This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Article sounds highly contrived to present a picture of these peoples as being related more to "Caucasoids" than to surrounding peoples. "Comprehensive anthropological analyses of the ethnic Iraqw by Ikeda et al. (1982) suggests that they share significant affinities with other Cushitic-speaking populations and "Caucasoids" generally" is included in the article. It is sourced from an article whose actual words are "The Iraqw and Datoga bear a close resemblance in physical features to the other members of the Hamitic or Caucasians as well as the Bantu speakers, while the Datoga are closer to the Bantu than the Iraqw do"...point here being that the referenced article makes the point these peoples resemble both "caucasoids" and "Bantus", but the article picks the caucasoid element and emphasises that while leaving the Bantu element out.
Dishonest? Certainly. POV? Probably. Misleading? Very.
220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone would mind some pretty substantial edits (if not the total deletion) of the Kerio Valley section. There isn't any archaeological or historical evidence tying the Iraqw to the Pastoral Neolithic peoples (who were probably not farmers at all) of northern Kenya. The irrigation systems mentioned in the section are Iron Age, not Neolithic, and again we don't have any evidence that they are related to the modern-day Iraqw. The next section about Engaruka is a little better grounded, but from an archaeological perspective these two history sections are really problematic. Thoughts? Ninafundisha (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)