buy their products is a muntu who is close to them. The pygmies go hunting, fishing, and looking products in the forest in order to sell to the bantu. Bantu people also go to the forest to get what they need for living, but pygmy is more often in the forest than bantu. Nobody forces pygmies to go to the forest or work for them. It is their own will, their syle of living, "Forest is mother and father" for bantu and pygmies people. There are not companies to produce food, clothing, money, water, etc. Everything is gotten in the forest. So the relationship of pygmies and bantu is based on services that they share. But pygmies are not forced never to serve bantu as a slave does for his master. There are some regulations in their relationship due to their coustum. For example, bantu cannot have sex with pygmies. It is a shame. Why? This is a policy that has established to regulated their cultural environment. This policy is plural, and it is understood by both parties. It views by foreign people as a discrimination.

Awien (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)