- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tumbuka people
edit
Origins of the Tumbuka people
... that the Tumbuka people, with origins near Lake Malawi (pictured), is an African ethnic group historically ruined by the elephant ivory trade and the Arab slave market?
Source: "Arab traders began penetrating deeper and deeper into Central Africa, slaves became a common article of commerce and slavery tool on the many cruel and degrading aspects which Livingstone encountered in these regions during the course of his explorations. Minor wars were carried on for the sole purpose of capturing slaves (...)" (The Peculiar Institution among the early TUMBUKA, CJW Fleming, Soc. M Journal)
Source: "Their actions in opening up the country to the northwest of Lake Nyasa to the ivory trade are noteworthy not only for the important impact which they had on the historu of peoples like the Tumbaka and Ngonde, (...)" (Ivory and Slaves: Changing Pattern of International Trade in East Central Africa to the Later Nineteenth Century, EA Alpers, University of California Press)
- Reviewed: Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad
- Comment: This is a part of the WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon initiative.
5x expanded by Ms Sarah Welch (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC).
- The article has been expanded 5x recently:
- The article is long enough:
- The hook is interesting:
- The hook is referenced:
- The hook is below 200 characters:
- A google search does not reveal any copyright violation:
- The article follows most other important policies:
- QPQ:
Looks pretty good to me, but the hook needs a little parring work. I would suggest removing the bit about Lake Malawi (and the map) and simplify it as follows:
... that the Tumbuka people of southeastern Africa were historically ruined by the elephant ivory trade and the Arab slave market?
- The article has been expanded 5x recently:
SounderBruce 20:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: Thanks for the review. How about...
- ALT1:
... that the African ethnic group Tumbuka people were ruined by the elephant ivory trade and the Arab slave market? - ALT2:
... that the Tumbuka people of Africa were ruined by the elephant ivory trade and the Arab slave market? - I am fine with your suggestion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I like ALT2 more than ALT1. SounderBruce 23:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but I am finding it difficult to clarify how the ivory trade "ruined" the Tumbuka people. The BRILL source says the ivory trade "was not wholly destructive", and the other sources cited at the end of the sentence These ruling groups collapsed around 1855, when the highly militarized warriors of the Ngoni ethnic group from South Africa arrived seeking slaves for the Zanzibar Arab traders, and to control the ivory market do not seem to support the hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: There is only one BRILL source in the article, and that is Thompson's. He is discussing Ngoni people together with the Tumbuka people. They are different ethnic groups. We should not confuse them, which I don't think you are, but I mention for the record. On page 20, