Talk:Sena language

	Africa portal 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Mozambique (assessed as High-importance).

Languages

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sena language template

If you are a native speaker of Sena then you can help translate this template into your own language:

seh

This user speaks Sena.

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs drastic replacement

1. This is meant to be an article on the Sena LANGUAGE. Not the genetic ancestry of the Sena people as a whole, which belongs to Sena people. You are welcome to include any missing well-sourced (and well-written) information on Semitic ancestry and genetic studies in a section there.

2. The Sena people article links to the Nsenga language article under ‘language’. If these are different names for the same language, this should redirect to that more complete article and the alternative name should be clarified. If they are not the same, please keep this article about *language*.

3. Either way, Sena is a Bantu language, not a Semitic language, even if there may be some Semitic ancestry. The definition of ‘a Semitic people’ and the studies cited by no means seem to justify that ‘being a Semitic people’ is ‘proven’.

4. The most enthusiastic editor’s comments are not in good faith and fail to understand the issues with this article *as an article*.

5. The intro is extremely badly worded, ungrammatical and uses un-encyclopaedic language (‘which is proved by…!’). Please familiarise yourself with the standards here.

Unless these are addressed, this page is badly crafted enough to be worthy of deletion or wholesale replacement. Harsimaja (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's a disruptive editor making the changes so I've reverted back to the last decent version. I've contacted the admin who protected the page but they gave an underwhelming response so maybe we can just keep an eye on things for now, cheers Mujinga (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editor got blocked so things should be ok now Mujinga (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]