Libingi

Welcome!

Hello, Libingi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'll answer your post at WikiProject Africa, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mbunda history

(discussion transferred from the talk page of Languages of Angola)

@Libingi: In your case, as you are Mbunda yourself, some emotional involvement is perfectly natural. And I entirely agree that it is high time the history and present of Africa was not written dominantly by people from the outside, and that - here like elsewhere - the "look from the outside" and the "look from within" are used in a mutually complementary way. - All the peoples in Eastern Angola (with the exception of the Lunda and the Chokwe) are, of course, "under-researched". This is quite understandable, given the trajectory of that region. I happen to know that at this stage a German anthropologist is doing some research in the Mbunda area, on the re-integration of persons who had fled to Zambia, stayed there in refugee camps, and have recently returned. - Don't worry about the trustworthyness of the Angolan friend of mine. - NB: Se quiser podemos continuar a conversa em português! -- Aflis (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel it is better to continue the conversation in English because it is understood by many. Those that cannot understand English can used translation tools on internet. A lot of these tribes we are referring to migrated and live in most parts of southern Africa, which is predominantly English, due to: 1) Mbunda/Portuguese war of 1914-1920s after abduction of King Mbandu Lyondthzi Kapova by the Portuguese. 2) Angola Liberation war from the Portuguese colonialists. 3) Angola Civil war between MPLA and UNITA.Libingi (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we shall keep to English. The migrations of the different ethnic groups of Eastern Angola (we do no longer speak of "tribes", which is yet another inappropriate concept Europe applied to Africa) is, in principle, on the research agenda of some historians and anthropologists, but so far the research findings are rather limited. With regard to the Mbunda resistance to Portuguese occupation, I have just found a few pages in the volumous book on the Portuguese military campaigns in Angola, written by the French historian René Pélissier. Could you let me know what other sources you are drawing upon? - With respecto to our initial point, national languages, I am still looking forward to answer from Luanda. -- Aflis (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I indicated earlier,we believe that, History is stories or narrations given by forefathers down the line. Research therefore is a collection of these stories and authenticating them. The history and life of the Mbunda Speaking People is well researched and published in 1994, by Cheke Cultural Writers Association, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association and is widely refered to by researchers. This is an indeginious Mbunda writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola. This book was Published under the auspices of The Zambia Journal of History, University of Zambia, ISBN: 9982 - 03 - 006 - X and Edited by Robert Papstein, Central African Oral History Project. I do not rely on second class information or foreign anthropologists, who may distort our history to serve their own endeavours as has been the case with the Portuguese. However, there are so many sources who agree with this research on google books, some of whom have been blacklisted on your web pages, for whatever reasons you may know better. Libingi (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oral history is no doubt a fundamental source, but like all other sources, it has its limitations and risks. The only way out of this dilemma is to combine sources and methods - and the "look from within" with the "look from the outside". In any case, I shall try and get hold of the book you mention. - Something else: what on earth do you mean when you speak of "your webpages"???? -- Aflis (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS: I found the exact reference of the book you mention above. - I suppose you are the chairman of the Association you equally mention? PPS: Where are the Mbunda of Namibia living: in the Caprivi Strip?

Yes, I am the National Chairman of Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association, with full authority from the current Mbunda Monarch on the Throne. You will be suprised, a lot of Mbunda Speaking People in Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Europe, Zambia and His Majesty The Mbunda King in Angola, are aware of our conversation and following it with keen interest. Mbunda of Namibia are found in Rundu, on the border with Angola. I totally agree with you on combining sources and methods. They say no man is an Island. I am happy that you have found the exact reference. Getting hold of the book will be very helpful. If you fail, get in touch with me, I might work out a way to avail you one. The book has since been revised, with more research information added to it, but in Mbunda language, up to the current Mbunda Monarch on the Throne in Angola. The English version will soon be on the market. The Portuguese version has since been translated in Angola and awaiting language editing and printing. Information on the Cheke Cha Mbunda website can also generate a lot of interest on future discussions http://www.chekechambunda.org. What I meant by "your webpages" is that when I tried to post some references from google books, they were rejected that, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist". I am sure you understand that better. Libingi (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help me to get hold of the book. I have by now discovered that it is (apparently) in two university libraries in the UK, but have not found out where it might be on sale. - No, I don't understand what might have provoked the reaction you got. Was is from Wikipedia? I confess that my technical mastery of Wikipedia (and the internet in general) is not very good, and there are many things I simply don't grasp. In any case, there exist no webpages that are "mine"! -- Aflis (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC) PS: As a provisional solution, I have added a few lines plus a reference to your book & website to the "Ganguela" articles to the English as well as to the Portuguese Wikipedia. NB: I think I shall transfer this discussion of the Mbunda to your personal talk page. -- Aflis (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mbunda living in DR Congo

