Talk:Kisii people

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors with the page before reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abagusii are Bantu 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification on Misconceptions by Wojak6 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons for reversion of edits by Wojak6 

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the "Kisii People"  Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reformatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genetics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Omotics? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who are the Kisii(Gusii people)?