Talk:Ubuntu philosophy/Archive 1

Archive 1

See-alsos

Hi,

I'm not sure if

See also

* Ecofeminism

* Social ecology

is adequate for the ubuntu article. Could someone explain how they relate?

You were right. I removed them. — mark ✎ 13:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Ubuntu is pronounced "oo-BOON-too".

Could someone from Africa check if the following is a faithful description of the real pronunciation? IPA: /uˈbuːntu/ KJ 13:01, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Probably isn't, since the Xhosa language uses tones. Any help with tones will help too. KJ 13:01, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Yes it is, except for the fact that the middle /u/ normally isn't long (so /uˈbuntu/ is better). If spoken slowly, in most Bantu languages it would be syllabified like this: /u.bu.ⁿtu/ (with a prenasalized t in the last syllable), whereas most English speakers will syllabify it like /u.bun.tu/. Normally you won't hear a difference between the two because prenasalization is heard most clearly in initial position.

I'm not sure of the tone pattern. Wilken (1993) might have something, I'll be able to check that tomorrow. But since the word is heavily used in other contexts (including non-tonal languages), /uˈbuntu/ is a very good start.

Thanks BTW for adding the IPA pronounciation, I don't like those 'English-only' approximations at all. — mark ✎ 13:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow up. Wilken (1993) doesn't mark tone, which is bad for a book titled "Understanding everyday Xhosa". Anyway, like I said above, the toneless transcription is OK because it's used in a lot of non-tonal contexts. — mark ✎ 10:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did a search for "bantu ubuntu -linux" on the web. The results seem to imply that ubuntu is common to a lot of Bantu people, not just speakers of Zulu or Xhosa. I guess that makes a non-tonal representation OK, since some Bantu languages aren't tonal.

Hm, I found the real tone pattern in a paper of Katherine Demuth, it's /ubuntu/ (Low-High-High) in Zulu and Xhosa. Incidentally, only a few Bantu languages aren't tonal (Swahili being a major example); almost all have a two level tone system. — mark ✎ 12:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Real Origins?

Is it really from Zulu and Xhosa? This is just a hypothesis, but couldn't it be from a primordial Bantu language?

In a sense, it is indeed. /ntu/ surely is a common Bantu root and is also reconstructed as protoBantu. But the 'ubu' part betrays the Zulu/Xhosa origin of this particular form; ubu- is the class 14 noun class prefix in the Nguni languages. — mark ✎ 09:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should add that the Nguni languages are not the only languages where the class 14 prefix is ubu-. Bemba, for one, is another example. — mark ✎ 09:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am tempted misuse the comparative method and then to underline the southamerican word "maraBUNTA", which as it is known referes to a big collection of collaborative annimals, even if modern Brasilians prefer to short it to "Mara" when refereing to gangs of persons grouped to steal in the beaches. Of course latin (and english) ABUNDancy is also about collective objects. But a successful comparision with a native southamerican word should imply Ice Age antiquity for such word Arivero 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Hmm I read that marabunta appears also (first?) as a Creole word, so no Ice Age, just AfroCaribbean slang? Ah, the dangers of comparativism! (Arivero 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

That would be indeed misusing the comparative method, no less and no more. — mark ✎ 13:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Church youth groups

Which church? --84.42.165.49 11:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, deleted the paragraph. When reverting, please be more specific (what church, where). Thanks. --80.250.2.193 12:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I could never quite work out what it was doing there and what it referred to. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Linux

The history of this article is quite amusing to look at. I've added some inline comments to the article so that anyone editing it with the intention of talking about the Linux distribution of the same name will hopefully be directed to the article that actually discusses Ubuntu Linux. There were a few links pointing here that I've also disambiguated to try and cut down on the number of people coming here and thinking: "How strange! It doesn't say anything about Linux!" (By the way, I've used Ubuntu Linux and been impressed, but what is it with its advocates that makes them unable to read disambiguation links?) — Trilobite (Talk) 12:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, I don't normally edit these pages, but I'm quite sure that while a number of people will want either the Linux Distro, or the Africian philosophical content, absolutely no one wants to see a freaking discussion of wheather we should be talking about one or the other! For gods sake, write something pertinent! Could't you link to both at the top of the page? Please produce something relevent, please! This is just a bit sad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.168.219 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 January 2006