PS: It seems that the language spoken by the people called Mbunda in the Democratic Republic of Congo has nothing to do with the language spoken by the Mbunda of Angola/Zambia: see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mck . That would then mean this is a different people. Also see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=zmp. -- Aflis (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your research observation. However, these are misconcerptions of foreigners trying to document history or particulars of an ethenic group without consulting them. Bandundu is at a confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers in Congo DRC. Our history which has been availed to you, clearly shows that Mbundas settled at the confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers during there migration from KOLA, under their fourth Monarch, King Nkonde. Mind you this was in the 1500s. Obviously Mbunda language spoken there now is not the same as the one spoken in Angola, Namibia and Zambia, due to passage of time and interaction with other languages. For your information even the Mbunda spoken in Zambia and the one spoken in Angola and Namibia, is not the same. The Mbunda spoken in Zambia has a strong upper teeth lower contact with the tongue, to pronounce words like: Mundthzindthzime (shandow), chithzalo (dress), Kuthsa (death) and many more. Mbunda spoken in Angola and Namibia is lazy, spoken through teeth like Luchazi. They pronunce above words as: Mutzitzime (shadow), chizalo (cloth), Kutsa (death), and yet the time period factor is only from 1795 of the first Mbunda migration from Angola. It is yet interesting to note that even within Zambia, the Mbunda spoken by the 1795 migration group of Chief Chiyengele is different from the Mbunda migration group of the Mbunda/Portuguese war of 1914. That is why the Chiyengele group, mainly found in Mongu are nicknamed "Mbunda Shamuka", literally diluted if you like. The same can be attributed to the Mbunda spoken in Namibia. It will indeed be a misconcerption to identfy these people as different. What is significant is that all these groups in Angola, Congo DRC, Namibia and Zambia do not need an interpreter when conversing to each other. I have listened to all these Mbunda groups. These are the misconcerptions we want to correct. Imagine people have written their thesis and obtained doctorates over such research books and data! God forbid!Libingi (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we are now in contact on this page, which is more appropriate, as we are no longer just debating the article on languages in Angola. I find your answer very interesting, although there are points on which I disagree. Let us proceed step by step. (a) Unfortunately, I do not yet have your book, and thus don't know the historiography it presents. However, I have had a look at the site of your association, and I suppose that the section on the origin of the Mbunda reflects in substance what is said in the book. (b) Once again: oral history is very important, but it is just one kind of source. Like any other source, it has to be cross-checked using other sources. One outstanding authority on this, when it comes to Africa, is the renowned Congolese historian Elikia M'Bokolo, at present chairman of the international committee (appointed in common by UNESCO and the African Union) which is in charge of revising the ten (or twelve?) volumes of the General History of Africa, published by UNESCO. He is the author of a two-volume synthesis of the history of Africa, first published in French and then translated into Portuguese (by a man from São Tomé e Príncipe): África Negra: História e civilizações(Lisbon 2003). (c) This means, of course, that the oral narratives (accounts of events) on Mbunda history have also to be corroborated by other sources (e.g. by the historical narratives of peoples that have been in contact with the Mbunda). (c) If, for the sake of our debate, we accept that the way your oral sources describe Mbunda history reflects the actual facts, then we have a problem with the present Mbunda group in the DR Congo, as their language falls into quite a category which is quite different from the one yours falls into, and I simply cannot believe that you have spoken to someone from this specific group, and understood him. (d) If you know the source I quoted, "ethnologue.com", then you are aware that this is a deadly serious source, based on solid, painstaking research by a good many honest and serious people who have been in close contact with the people whose language they have analyzed and classified. I am myself not a linguist, but have some training in linguistics, and have thus a reasonable basis for understanding and assessing the hard efforts which were necessary to put reliable findings together. Conclusion: this is not one of the sources you can dismiss with a gesture of your hand! (e) There is, of course, one possibility to reconcile your historical narrative on the Mbunda and the fact that the group living far away in the DC Congo is speaking an entirely different kind of language: we can assume, by hypothesis, that this group, which is relatively small, has over time adopted a kind of language falling into the same category than those of their neighbours. This is a type of process which has happened frequently, in all parts of the world. But in our case we would have to look for some sort of empirical proof of the hypothesis. (f) The examples you are giving of different ways of speaking (your) Mbunda are not helpful in this context. Most languages in the world are spoken differently in different regions and/or by different population groups. In Europe, you will find this in the UK, but even more clearly in countries like Italy, Germany or Spain. But there, like in your case, we are seeing variant forms of the same language - and not languages falling into different classification categories. -- Well, it is a bit tiring to discuss these things in writing, running all the time the risk of misunderstandings. But I hope it is worth the effort, and that we shall get somewhere. -- Aflis (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I equally find your arguement above interesting. 1) You describe "ethnologue.com", as "a deadly serious source, based on solid, painstaking research by a good many honest and serious people who have been in close contact with the people whose language they have analyzed and classified". I seriously doubt that. Remember even the great Dawn theory of "Evolution" is proving to be a fraud, and many more. Let me qualify my arguement: a) The maps shown by this source at ref 18 for Mbunda Angola, ref 10 for Luchazi Angola and ref 21 for Mbunda Zambia, are not official maps adopted by authorities both in Angola and Zambia. In Zambia Mbundas are a majority in five districts of Western Province namely; Kalabo, Senanga, Mongu, Kaoma and Lukulu, well accross and beyond Zambezi river in the interior. However, "enthnologue.com" shows Zambia Mbunda to be found before crossing Zambezi river into the interior of Western Province. b) The map shown on ref 10 for Angola, Luchazi almost surrounds Mbunda. The official Angola map shows Mbunda location as between Lunguevungu river to the north and Kuando Kuvango to the south and close to Bie to the west http://www.google.co.zm/imgres?imgurl=http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/cultura/imagens/Mbunda_bom.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/cultura/linguas/l_mbunda.html&usg=__Oig4r5uGOxBXWTy083od_JpRXg8=&h=201&w=200&sz=6&hl=en&start=43&zoom=1&tbnid=Cf2rpBe7cMnEKM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=103&ei=2BJqUKioMoXPsgaxoIGoDw&um=1&itbs=1, why the contradictions? c) The source also shows so called detailed data on almost all ethnic groups, but, you and me we agreed earlier that most southeast ethnic groups of Angola history is not researched apart from Lunda and Chokwe, how can they conclude that the Mbunda of Congo DRC are not the same as Mbunda of Angola and Zambia? 2) It could be true that; "Like any other source, it has to be cross-checked using other sources. One outstanding authority on this, when it comes to Africa, is the renowned Congolese historian Elikia M'Bokolo, at present chairman of the international committee (appointed in common by UNESCO and the African Union) which is in charge of revising the ten (or twelve?) volumes of the General History of Africa, published by UNESCO". Let me bring it to your attention that, UNESCO, the Zambian Government and Luvales were almost embarassed in Zambia over the Makishi Masquerade project, after declaring Makishi as "Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity". On the project which was to follow, to preserve this masterpiece, UNESCO with the information they got from the Luvales because of Likumbi Lya Mize Ceremony, contended that; "Mukanda-Makishi is celebrated by Vakachinyama Cha Mukwamayi, which includes the Luvale, Mbunda, Chokwe and Luchazi". This statement was proved wrong after meetings of the four ethnic groups with the Zambian Government and UNESCO, because they don't all belong to Chinyama Cha Mukwamayi. Chinyama Cha Mukwamayi is the Luvale Chieftainship. Chief Chinyama led a group of Lundas from Mwaciyamvwa in KOLA to Angola, where they came to be called Luvales. The other three are distinct enthinc groups as you know them. Because of this challenge the project was abandoned and UNESCO has not retracted that statement todate. Please refer; http://www.google.co.zm/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unesco.org/culture/intangible-heritage/images/42/photo2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.unesco.org/culture/intangible-heritage/42afr_uk.htm&usg=__r745cQmHxON1gw1AbNaj62o_mPI=&h=200&w=195&sz=32&hl=en&start=254&zoom=1&tbnid=NacX3fDUTqedCM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=101&ei=JBJqUP2HDYTEtAbQ1oHQBQ&um=1&itbs=1 and http://www.chekechambunda.org/safeguarding.htm. The underlined sections on the last reference were corrected resolutions of the meeting. So when you say "who have been in close contact with the people whose language they have analyzed and classified". I can only say in the world money speaks. That is why I drew interest in coversing with you, so that Wikipedia gets authentic by contact with the ethnic groups appering on its documents. For instance the tribal map appearing on Wikipedia, classifying southeast Angola as Ngangela is quetionable and not even debatable. It doen't depict the official position. Remember my earlier question: Who is to check the Mbunda history, if not the Mbunda themselves? This is the reason we are exposing the Mbunda history and sharing it with the world, so that those that feel they are masters of history can challenge us, if they know it otherwise.Libingi (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Aflis Please note that I have sent an email to the Editor_Enthnologue@sil.org as below. I will get you posted when I will get the response.

