User talk:Gwoktik

Hello, Gwoktik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Kwesi Yema (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That is reliable source, it followed guidelines of the origin of this word. Otherwise what were you expecting please?15:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC) Gwoktik (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kwesi Yema (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kwesi Yema I already responded to your comment. What I placed there was not original research, it was a dictionary definition and root word of nilotic. I am tyring to make out what your intention is; the definiation is consistent that nilotic is coming from niloticus in the Greek language, this is a region of River Nile in ancient Egypt. There is no native tribe in Africa called nilotic, nor any language in Africa called nilotic. Each group have a distinct name of their tribe and a name of their language. That is the essence of my comments.07:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Gwoktik (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Helll Gwoktik. The source [you shared] on Nilotic languages speaks only about Dinka and Nuer languages, but nothing on the overall unsourced paragraph you added. Please, always make sure the sources you provide verify every statement you have documented.

For example, if a source says Boy went to Japan. Say that exactly. Don't write Boy went to Japan to meet his family. Giving different conclusions from the available source is WP:SYNTH. When you conjure up your own opinons that are not backed by sources, then that becomes WP:Original Research. Please take note.Kwesi Yema (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have not finished adding some more. It states that Dinka and Nuer are not mutually intelligible - that statement is in the reference provided - not sure if you have seen it.

This is not my own opinion you do realize there are already lots of articles even sources provided within the same article showing Dinka langauge has 5 other Dinka languages within the Dinka language itself- each has specific number of speakers and specific regions as a regional dialect.Gwoktik (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)Gwoktik

It is important to note that these Nilotic languages' groupings are geographical classifications rather than mutual intelligibility. For instance, the Dinka is a different language from the Luo, which is also different from Nuer etc. Some words may sound similar due to shared location although these are distinct ethnic groups, with distinct speeches...

This highlighted statement which you added cannot be verified in the given source and I have provided a CN tag to this part as a result. If you keep adding sources that do not match the entire paragraphs you create, then you shall get banned for promoting original research. Kwesi Yema (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Kwesi Yema (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kwesi Yema I cannot keep repeating myself over and over. This is not original research the source clearly stated that the Dinka and Nuer language is "not mutually intelligible." You asked me before to bring out article shich shows the two languages are not mutually intelligible. When I provided the article, you then said the language have common vacubulary, but please bear in mind that having common vacubulary does not mean "mutual intelligibility."The reason why it is called Nuer language, is because it is different from Dinka, and different from Lwo/Luo; they are not the same language, nor the same ethnic group even though they have been grouped as Western Nilotic - that is geographical location. I cannot make myself clearly than that when wikipedia has articles on each of these ethnic groups. If you find sources that say the Nuer, Dinka and Luo lanauges are the SAME lanague and they are all mutually intelligible then by all means bring these upGwoktik (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked you to point out where your sources state Nilotic languages aren't mutually intelligible, but rather geographical classifications. If you intentionally provide sources that don't match the edits you post, then you're participating in original research. Kwesi Yema (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Hamites. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. All the information I provided there are references. I may not have referenced it correctly but I have provided or can provide the reference. As for the Hamites, it is still being used in Africa that is what I found. The article said it is no longer used, however I found ethnic groups that what to use this correctly based on their history of origin. I am currently in the middle of something, when I find the sources I will revert right back. ThanksGwoktik (talk) Gwoktik (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer Where is original research in this editing? You have deleted many pages, and deleted reliable references. You went round deleting actual citations to support my edits. I requested you to put these topics for other editors to discuss as a group, you have not done thisGwoktik (talk) Gwoktik (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The Southern Luo languages are linguistically distinct from the Kumam and Lango languages This is false, and original research. No source says this, they all say they are part of the Southern Luo group.

Some scholars challenge that the Lango language is not a Southern Luo language. Again this is false. No scholar says this.

Please read WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVPUSH before replying further. ~ oklopfer (💬) 15:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No scholar says that? Then what about this scholar Uzoigwe, G. N. The beginnings of Lango society : a review of evidence. OCLC 38562622

Hutchinson (1902)

Same thing goes to Kumam

Tribal names and customs in Teso district, Kagolo (1955). B M. Makerere University: The Uganda Journal.

Further proof they have been recognized as Ateker speeking peoples (Not Lwo speaking peoples) https://ultimatepost.dantty.com/post/1579

16:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC) Gwoktik (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Uzoigwe also says it is a Luo language, I checked. I implore you to show me where in those sources it is stated that Lango and Kumam are not part of this group. The news article makes no claim of this classification either, and in general a news article certainly does not determine linguistic classification. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Uzoigwe clearly stated that his research found Lango are not part of Lwo and that all Lwo groups said Lango were not part of them, they spoke Lwo now but still retain their nilo-hamitic elements of their original Language. He analysed writings of Hutchinson which for years have been quoted in wikipedia, clearly stating that although Lango often grouped as Nilotics they belong to a different speech the Hamites. You only want to isolate some bits but refuse to acknowledge the building of arguments that various authors presented.And you try to argue everythig alone as if you are the only authority on this matterGwoktik (talk) Gwoktik (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Uzoigwe clearly states that Lango is part of the Luo group:

Moreover the Luo spoken by the present Langi contains many loan words. [...] The Luo spoken by the Langi today is not exactly the same as that spoken by the Acholi.

Please do a better job of reading your own sources. As I said on my talk page, I am now going to stop engaging with this conversation until you bring it to the broader group. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer And you are still here? Why not raise this for discussion by the group? You think you understood this but you did not. He is talking about language shift which I mentioned before. Why should the tribe be called Lango or Kumam if they were Lwo? Where did the name come from or which language is that? And what is the meaning of those names? They cannot speak a proper Lwo dialect when they are from a different tribe - they have mixed dialects of their hamitic language in their current speech- that is what Uzoigwe stated.

I have been accused before, of bringing original research when I started editing, only because those accusing me were not reading the contents on wikipedia.

You engage in reasoning with one person when you cleared up whole pages? Another editor asked the same. I am not the only person who mentioned Uzoigwe. Please place this up by other editors to discuss as well. Gwoktik (talk) Gwoktik (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)