Move the f-ing page! Nobody cares about the stupid word, everyone wants the real Ubuntu here which is 100x more famous than the word. ubuntu-less-ly Eric B. and Rakim 29 June 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Yeah! So very true! Along the same lines, we should give the highly relevant information on a fictional Star Wars race a prominent place at Yaka instead of some boringly real ethnic group from the inlands of Africa. Who wants to know about real people anyway, these days? In fact, who is so stupid as to think that we're writing for a global audience?? — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Interestingly they also tried to move Python programming language to Python recently, because, in their words "the real life snake just isn't interesting enough". I don't know whether to laugh or cry! — Trilobite (Talk) 29 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)

The name of the distro is "Ubuntu." It happens to be the same as a South African concept. The distribution happens to be much more well known than the concept. Therefore, a page move is warranted. It all comes down to what the user typing down "ubuntu" in the search box likely mean. The same applies to Python. Also please compare the amount of work/page lengths of the respective software articles and the snake/concept. Eric B. and Rakim 30 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Wow, you have some odd ideas. I'm not going to bother arguing with your propositions about page moves and relative importance, I just trust and hope that you're on the fringe here. Comparing article lengths in Wikipedia is a totally, totally, misguided way of judging the importance of a topic. In fact, I was just remarking to someone today that our article on Schindler's List is longer than our article on Oskar Schindler. By your logic the film is more important than the man! — Trilobite (Talk) 30 June 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Eric B. and Rakim, if you really think about notability and importance this way, I have the feeling that you're on the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a specialist or a geek encyclopedia; it is an encyclopedia with a global audience. Maybe you should check out the s23 wiki or the Linux wiki. In the meantime, be sure to read something more on Wikipedia. Our own article on Wikipedia is a good start. Wikipedia:Google test#Google bias might be relevant too, just like Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias. — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Yes! The *movie* Schindler's List is much more important than the person Oscar Schindler. Just like Ubuntu, the distro, is much more important than ubuntu, the concept it was named from. Mark, you are not understanding what the issue is about. It has nothing to do with policy nor NPOV - The content is exactly the same whether Ubuntu the distro gets the Ubuntu article name or not. What this issue is about is usability, making it simple and painless for people to use the website. Eric B. and Rakim 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia intended for a global audience. Among our current readership, there might just happen to be more people looking for Ubuntu Linux than people looking for the African concept, probably because there are more so-called geeks online. However, those people are aided by the disambiguation line at the top of the article and I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to provide them with their own tailor-made encyclopedia just because of their overwhelming online presence. — mark ✎ 1 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

What makes it so hard to put, at the very least, a link to the Ubuntu Linux distro? OR, would you rather start a disambuation page for Ubuntu and Python?!? That said, it wouldn't hurt to have Ubantu redirect to Ubuntu (linux or otherwise) as a mispelling... — Mike C (209.161.225.112) 15 Aug 2005 1:16 (UTC)