Dear Sir,

Reference is hereby made to your http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mck and http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=zmp where it appears that Mbunda of Congo DRC is not the Mbunda of Angola and Zambia, and therefore classified in different codes of code=mck and code=zmp respectively. However, our research contained in History and Cultural Life of The Mbunda Speaking People, published by Cheke Cultural Writers Association 1994, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association and widely referred to by researchers gives evidence that this is one and same group. This is an indigenous Mbunda Writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola. This book was Published under the auspices of The Zambia Journal of History, University of Zambia, ISBN: 998203006X and Edited by Robert Papstein, Central African Oral History Project.

In this book the research clearly shows and now revised as; http://www.chekechambunda.org/Mbunda%20Origin.htm. This therefore indicates that: Bandundu being at a confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers in Congo DRC, the Mbunda history above, clearly shows that Mbundas settled at the confluence of Kwilu and Kasai rivers during their migration from KOLA, under their fourth Monarch, King Nkonde, and this was in the 1500s. Obviously Mbunda language spoken there now is not the same as the one spoken in Angola, Namibia and Zambia, due to passage of time and interaction with other languages. For your information even the Mbunda spoken in Zambia and the one spoken in Angola and Namibia, is not the same. The Mbunda spoken in Zambia has a strong upper teeth lower contact with the tongue, to pronounce words like: Mundthzindthzime (shandow), chithzalo (dress), Kuthsa (death) and many more. Mbunda spoken in Angola and Namibia is lazy, spoken through teeth like Luchazi. They pronounce above words as: Mutzitzime (shadow), chizalo (cloth), Kutsa (death), and yet the time period factor is only from 1795 of the first Mbunda migration from Angola. It is yet interesting to note that even within Zambia, the Mbunda spoken by the 1795 migration group of Chief Chiyengele is different from the Mbunda migration group of the Mbunda/Portuguese war of 1914. That is why the Chiyengele group, mainly found in Mongu are nicknamed "Mbunda Shamuka", literally diluted if you like. The same can be attributed to the Mbunda spoken in Namibia.

Therefore, coding the Mbunda of DRC Congo and those of Angola and Zambia and identifying them as different, without taking into consideration the migration of Mbunda ethnic group from Kola could be erroneous. What is significant is that all these groups in Angola, Congo DRC, Namibia and Zambia do not need an interpreter when conversing to each other.

"There is still much to be learned concerning the languages of the world and the search for better knowledge goes on". This is your statement, and It is therefore gratifying to note that you are open to get others' views. It is therefore within this principle that we request you to verify our submissions as corrections.

The first time I looked at your maps showing the locations of language homelands, I asked myself, "What in the world is this?" a) The maps shown at ref 18 for Mbunda Angola, ref 10 for Luchazi Angola and ref 21 for Mbunda Zambia, are not official maps adopted by authorities both in Angola and Zambia. In Zambia Mbundas are a majority in five districts of Western Province namely; Kalabo, Senanga, Mongu, Kaoma and Lukulu, well across and beyond Zambezi river in the interior. However, "enthnologue.com" shows Zambia Mbunda to be found before crossing Zambezi river into the interior of Western Province. b) The map shown on ref 10 for Angola, Luchazi almost surrounds Mbunda. The official Angola map shows Mbunda location as between Lunguevungu river to the north and Kuando Kuvango to the south and close to Bie to the west http://www.google.co.zm/imgres?imgurl=http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/cultura/imagens/Mbunda_bom.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.embaixadadeangola.org/cultura/linguas/l_mbunda.html&usg=__Oig4r5uGOxBXWTy083od_JpRXg8=&h=201&w=200&sz=6&hl=en&start=43&zoom=1&tbnid=Cf2rpBe7cMnEKM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=103&ei=2BJqUKioMoXPsgaxoIGoDw&um=1&itbs=1, why the contradictions? However, I was humbled by your other statement that "Most of the maps make use of polygons to show the approximate boundaries of the language groups. No claim is made for precision in the placement of these boundaries, which in many instances overlap with those of other languages".

