Talk:Bʼaga languages

Ethiopia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia 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.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nilo-Saharan

Yes, there are problems with Nilo-Saharan. Some respected linguists suggest that it is unsupported, but other respected linguists disagree. Right now, there are major publications and WP:RSs that support Nilo-Saharan and Gumuz' inclusion within it (e.g., Lionel Bender's The Nilo-Saharan Languages). You're going to need some serious published source for removing it since the burden of proof presently supports its inclusion in Nilo-Saharan. While I understand the underpinning of your removal edits, I've reverted to the more substantially supported position, its inclusion. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm noticing a lot of question marks throughout the Nilo-Saharan articles so this whole issue probably needs a steady hand to standardize the approach to it (with references). If Gumuz is a problem, then you might refer to the article on Songhay languages on a good, well-referenced approach on dealing with it. Just calling Gumuz an isolate without a reference or comment on the history of its inclusion/exclusion won't do. (Taivo (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Both Blench and Dimmendaal are of the opinion that Gumuz has not been shown to be a NS language. Dimmendaal feels the same about Koman, Songhay, and Kadu. I think that both agreeing that Gumuz is not supported as NS warrants a question mark. kwami (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good reworking of the issue in the article. (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gumuz languages. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]