Wait... at the top of the article is a link to the Linux distro. Or if you mean an external link - I see no need to include an external link to a Linux distro in the article about the Bantu concept, when that Linux distro already has its own article. — mark ✎ 07:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if there ought be a sentence about at the bottom of the article explaining why Ubuntu is also the name of the Linux distribution (as has been added and been removed various times). To use an example mentioned already in this talk, Oskar Schindler's page has an in article link to Schindler's List explaining the connection. Looking around I see that Gentoo Penguin has a sentence at the bottom with a possible reasoning for the naming of Gentoo Linux (as well as a disambiguation link at the top). Ubuntu Linux is named Ubuntu not because it sounds cool or is some wacky acronym (as is the case with Python vs Python programming language and Wine vs Wine (software)) but because the the distribution attempts to "bring the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world" (ubuntulinux.org). The distribution associates itself with the ideology, which I think is why people continue to add an explanitory sentence. LadyPhi 18:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree, I've added a line about Ubuntu Linux to this article. I know it's possibly a little geek-centric, but I think it's important to mention what influence Ubuntu has had on other things. Ubuntu Linux claim to be bringing "the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world", and it influences their community "code of conduct". It could well be one of the main ways that people outside of Africa encounter the concept. — Matt Crypto 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Ubuntu page should be moved to Ubuntu (ideology) and replaced with a disambiguation page so that this silly edit war can stop. Eternalbeans 04:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has already done this now. But I'm thinking that maybe this article should have a "see also" to Ubuntu Linux, since the distribution made the concept known for a lot of people (those so-called geeks at least). PeepP 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia article should contain a link to Linux! jk, i was somewhat surprised that this article's introductory paragraph, consisting of four sentences, devotes one of those to the Ubuntu Linux operating system. I guess if Linux geeks wrote an encyclopedia and they had four sentences to write about the Ubuntu philosophy then would devote 25% to their own interests. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dialect

A statement was added to the article that Ubuntu is a Kirundi dialect. I don't think it is. Also, it doesn't really make sense since 'ubuntu', being a class 13 word, is not likely to be used as a name for a speech variety (for which class 7 words are usually used as can be seen from kirundi). — mark ✎ 21:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ubuntu is actually a word from Kinyarwanda / kirundi. Ubuntu means is used when an good action is made for humanity's sake.for example something given for free is called " ikintu cy' ubuntu" . in the real pronounciation the "t" shouldn't be heard....one should say "oobOOnhooh"

Religious?

I'm not sure that that emphasis on religiosity carries through into English. I'd agree that ubuntu is definitely a concept which is embraced by South African English-speakers, but in SA English it is, as the article says, mainly a sense of community, and love for our fellows, and compassion. But I don't think it has the religious connotations that it may have in Zulu or Xhosa (although translated it literally only means 'humanity/humaneness', ubu- being an equivalent of the English suffix -ness (ubuXhosa means Xhosa-ness, or 'the quality of being Xhosa') and -ntu meaning person). A really good article though, very happy I stumbled on it :) Joziboy 1 March 2006, 18:34 UTC

Ubuntu is emphatically not a concept embraced by South African English-speakers (I say so because I am one myself). I am planning to add a lengthy piece about philosophical criticisms of ubuntu, so if any proponents of it are interested in extending the article's description of the idea from a philosophical viewpoint, I suggest they get sandboxing.--Byrgenwulf 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict and slight re-structuring

I got caught in a edit conflict with User:Matt Crypto, who was removing the Clinton line, but after some thought went ahead with my version. Matt, my first reaction to the Clinton bit was the same as yours (So what if an American says Ubuntu?). But then I thought, well, this particular American and this particular context might be the early stages of the term gaining broader use. I've slightly restructured and added headings to accommodate this, but am in two minds about whether the headings chop the article up too much (tho they will become necessary if the promised "criticism of ubuntu" section is added). Whatever, please feel free to revert as much or as little of my edit as you like. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I do worry about asymmetry on the English Wikipedia; that things are held to be disproportionately important if they happen or are reported on in the US/UK etc. Often it seems that the mere mention of a non-West "thing" in any Western context — however minor — instantly qualifies it as noteworthy enough to add to the Wikipedia article (for example, nearly every other week someone adds a note to Zanzibar or Mombasa to say that some computer game has a level named after these places. Nobody ever adds such things to London or New York...) — Matt Crypto 12:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know. This is by no means the worst eg I've seen, either. And does it matter to this article if the term gains broader use? For comparison, do we record when a British concept gains currency in Japan? Maybe, maybe not: I s'pose it depends how big a movement it becomes. So yeah, by all means delete the Clinton-ism if you still feel it un-noteworthy. JackyR | Talk 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Language-specific content

I really don't think that adding the Chishona version of the phrase was such a fantastical idea. We could also add Sesotho "Motho ke motho ka batho" as well as "Botho". Such is the nature of the Kintu languages that 1. the words for "humanness" will sound similar (nothing "remarkable" about that), and 2. it doesn't take a great deal of willpower to construct the phrase "a person is a person by other people" after the fact even though this idiom never existed in the language (the philosophy is more universal than the phrase). The English name is specifically from isiZulu and isiXhosa, even if the philosophy itself is universal. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi bud. I'll shunt stuff around again, based on what you say here. I was trying to accommodate a clumsy addition without offending the contributor (no really, I am occasionally tactful!) I may have munged the contributor's point that the existence of a Chishona version as a common saying illustrates the widespread nature of the philosophy, rather than the phrase's origin. Back to the editing board.