With your openness above, we are convinced the Mbunda misconceptions will be corrected. We believe History is stories or narrations given by forefathers down the line. Research therefore is a collection of these stories and authenticating them. The unfortunate part of our (Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. Despite the wars our History is still there for those who genuinely seek it from those who genuinely possess it. The onus is on ourselves to research and tell the world about ourselves. We should unshackle the syndrome of accepting and legitimizing anything given and seen through the eyes of foreigners as "our history". We are the only ones better placed to write about ourselves. Foreigners will distort our history to serve their own endeavors as has been the case with the Portuguese. Imagine a Chokwe writing Mbunda history; it will be a complete distortion and misrepresentation of facts as passed on to us from our ancestors. Of course subjectivity is an issue. But it is subjectivity that makes history dynamic that one source is not regarded as a complete and absolute authority. Therefore history is there to be researched. Rich narratives still exists in many forms among our people despite the traumatic turmoil and displacements. The research, publication and cultural preservation efforts done by the Cheke cha Mbunda is highly commendable and significant to our cultural identity. The challenge on us whether we see ourselves as Mbunda or Nyemba or Ngangela is to emancipate ourselves from the colonial mindset of seeing ourselves as different to each other and rise up and complement the efforts of Cheke cha Mbunda by adding new narratives to the rich repository of our history it has given us".

Mbunda was removed from the list in 1990s, after the Mbunda representative Prince Katuya Kanyenge retired from Instituto de Línguas Nacionais (the Institute of National Languages) and remained vacant until the so called Ngangela representative was put there, and that saw the start of Mbunda replacement.

Ndandula Libingi National Chairman Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association Libingi (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Libingi: Only today am I having another look at this page. Again, while agreeing with parts of what you write, I consider others as frankly unsustainable. As sorting this out in detail would take quite some time, I am not sure when I shall be able to do it. In any case, it is a good thing you wrote to ethnologue.com, although a shorter message focusing on language would have been more functional. In the meantime, let me draw your attention to the article on Mbunda language where a user - whom I know to be a linguist - has eliminated the whole text not referred to language. As a consequence, only one line of text plus the template have survived. I wonder whether you yourself, or somebody you know, can add some more information (on language, not people). -- Aflis (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I was equally surprised to find all information on Mbunda had gone, leaving only one line. I will replace the information tonight. It is good to see that you have started to put the information correctly on Languauges of Angola, with the adjustment that: "After independence, the government chose six Bantu languages to be developed as national languages. These are Umbundu, Kimbundu, Kikongo, Tuchokwe, Ukwanyama (Oshiwambo, and Mbunda, the last later changed to Ngangela. Umbundu is the most populous Bantu language, spoken natively by about a quarter of the population. Kimbundu is spoken around the capital Luanda. Kikongo is spoken in the north, including the exclave of Cabinda". It is within our right now to challenge the Angolan Government, as to why that was allowed, and continue subjugating Mbunda with the divide and rule tool of Ngangela, invented by the Portuguese colonialists. As indicated earlier, the unfortunate part of our (Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. When you will get our history book, you will see that a lot of information on the Mbunda has been suppressed. However, I conquer with http://www.bantu-languages.com/fr/zonek.html it shows clearly that; Yauma, Nkangala, Mbalango, Ndundu, Sango and Mashaka langueges of Angola are all dialects of Mbunda language. That is in agreement with our research in the Mbunda History Book. Even the language map they show is acceptable to a larger extent.Libingi (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

warning

Please don't edit war over the articles. Discuss them on the talk page, and follow the consensus there, per "BOLD". There are four problems with what you are adding: (1) it appears to be plagiarism/copyright violation, (2) it is cut and pasted so that it makes little sense, (3) the classification is incorrect ("Mbunda languages" excludes Chokwe, yet Chokwe is a member of the branch of Bantu that includes Mbunda), and (4) extensive ethnographic info belongs in an article on the people, not in the language article. Feel free to expand the article with *linguistic* information, but repeatedly restoring your edits will eventually get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@kwami (talk) Thanks for your information. However we have discussed these issues extensively with Aflis (talk). There is nothing like plagiarism here, who stops me from cuttting and pasting my own works and the works of the Association I lead? Logon to Bantu-Languages.com you prove the fact which agrees with our research. Research contained in the "History and Cultural Life of The Mbunda Speaking People", published by Cheke Cultural Writers Association 1994, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association of which I am the National Chairman, and widely referred to by researchers gives evidence that thise languages are branches or dialects of Mbunda Language. This is an indigenous Mbunda Writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola. This book was Published under the auspices of The Zambia Journal of History, University of Zambia, ISBN: 998203006X and Edited by Robert Papstein, Central African Oral History Project. The unfortunate part of our (Mbunda) history is that it has been decimated by the Wars in Angola and a deliberate Colonialist policy of divide and rule. Despite the wars our History is still there for those who genuinely seek it from those who genuinely possess it. The onus is on ourselves to research and tell the world about ourselves. We should unshackle the syndrome of accepting and legitimizing anything given and seen through the eyes of foreigners as "our history". We are the only ones better placed to write about ourselves. Foreigners will distort our history to serve their own endeavors as has been the case with the Portuguese. Imagine a Chokwe writing Mbunda history; it will be a complete distortion and misrepresentation of facts as passed on to us from our ancestors. Of course subjectivity is an issue. But it is subjectivity that makes history dynamic that one source is not regarded as a complete and absolute authority. Therefore history is there to be researched. Rich narratives still exists in many forms among our people despite the traumatic turmoil and displacements. The research, publication and cultural preservation efforts done by the Cheke cha Mbunda is highly commendable and significant to our cultural identity. The challenge on us whether we see ourselves as Mbunda or Nyemba or Ngangela is to emancipate ourselves from the colonial mindset of seeing ourselves as different to each other and rise up and complement the efforts of Cheke cha Mbunda by adding new narratives to the rich repository of our history it has given us". Yes Chokwe is a Bantu group like a Mbunda Group, but Mbunda has never been under Chokwe or Luchazi. In fact when you reflect on the same Mbunda History Book research, Luchazi is a Mbunda descendant group. I don't know what goes on at Wikipedia, it is amazing that anybody can delete anyone's contribution at will or threaten to block. If this is a closed group, please do not allow free editing. Look at your understanding of Ngangela, it is different from our research. Let us be open and let the owners help you.Libingi (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. I understand your background, now, so I'm no longer worried about copyright violations.

