Talk:Kunama people

Population numbers

Please add a reference for the population numbers. The figures at ethnologue differ quite substantially from those in the article. The link in the reference section does not work anymore. bamse (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the link (pointed it to the mirror at archive.org), & added information from the 2007 Ethiopian census (& linked to that document at the CSA website). Neither of these support Black Knight's inflated figures. This matter ought to be considered resolved with my changes. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. bamse (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetics

user:soupforone you have added a section about genitc studies in this article. Is this relevant information mixing up ethinicty with race/gentics? Secondly in these types of studies or in science in general, there is almost always an uncertainty in the measurements, which means that one can not talk about absolute proof, but instead of varying degrees of correlation, validity and reliability. You have not even bothered to bring up such questions up or have not been critical to these studies, insted you have labeled it "gentics" and concluded that you belong to this ethic group, you must have these kind of genes etc. Richard0048 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not use the pronoun "you", so I'm not sure what mean. Anyway, genetics are a legitimate part of ethnic group pages. This was recently concluded in a wiki-wide discussion [1]. Soupforone (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You did not use pronoun "you", however you present the result as to implcit that Kunamas must have these genetics, like these studies are the final and actaul proof. As you may know this is a field still very much in it’s infancy, also explained in the link the wiki-discussion you provided, so one or two studies done one some individuals (many times 10 individuals) cannot tell us the whole picture. They (in wiki-discussion) did not came to conclusion that this type of content can exist in a ethnic group page freely ,there are still many questions one has take in consideration when this sort of information is presented as findings. One good point in that discussion by Nishidani was "Most editors adding this stuff have an agenda, to prove something. The result is unreadable generally, and not encyclopedic. I often think the solution would be to find or wait until they come out, specialist books with a relatively neutral overview of the topic, and just paraphrase them". Another good point is Also the field valid concern of how ethnicity is not only a field defined by geneticists, who may indeed be quite bad at that. So BALANCE is also a nice aim, but also difficult. This indeed correct,and should be taken into consideration. And from what I can read one conclusion of this was wiki-discussion is If there are editors who want to dabble in genetics, have some competence in that area of science, there should be separate articles dealing with that specialised material. It is not part of the far more generalised content found in articles on ethnic groups.. I think this content might be overlooked by a third part providing opinions and review sources and maybe removed due to relevancy it being on this article. Perhaphs it should be presented in respectivly haplogroups articles, to not mix up ethnicity with the genitcs since they are two separate things.Richard0048 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In genetics and science in general, samples are often used to extrapolate biodata on a larger population. If there's something awry with a particular sample (e.g. if non-ethnic, assimilated individuals are included in the sample set) or methodology (e.g. if the haplogroup phylogeny has since been refined), this can indeed invalidate the results. However, there's no proof in this situation of any such sampling or methodological errors by the scientists. Those other arguments at the wiki-wide discussion also failed. This is clearly indicated in the consensus box at the top-right, where the actual conclusion is noted. Ergo, genetics are a legitimate part of ethnic group pages. Soupforone (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Still if presented it should be done in a separate article as mentioned in the wiki-discussion. So no the arguments they provided are still valid. Another party may look at it and provide their feedback. You have not taken in all aspect when presenting the content as if they were to represent the whole group, and you have not been critical to the studies and the content is not presented in a balanced way which is important. Richard0048 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)