Hope things well with you, btw. Sorry for radio silence. I go into hiding sometimes... JackyR | Talk 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)`

I guess it's better now, but it still seems rather clumsy-ish-like. Come to think of it, I wonder what influence Brenda Fassie's old hit single "Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" (back when she dabbled in what would today be considered Kwaito) had on popularising the phrase in South Africa. I was keen to hear Byrgenwulf's "philosophical criticisms" but it seems he got chased away by rabid cold-fusionists. His observation that it is "emphatically not a concept embraced by South African English-speakers" got me very curious indeed, but... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ujamaa

I've just stumbled on the Ujamaa article, and it seems like a very similar concept. The social aspect of it, if not the economic. Perhaps a link could be made? Joziboy 16:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a practitioner of the Fine Art of Baloney Detection (The Demon-Haunted World) I think that the similarity is more than just an incredible coincidence.

"A person is a person through other people", hey? Doesn't that strike you as a bit suspicious?

I guess it wouldn't hurt to put it in the "See also" section. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The tones

I changed the tonal markings on the pronunciation because, by my analysis, they were slightly wrong.

1. The root "-ntu" has a low tone
2. In "ubuntu" the first u (the pre-prefix) contributes a high tone and the prefix bu regularly has a low tone. So underlyingly the word is (HLL)
3. In isiZulu ROUGHLY SPEAKING high tones want to migrate (shift) to the antepenultimate syllable
4. However, this word is too short, and in this case the high tone will want to shift to the penultimate syllable instead

So the word ends up as (LHL) -- not (LHH). There's no reason I can think of that would cause the high tone to appear on the final syllable in this case. However, I'm sure that whomever it was that indicated the tones must have had a source and it is quite possible that I could be wrong.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See #Pronunciation section above, please. --Kjoonlee 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Kjooon. Yes, Katherine Demuth may have been the source for the original LHH pattern, but I'm afraid that I simply believe that she was wrong. Perhaps it was a printing error in that paper (Mark, perhaps you might like to send me the paper, if you have an electronic copy of it?).

This is not impossible to believe, but the fact that I can give you several examples of honest, minor errors made by her alone in various papers obviously does not prove my hypothesis.

I don't have a source, but I made my last change to the tones after reading a paper citing HHL for umuntu. Yes, the two words are not the same, but they have the same underlying patterns and are subjected to the same tonal rules, so they have identical surface patterns (this would not be true if depressor consonants were involved, but luckily they are not). Underlyingly, the root -ntu (Proto-Bantu *-jîntu) has ø (null) tone, the prefix -bu/mu- is also ø, and the pre-prefix -u- (harmonising with the prefixe's vowel) has a high tone. The tonal rules, which I briefly explained above, would effectively cause the high to spread to the second syllable -- it won't go to the final syllable, and it won't be delinked from the first syllable.

Another reason is that I live in South Africa and I've only ever heard the word pronounced like that. None of these facts are a direct quote or source but the circumstantial evidence suggests that Demuth simply made a mistake.

If you really wish I could quickly up to learn Optimal Domains Theory so I could give a scientific demonstration to show how the tonal pattern came about?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, WP:NOR. --Kjoonlee 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It is not original research, in the same way that if you were to change "an European" to "a European" in an article it would not be original research. This is something I and millions of South Africans are intimately aware of.