Another problem is that you are duplicating articles. This is called a content fork, and such duplicates are routinely deleted. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mbunda language

@Libingi: In order to avoid problems, I copy-edited the whole article, giving it a wording & structure in line with the nature of an encyclopedia (which you apparently have not yet fully understood!). I have maintained a short summary of the historical trajectory of the Mbunda - just the information necessary for understanding the information on the language. This information (text & template together) is for the time being satisfactory, so that I have deleted the classification of the article as a stub. However, what is still lacking, and what I am not capable of furnishing, is a modicum of linguistic information as you find it in articles on other languages (e.g. Khoekhoe language).

NB: From what you write above, I see that you have a wrong understanding of what a linguistic classification category is. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with (economic, social, political or other) relations between peoples. It simply says that a given set of languages has a number of fundamental characteristics in common: the grammatical structure and/or (parts of) the vocabulary (Lexical structure) and/or the sounds (Phonemes) used. Thus French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian are the main languages in the category Romance languages, as German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic (as well as Old English) are in the category Germanic languages, or Russian, Ucranian, Serbian and Bulgarian in the category Slavic languages. -- Aflis (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, to me the article looks reasonably balanced. However, the Mbunda coding as a subgroup of Chokwe-Luchazi is erroneous. On 11 November 2011, @Kwamikagami edited it to "Chokwe-Luchazi. At Chokwe–Luchazi, it clearly shows that "With the exception of Chokwe, the Angolan government refers to these languages as Mbunda or Ngangela". Why then, not edting it as Chokwe-Mbunda or simply Mbunda, since "Nganguela" is one of these ethnographical classification categories invented during colonial times (in a series of African countries) which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity?". Or is it still "a wrong understanding of what a linguistic classification category is, as to do with (economic, social, political or other) relations between peoples"!

I also responded on your [Mongu] editing. Libingi (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Two remarks: (a)The names of the classification categories are given by the international reference sources and cannot be changed at will. (b) You should not have commented in the text of the article on Mongu, but on the talk page of that article. I have now had to eliminate your remark, integrating its substance into the text. -- Aflis (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep making mistakes on the use of Wikipedia editing. However, integrating its substance into the text looks better. Libingi (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mbunda people

@Libingi: Rather more important than an article on Mbunda language would be an article on the Mbunda people. There is e.g. an article on Umbundu, but the article on the Umbundu speakers. i.e. the Ovimbundu, is far more important. What about your writing such an article? I would be ready to help giving it the "encyclopedic touch". -- Aflis (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

When I noticed your having edited the Mbunda, I clicked on "Ethinicity: Mbunda people" to create a an article, but I could not save because it was blocked as scam. This, I guess must have been as a result of kwami (talk) "warning". Is there any other way of writing such an article? Libingi (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the above, kwami (talk) has given me a link to start creating the article. Libingi (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It should have worked the first time. It's the same link. I have no idea why it wouldn't, but it has nothing to do with me. — kwami (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a slight complication: I just rediscovered that there is an article Bunda people which is exclusively on the Mbunda who remained in the DR Congo. Maybe it is best to maintain this article for the time being, write the article on the Mbunda as a whole, and decide then whether the two articles should be merged, or then maintained as separate but interlinked pieces. -- Aflis (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Our research is being vindicated. In Angola, the Lumbala Nguimbo district where the Mbunda Monarch, King Mbandu III Lifuti resides, in Portuguese is called "Municipio dos Bundas". Libingi (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@Aflis (talk) and kwami (talk), I think I am getting fed up with the inconsistences of Wikipedia policy espcially translated by gwickwire | [[User_talk:gwickwire|. How can I be stopped from editing my own works and the research works of the Association I lead and stand for? I might not continue on this programme. Who qualifies for "except in very strict circumstances"? Such answers by gwickwire | [[User_talk:gwickwire| ":Look, I have nothing against you or what you are trying to do. We just cannot allow you to post copyrighted information. Rewrite it in your own words (again I guess). Also, post new messages at the bottom of a user's talk page (not just mine, anyone's). Thanks" are not upbuilding. I may have to ask you to delete all my contributions and reverse all the adjustments you have done thereafter. Libingi (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate it if our conversations stayed between us (as much as is possible). Secondly, whoever told you it's okay to add copyrighted material is okay to post here is wrong. I referenced multiple policies that tell you they are wrong. Lastly, we cannot remove your contributions. When you click save, you are agreeing to

  By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use,
  and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.
  You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

So please do not say that you are going to quit and all of the other stuff just because you are upset about a policy. There are many workarounds, many of which could have been completed by now had you put your effort toward them instead of arguing with me and others. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am impowered by our Association and the Mbunda Monarch, on the Throne to do this, and this is a collective research material, why should you want me to put it in my own words? I thought I was dealing with a respective source! I repeat; Who qualifies for "except in very strict circumstances"? Libingi (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please look at WP:copyvio for information on how to let the Wikipedia community know that you own the copyright or otherwise have permission. However, we here very rarely (I personally cannot think of any times at all) allow material that isn't lisenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL. It doesn't matter who you are "impowered" by, if it is copyrighted then you cannot use the text here. It can still be used as a source possibly though. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am out of here, go ahead and delete it. The research is not worth it to you. I have wasted a lot of my valuable time, for such answers. Libingi (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@Libingi: I am back from the travel I announced and expect that, in a week or so, I shall find the time & leisure to set to work on the draft text of this article. -- Aflis (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Welcome back. I have been so lonely at Wikipedia editing. I am really looking forward to your input. Thanks for keeping in touch. Libingi (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been held up by health problems which don't seem to be overly serious, but still consume time and energy. My commitment to writing the article still stands. NB: I would of course prefer to start writing after having seen the book edited by Papstein. -- Aflis (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mbunda people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mbunda people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Response

We here at Wikipedia do not allow copyrighted material no matter who the copyright is under, except in very strict circumstances. This includes copy-pasting your own copyrighted words from another website which has an incompatible copyright with Wikipedia. Please see WP:copyvio for more information. Thanks gwickwire | Leave a message 23:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have nothing against you or what you are trying to do. We just cannot allow you to post copyrighted information. Rewrite it in your own words (again I guess). Also, post new messages at the bottom of a user's talk page (not just mine, anyone's). Thanks gwickwire | Leave a message 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be inconsistances in the Wikipedia policy. How can others allow and request me to create the page, and then somebody else stops me from copy pasting my own works? I have worked with Aflis (talk), to improve the Mbunda language page, and kwami (talk) commended that. Are you trying to make me believe that I am dealing with people that wants Mbunda to obliterated? Come on let us be fare. If you insist, this will be my last contribution. We will use another avenue to fight these misconceptions. I thought I was dealing with a respected source! Libingi (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Libingi: For heaven's sake, stop suspecting conspirations and evil will whenever a difficulty comes up! The problem here is that your mastery of Wikipedia is still limited, and that there are technical aspects as well as policy rules and legal implications you are not aware of. That is an awkward situation which I myself know only too well, because of my own learning process - which I started at the age of 80. The solution is not to put the responsibility for your own shortcomings on other people's shoulders, but to find your way by trial and error. As to the article on Mbunda people, user gwickwire is entirely right calling your attention to some basic rules of Wikipedia. The main conclusion is that you have to write a text that will, of course, draw on the same sources as your other writings, but which will have to be different in style - adopting the characteristics of an encyclopedia, as I explained before. That is why my recommendation was to have a look at articles on other ethnic groups (peoples) - not taking them as models to be followed in a strict way, but in order to better understand how these texts are written. One concrete suggestion: the book edited by Papstein is a much better reference than the text that appears on the webside of your association. A luta continua, as they say in Angola! Best -- Aflis (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please give credit where it is due. Though you keep referring to Robert Papstein as though he is a source, he was just an editor. The research was carried by Cheke Cultural Writers Association, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association, as I explained before. Please find the book and read it. The text in the book you are calling "a much better reference" is the same as the one appearing on the website of our Association. I think you don't understand my position, I have the manuscripts in soft copy form, and I am able to copy any part of the book and reproduce it. We hold the copyright previledges. Infact it is one of our goals to break it into smaller booklets by topics, for more Mbunda people to afford it. As I said earlier we are a source to reckon with because we have the original staff. May be the best he would have done is to request for copyright permission and not make me look like a fool and even insulting (my opions) saying "It doesn't matter who you are "impowered" by", by gwickwire | Leave a message. respect by good choice of words is very important. You don't know me and I don't konw you, so mutual respect is important in this case. Mbundas have been hate for a long time by misconcerptions and manipulations on these so called encyclopedias, drawing conclussions when no research has been done whatsoever. Libingi (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I knew that my expression "better reference" would lead to yet another misunderstanding. I don't at all doubt what you are saying about the book, but quite obviously I didn't make it clear what I meant by my expression. In fact, I meant two different things. (a) When supporting by a source something one writes, it is always better - on Wikipedia as elsewhere - to refer to a book instead of a website. The reason: the latter can always be deleted and/or its texts changed. (b) Any correct citation of an edited volume has to start by indicating the editor - followed by the title of the book, the place it was published, the institution or enterprise which did the publishing, the year and, if possible, the ISBN number. The copyright holder as such does not figure in the citation. - As to respect, I agree entirely. But that also includes that you respect the hard work that has gone into scholarly works and encyclopedias, and don't belittle it in the summary way you have repeatedly done. You have, of course, every right to point out concrete errors or shortcomings that may appear - under the condition that you accept that other people may also, in good faith, point out errors and shortcomings of yours. -- Aflis (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your reasoning it is indeed mature. let us pick it from there. I will try to do a write up which will be different from the website text. Thanks again for your understanding.Libingi (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok my friend: I shall look forward to your text, and be ready to play my role as "dikota", if necessary. -- Aflis (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have created the Mbunda people text with all references. Please check it before I am crucified again.Libingi (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at my comments below. In the meantime, I have transferred your text to a personal page of mine, user:Aflis/sandbox, where we can develop the article at will, transferring it to its proper page when it is ready. -- Aflis (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mbunda people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mbunda people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Libingi: when I returned to the computer, I discovered that you had started this article, and that the immediate reaction was the request for speedy deletion. I have immediately registered my disagreement, but the problem is that you have really used too many sentences from your website text, maintaining the same wording. If the deletion is held up, I shall set to work and give the article a form that is in line with the character of an encyclopedia, changing the wording of the information that is to be maintained. If the deletion is not held up, then I propose to create a testpage of yours where the article can be developed without interference - and once it is ready, it can be transferred to the proper page. -- Aflis (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, there is this option given; "If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials" I have inserted the permission on the webpages and I was about to send email to Wikipedia, notifying them. What are the implications? Do you recommend?Libingi (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen this option, but think it is of no interest in our case. In fact, the style and structure of the text on your website is almost the opposite of what is requested in any encyclopedia, Wikipedia or other. Meaning that transferring this text, or even major parts of it, literally to the article is exactly what we do not want to do. The article has to be written afresh, in a different style and structure, backed up by the references you have listed. Here is my proposal: let me try and streamline the text which is now on user:Aflis/sandbox; then you check the outcome, indicating aspects you are not satisfied with; the final product is then transferred to the proper page of the article. Agreed? -- Aflis (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. Please proceed. Libingi (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can issue permission from the originating website, and that will solve the immediate problem. However, you would still run the risk of the material being purged because the style is not encyclopedic and is not adequately referenced. We have many articles that read like blogs or personal web pages, and over the long term they do not fare well. This is good and bad: many of them are based on well-researched material that is not readily available in publications, and the author provides a valuable service by making them available on WP. However, most of them are written by crackpots pushing fringe theories and various kinds of nationalistic claptrap, with the consequence that all articles like this fall under immediate suspicion. What Aflis is recommending will result in a stable and respected article. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kwami (talk), I am totally convinced, Aflis (talk)'s is the only way to proceed. This research is really missing on Angola history and the rest of Central and Eastern African, thereby rendering Mbunda as a minor ethnic group. Your advice is welcome. Libingi (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your "Confidence vote". Unfortunately, "real life" is now interfering in this: I shall be travelling for about two weeks, starting Saturday, and until then I shall be taken by preparations. As a consequence, I may be able to begin the revision job this week, but will have to finish it after my return! -- Aflis (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is the pattern of life. I will wait, I am really eager to see the conclussion of this. You are indeed inspiring. Libingi (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mbunda people