Apart from being scientifically incorrect (which I may conclusively prove to you, if you have faith in Science), the LHH pattern is not sourced. I'm quite sure that Mark did read about this in a Demuth paper, but there is simply no cited source. In the same way that I won't throw TLAs at you to dispute every word you might say about the Korean language, if you choose to simply not discuss this then I will leave this as is, and it will be yet another incorrect yet not easily debunkable piece of information in an African article, because I'm really not going to conduct hours of research and digging to prove something that's obvious to many people, and risk being answered with TLAs and non-sentences like an ignorant newbie.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, WP:V. --Kjoonlee 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proletarian internationalism

Is the link to Proletarian internationalism correct?

Is the subject related to this article?

I think no.

--Camahuetos 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think not as well - and the communism reference, too. I think there may be some confusion between the informal, communalist approach of ubuntu, and the explicitly socialist political philosophy of Ujamaa - none of which is anything altogether like European communism, in any case. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu philosophy and Ubuntu operating system

I just want to inform anyone interested of a discussion regarding article names, taking place at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.121.170 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Product placement

The Nelson Mandela video on the page has a Canonical (Ubuntu Linux) logo in it. Isn't that a little unfortunate? How would you react if I placed a video with a Microsoft logo in the article for Christianity? --77.75.161.35 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The video is distributed by the Ubuntu project as far as I know. If you can find a version without it, go ahead and add it. -Zeus- 02:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguing?

I'm not so sure about this section; specifically, if the word "arguing" is the best choice there.

The "Ubuntu" distribution of the Linux computer operating system is inspired by the concept, arguing that it "brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the operating system? http://www.ubuntu.com/

Where is the operating system? http://www.ubuntu.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedstocker (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here: Ubuntu (operating system) --SF007 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The page was moved without consensus -- or any discussion at all, that I can see -- a couple of days ago. Should the redirect now at Ubuntu point to the disambiguation page, or continue to point directly to the OS? I don't think it should point here, since most of the links to Ubuntu are pointing at the OS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fixing those. Ubuntu should in my opinion point to the philosophy. Can you say "cultural appropriation"? Yworo (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another survey on whether philosophy, disambiguation page or OS should be primary topic

There's a new survey at Talk:Ubuntu#RFC: Where should the redirect point?. Better and quantified arguments are being made in support of the philosophy. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which current arguments are "better", if you have an opinion, please head over there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

out of place

since this article is about the philosophy, shouldn't the ppart about the computer operating system (or something like that) be at the bottom of the page under some other header and not in the lead? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a "part" about the operating system, only a brief mention of it. Given that more readers will arguably have heard of Ubuntu first as an operating system - rather than a philosophy - it doesn't seem inappropriate to me to make a reference to it in the opening paragraph (also considering that the video with Mandela has been produced by the Ubuntu software foundation, as the logo indicates). --Giuliopp (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Call it "part", call it "brief mention"...whatever. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at some length. It seems to me a blatant abuse to devote 25% of the introductory paragraph on the Ubuntu philosophy to the Ubuntu operating system. Even worse is the crass commercialism of using the Canonical logo on the Mandela video describing the Ubuntu philosophy. Don't get me wrong - i love and run Ubuntu as my primary OS. I would prefer it if we handled this similar to how the page at Windows is done. Can you imagine if 25% of the introductory paragraph on Windows was devoted to Microsoft and the picture of a window bore the Microsoft logo? I don't think there would be much argument on how to handle that! Ronald Joe Record (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to clarify from the start that the OS is named after the philosophy and not the other way round, which will not be obvious to most readers. This is unlike Windows, where the term window is something we are all familiar with since infancy, so it would indeed make no sense to talk about Microsoft's operating system anywhere in the Window article.

A hatnote (like the one in Windows) is unnecessary, as the title - Ubuntu (philosophy) - is already unambiguous (much like Ubuntu Cola): readers who end up at Ubuntu (philosophy) are unlikely to be looking for the Ubuntu OS instead.

As for the "crass commercialism", bear in mind that the one on the video is Ubuntu's logo, whereas Canonical uses a different one, so in my view the video (which does not even mention the OS) can only improve the article. --Giuliopp (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself. People who are looking for the OS are not likely to wind up here, therefore the mention about the OS should not be in the lead. It should be somewhere else in the article. People who are not looking for the OS are most likely to wind up here and don't really care where the OS got its name from, but when they know that there is an OS with the name "Ubuntu" they most likely know that it got its name from this philosophy. If they don't, a brief mention after they're done reading about the philosophy (because they specifically searched for this article) is appropriate. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

ah... now it makes more sense. --Giuliopp (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress at the disambiguation page

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ubuntu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

etymology

What language does this word come from?

I'm tentatively guessing "u-" is a prefix and any of several other prefixes could be attached to "-buntu" to form related words, as I think happens in most (or all?) Bantu languages. Is this on the right track? What would the possible other prefixes be? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I see a speech by King, where does he say Ubuntu? Is there a RS that says "he is discussing Ubuntu" we are not here to create our "own" interpretation of what we think he was referring to.--Inayity (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr Martin Luther King jr did not use the term Ubuntu in his 1964 speech. But yes, there have been a large number of RSS since then that have interpreted that same speech specifically as a model expression of Ubuntu. Desmond Tutu is only one of the most prominent to connect the relevance of King's speech to Ubuntu, but not the first or the last. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it need to really have some serious ref and explanations, because right now it looks like editors opinions, taking any statement which vaguely resembles ubuntu and assigning advocates to it. --Inayity (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Africa is diverse lets not start applying it to everyone

It is an ideology coming out of Southern Africa, No where in Ethiopia will you find it. If it is in Ethiopia, then it is also in China, and hence not an African philosophy. It is very cute this Ubuntu thing but let us not get carried away.--Inayity (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu

the article says that "umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu" means " a person is a person through other persons". This is also the only translation that I have seen. If my Zulu is correct then the translation is slightly wrong. I think it means " a person is a person through persons" without "other". Shall I put "other" in brackets in the article?--Merijn2 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Use the translation that is referenced. It is best not to put original research in the article. --Ezeu 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Merijn is absolutely correct.

There's nothing explicit in the phrase about "other," but it is obviously implied (everyone - you = others ).

If anyone cares, here's a syntactic analysis:

• umuntu is a class 1 noun meaning "(a) person." It acts as the sentence subject.
• ngumuntu is a zero copula (sort of like a verb -- but not) constructed from the base umuntu, thus meaning "is a person."
• ngabantu is an adverb of manner meaning "by people," constructed from the class 2 plural of umuntu (abantu) plus the instrumental prefix nga-.

You can add abanye (I THINK) at the end to explicit state "other" (the word is a qualificative describing the noun).

Yes, so I guess that it might be a good idea to put the "other" in brackets. Tebello TheWHO!!?? 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the question on the forum of Isizulu.net. Cause I hesitate to change it without consulting a native speaker. --Merijn2 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Or maybe the one who posted the comment above is a native speaker?--Merijn2 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the next best thing -- a native speaker of Sesotho who's self-taught in the comparative linguistics of the Sotho-Nguni languages. Trust me -- just change it, or include a short explanation. Tebello TheWHO!!?? 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if this phrase has been removed from the main article. Any reason? This expression defines ubuntu without a long philosophical or linguistic explanation. As a white English speaking South African, this is how I have always understood the expression and no further definition is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.19.98 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Move request

Ubuntu as a philosophy was the first, so we should move it to Ubuntu and Ubuntu to Ubuntu (disambiguation).--Rezonansowy (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As soon as we move Boston, Lincolnshire to Boston on the same grounds that it "was the first", I suppose. (what I am saying is, this is not how Wikipedia naming policy works). --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article tone.

In my opinion the article is written in the style of a discursive essay rather than an encyclopaedic entry; the word choice is complicated beyond requirement and Wikipedia is meant to be understood by all. If anyone agrees with me would they be so kind to rewrite? If I see no action soon then unless someone disagrees I will try to reword the article myself. I just reckon someone with an interest in the topic would do the philosophy more justice.