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mbunda people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Libingi: I simply don't understand you! Now you have for the third time created this article with the same text, despite earlier explanations by several people (including me) that this text is not acceptable in an encyclopedia and will be speedily delated! And hadn't we agreed (among the two of us plus Kwamikagami) that I should, first of all, streamline that text on my "Sandbox" page; that you would then, on that same page, check my text in order to see whether you agree; and that after that the streamlined text would be transferred to the article page? Why then don't you keep to what has been agreed? Is this your idea of working together? Look, at my age - I'm 82 by now - I am still perfectly ready to work together with people whose interests I share, but only if clear rules are agreed upon - and kept to. -- Aflis (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Aflis (talk) it is the process of learning. I just wanted to try for the last time. I thought I got it this time! However, I have no choice now but to wait for your help. Libingi (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aflis (talk) Here are some citations that make us believe that Mbunda people were Bantu from Sudan, through Congo DRC to Angola, Zambia and Namibia, which might be useful in the Mbunda people article: References: 1). It seems that these groups can be traces back to a distinct population of Early Bantu speakers who immigrated into the area some time during the first millenium A.D. from a northerly direction . 2). Although the history of Bantu migration is still the subject of a longstanding debate, linguists and archaeologists now seem to agree that grain cultivattion was invented somewhere in the Central Sudan zone and transported to South Central Africa by Bantu speakers through the Savannahs east of the equatorial rain forest during the first half of the first millenium A.D. . 3). Linguistic analysis has shown however that the area around the Upper Zambezi and Kasai (Bantu Zone K, according to Guthrie's Classification) was apparently one in which East/Central Bantu influences intermingled with others eminating from Western Stream. . 4). According to lexicostatistical analysis, Papstein assumes a linguistic origin of these Mbwela populations (in the wider sence) from an early Proto-West Savannah Bantu language from which a Congo Watershed idion (c. 100 A.D.) developed, that gradually gradually differentiated into presentday Nuclear and Southern Lunda (until c. 500) and a variety of Lwena languages, namely Luvale, Luchazi and Mbunda as well as Chokwe (c. 500-1000). Subsquently only minor dialectal variations developed .

Therefore the earlier arguements advanced that: It's more than oral narrative. You couldn't locate a place in Sudan from oral narratives in Angola. Rather, the author presumably took oral narratives and reinterpreted them based on his own understanding of history, which means that we're not even crediting oral history, but relying on the quality of his personal education. How reliable oral history is a matter of debate (some seems to be remarkably accurate, but how far back can you go?), but you end up with all sorts of nonsense when you start reinterpreting it based on what you want to be true: Did you know that there are Ewe inscriptions on the pyramids? etc. There are hundreds of ridiculous claims like that, which is why it's important to stick to RSs. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC) and The references were not WP:Reliable sources. In particular, chekechambunda.org says that the Bantu languages come from Sudan, which is nonsense. If they are wrong about that, they are likely to be wrong about other things. There were also unencyclopedic statements such as the "Mbunda language is lazy". The preceding sentence apparently meant that Zambian Mbunda has the sound /θ/, but we'd need a reference to be sure. (As it was stated, it didn't make much sense.) — kwami (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC) These arguements should be dismissed. Libingi (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Aflis (talk). I should be shipping the History and Cultural Life of the Mbunda Speaking People book either this week or next week. Wishing you quick recovery. Libingi (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback - gwickwire

Hello, Libingi. You have new messages at Gwickwire's talk page.
Message added 21:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

gwickwire | Leave a message 21:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Mashaka dialect

Hello, Libingi,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Mashaka dialect should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashaka dialect .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still learning to understand what Wikipedia really is and what it stands for. However, SarahStierch (talk) is dealing with technicalities here, without giving references to what she knowns about Mashaka dialect, whereas the article even gives the ampirical evidence of the chornology of this dialect, perhaps I would have answered based on what she knows. Understood, Wikipedia does not deal with original research, but how do you deal with southeast Angola languages which are under-researched apart from Chokwe and Lunda, without original research? I believe , is a reliable source, with copies of this book found in at least two Universities in UK. This type of contest, is what has brought about promotion of Ngangela whis is nothing but "one of the ethnographic classification categories invented during colonial times in a series of African countries which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity", at the expence of Mbunda language which is the original group . Therefore I cannot answer based on your technicalities, I hope someone who understands them will pick it from here. Libingi (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at Articles for deletion/Mashaka dialect