Breadified (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The article as I found it was completely deteriorated. It cited some good sources, but it made no use of them, and conflated them with random online posts. I have tried to at least put up an encyclopedic framework for future improvements, but the article as it stands remains of abysmal quality. Perhaps dump all the tagged content and start from scratch, citing definitions and implications from quotable secondary sources. The term is clearly highly complex, and it reflects 50 years of Southern African history. Clearly, the meaning has changed drastically between the first calls for Africanization in the early 1950s and the acheivement of full black majority control of both Zimbabwe and South Africa by the 1990s. I think it was the South African leaders of the 1990s, notably Tutu, who managed to define the term as it is has come to be received internationally, but its Pan-Africanist / African nationalist connotations clearly stay very much alive as well. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course the quality will drop when people write what they like as fact. Unless there is a R.S to a statement do not add it. Simple. Do not add what we think it is, only add what the ref say it is. What Ubuntu is according to..., How popular it is according to... not the editors but the sources. --Inayity (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

attribution is not enough, you just end up with a quotefarm. A decent article is written by a skilled editor who is able to summarize the gist found in secondary sources, and who is able to select and group such sources for relevance and context. I wanted to know about the origin and the history of the concept, and this article was 100% useless apart from including a link to the article by Gade (2011). I learned what I needed from there, and I quickly summarized the salient points here, but I'll leave it at that. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not saying a quote farm (def that helps no one). But statements while summarize must not be editorialized or OR. And this is what kills Wikipedia because only people who know a topic as experts can handle this task. the rest of us can do clean up, challenge stuff, etc etc. Many times it take expert knowledge to stitch the core of an article together.My area is slavery, so I am no use on Ubuntu. And maybe the expert tag is called for. --Inayity (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)

A requested move discussion was opened at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Requested move concerning the primary topic for the term "Ubuntu" that may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu is "exclusionary and abhorrent"?!

I don't know anything about Ubunto, but the part starting with the words "Unlike Western Humanism..." and referring to Ubuntu as "exclusionary and abhorrent" seems inflammatory, and unconvincing. The general claim seems to be that that Ubuntu has xenophobic, collectivist features. This is not backed by any sources.

The examples given are also unconvincing. They are all based on language. A Zuku-speaking person would tell you "speak the language of the people" just like a Chinese person would tell you to "speak PutongHua" (= "language of the people" = Mandarin Chinese) but that's simply the correct word for Chinese, not some big marker of xenophobia. Similarly, a Sotho-speaking person would say "he/she is a human" when someone behaves according to custom, just like an Yiddish-speaking person would say "he is a mensch (=human)" when someone behaves in a trustworthy, socially-beneficial manner. Again, no xenophobia there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.146.157 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Humanism confusion

Under the definition heading, the article says "Unlike Western Humanism, ubuntu asserts that society, not a transcendent being, gives human beings their humanity." Humanism certainly doesn't assert anything about a transcendent being, so I'm removing that. Perhaps someone else would like to add a better comparison between Western Humanism and Ubuntu.Snorgle (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

To make any comparison we would need a RS, and that is probably why erroneous things (such as the one you removed) end up in articles. If there is a comparison the only one I can think of is Umbuntu is communal, not individualistic humanism, again we would need a RS --Inayity (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many See also

Too many See also, needs a clean up, focus on See also directly related. Not sure land redistribution in Zim qualifies as Umbuntu, it might qualify as Justice. --Inayity (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

See also getting out of hand

The see also can go on for ever if we have no criteria for what is a see also and what is related by virtue of tiny string connections. I am sure there is a criteria which may include something where say Ubuntu is mentioned on another related page with some notability. Just linking to Chinese and Hindu similar pages is actually WP:OR because a WP:RS did not establish a link between the two.--Inayity (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Singular or plural

A common English translation (e.g. Desmond Tutu) is "I am because you are". Is the "you" here specific (singular) or general/inclusive (plural)? Thanks -TraceyR (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucky People Center - Ubuuntu

This 1994 song by Lucky People Center seems to have attempted to explain the concept of Ubuntu in a little over 4 minutes and in my opinion can serve as - for lack of a better word - a "quickstart guide to ubuntu".

A (poor quality) video of the song can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xSQX2QgTY .