Hello, Libingi. I have refactored your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashaka dialect, moving them below the comment by User:gwickwire. The usual practice is to add new comments to the bottom of a section or page. I also wanted to keep your comments next to the associated references. Articles for deletion discussions do not typically feature reference sections. I did not otherwise change the content of your comments. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

These comments were earlier than the comments by User:gwickwire, I guess someone must have deleted them. Thanks anyway.Libingi (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edited volume

@Libingi: my efforts to get hold of a copy of the volume edited by Robert Papstein have been unsuccessful. Earlier you wrote that maybe you could be of help in this: what were you thinking of? NB: For the time being, I am staying in Lisbon. -- Aflis (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Aflis (talk) Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association are the custodians of this volume. We stock and sell these books. We have a shop on our website, those interested can therefore make an order and send to chekechambunda@yahoo.com, as the first option is down temporarily, and the book will be shipped to their addresses. However, the first edition is out of stock, we are about to reprint the revised one in English which will be up to the restoration of the 23rd Mbunda Monarch on the throne currently, since the abduction of the 21st Mbunda Monarch by the Portuguese colonialists in 1914. The revised volume is also already translated into Portuguese language in Angola, ready for printing. If you cannot wait, I will get you the first edition from one of our members who has more than one copy and send it to you as a complement, if you send me your details. The volume currently in stock is the 2011 revised version in Mbunda language. Libingi (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If indeed you can get hold of a spare copy of the 1st edition, this would the best solution, because it would save time. I thus gratefully accept your offer, and propose you send the book to Centro de Estudos Africanos, Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisboa. I shall have it placed in the Biblioteca Central de Estudos Africanos where I can consult it easily. --Aflis (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to give this service to you. It has been our Association's dream to visit the Portuguese Museums and archives for any record or picture of Mwene Mbandu Kapova Lyothzi of Mbundaland in around 1914, or any name close to that. Will it be possible for you to do us this favour since you are there? Libingi (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for the book. As to Portuguese museums and archives, I confess that I am not well acquainted with them, but I shall ask a Portuguese colleague (who works on African history) to help me find my way. As soon as I have found anything relevant, I shall come back to you. --Aflis (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

@Libingi: This is just to let you know the copy of the book finally arrived. I have had a first look at it and am not quite sure how far it can be used for an encyclopedic article without further research (e.g. concerning chronological information). I think I shall start off with a rather small piece (on the Munda people), and we can then try and develop it. I am think of an initial format similiar to the one of the "Ovimbundu" article. -- Aflis (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Aflis (talk) Its good for me to know that you have received the book. I have had to open another account because I forgot my password of Libingi (talk) and therefore I cannot login. Unfortunately I do not seem to have given an email address for resetting the passwoed. I knew it would be difficult for you to use the book. Personally I feel it was not professionally done, with references given at the end and not pointing to any paragraph in the text body. However, your comparison to the summary at http://www.mbundakingdom.org/Mbunda%20Origin.htm which show research references in the text body might be helpful. Infact the revised 2013 edition we have now concluded is based on that principle. I will send you another copy once printed. I totally agree with your suggestion for an initial format similar to the "Ovimbundu" article, and we can then develop it. Remember how difficult it was with Mbunda language but ended up with a fairly acceptable contribution. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Libingi: unfortunately, the website indicated above does not work - i.e. my browsers tell me they cannot find it. Do you hapen to have an alternative adress for tat website? -- ~~

@Aflis (talk) Sorry a typo error, please try it again http://www.mbundakingdom.org/Mbunda%20Origin.htm. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mbandu Kapova Lyothzi

This is just a quick feedback. In the book by René Pélissier I have repeatedly referred to, and which is chiefly based on Portuguese primary sources, a "Muene Bando" (or "Bunda Bando") is repeatedly mentioned in the context of Mbunda armed resistence to Portuguese colonial occupation and taxation, especially in 1915/16. As the Portuguese in those times frequently misspelled African names, I suppose this is the "Mwene" you are looking for. One source (Horácio A.R. de Carvalho, "Terras do antigo Luati", Mensário administrativo, 20/21, 1948, p. 63) says this man was forcibly taken by the Portuguese to Benguela (in 1917?), but fled from there, and apparently the Portuguese then lost his trace. --Aflis (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The Portuguese sources cited by Pélissier also mention as local Mbunda chiefs (involved in the resistence to the Portuguese, and in part in the flight of Mbunda people into what today is Zambia) Cangombe, Chiputa, Jimbo and Chicunga. I don't know whether this is of interest to you. -- Aflis (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Spot on! This is the 21st Mbunda Monarch abducted by the Portuguese colonialists as referred to in the Mbunda History book I will be sending to you. How true, W. Martin James, 2011, Historical Dictionary of Angola Scarecrow Press, Inc wrote: "Writings on the early history of Angola were by the Portuguese or other non Angolan writers. The Portuguese wrote mainly from their perspective, paying scant attention to ethnic groups or historical events. Angolans have relied upon oral history passed from generation to generation. Consequently, very little of Angola's past has been written by Angolans. With the end of the Civil war, Angolan scholars will begin to explore all areas of their history". We will now include René Pélissier as a reference in the revised editions of the Mbunda History book. Thanks for the quick feedback. Libingi (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, when citing Pélissier, you may want to specify his section "La révolte des Bunda (1916-1917)", pp. 408 - 412 (French for "the Mbunda revolt"). The footnotes in this section indicate his sources. One of these is Luís Figueira, Princesa Negra: O preço da civilização em África, Coimbra: Edição do autor, 1932. -- Aflis (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Libingi (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)