If i knew of a way to incorporate this song and/or info into the article myself , i would, and i would have hoped that it would not meet with resistance, but I suck at writing articles, so if this info would not be out of place in the article, then it would be great if someone could write this into the article.

--2601:8:A900:824:4D4A:CCAC:8A05:5ED1 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Viral Story

I have read many renditions of a story about "Ubuntu" as expressed by "an African tribe" [unnamed] that was witnessed by "an anthropologist" [unnamed]. I am wondering if anyone knows of any more details. So far, I have found that the story may have come from Lia Diskin, a social activist, at a Peace Festival in Brazil. Some sources even call the tribe "Ubuntu tribe". I'm just looking to see if this actually happened, who the anthropologist was, what tribe it was, and where this information was published originally (if at all).

Version 1: An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African tribe. He put a basket full of fruit near a tree and told the kids that whoever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run they all took each others’ hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their treats. When he asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the fruits for himself they said: “UBUNTU! How can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?” I would post a source but I can't find an original source.

Version 2: An anthropologist had been studying the habits and customs of this tribe, and when he finished his work, had to wait for transportation that would take him to the airport to return home. He'd always been surrounded by the children of the tribe, so to help pass the time before he left, he proposed a game for the children to play. He'd bought lots of candy and sweets in the city, so he put everything in a basket with a beautiful ribbon attached. He placed it under a solitary tree, and then he called the kids together. He drew a line on the ground and explained that they should wait behind the line for his signal. And that when he said "Go!" they should rush over to the basket, and the first to arrive there would win all the candies. When he said "Go!" they all unexpectedly held each other's hands and ran off towards the tree as a group. Once there, they simply shared the candy with each other and happily ate it. The anthropologist was very surprised. He asked them why they had all gone together, especially if the first one to arrive at the tree could have won everything in the basket - all the sweets.

A young girl simply replied: "How can one of us be happy if all the others are sad?"

The anthropologist was dumbfounded! For months and months he'd been studying the tribe, yet it was only now that he really understood their true essence... --Flurryofcrispycoffee (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this story is reported by Lia Diskin in a event, and later repeated by her in a talk http://www.palasathena.org.br/professor_detalhe.php?professor_id=11

Not sure whether this is an invented story, but she claims this is a real one reported in the ending of a book "El espíritu de la política: Homo politicus" (Spanish for: the spirit of politics, I found no indication of an English translation) by Raimon Panikkar. http://www.raimon-panikkar.org/engIish/XL-el-espiritu

I think this a very interesting story, but whose authenticity is very hard to assess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.159.56.156 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Missing quotes

Since this revision, there is a quote missing in the "South Africa" section. It just says "Tutu further explained Ubuntu in 2008:.". Should this sentence be removed completely, or the quote added back into the article? At a minimum, I would remove the colon sign? --2003:F8:4F1A:200:B924:CB7E:F149:B4A1 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ireland

Why is there a section called Ireland when there is nothing to do with Ireland in it? I suspect that the relevant bits have been edited away but I don't want to mess with something when I am not sure that it needs to be messed with.Layne Stalin (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Someone being cheeky, I suppose. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 22:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cross-cultural

Similar concepts arise amongst varied cultures, suggesting the philosophy of Ubuntu is recognised amongst diverse cultures due to this being a feature of human nature. It is similar to the word 'whanaungatanga' in New Zealand/Aotearoa Māori, and 'shimcheong' in Korean. (Drury, N. 2011. Wittgenstein and the tikanga of psychotherapy. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40 (2):16-24). The philosophy of ubuntu points to Segal's (1999) social brain, or Porges' (2009) social engagement system, or Henrich's (2016) collective brain, which all suggest an intuitive access to others. The northern theory accounts for why this has not been widely accepted in the social sciences (Connell, R. 2007. Southern theory: the global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Allen & Unwin.) {I would imagine there are other words out there similar to ubuntu, shimcheong, and whanaungatanga. I would suggest we harvest these}

Arnold Ziffel the elder Arnold Ziffel the elder (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC).

Why was this not included in the Dec 2022 update? Arnold Ziffel the elder (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)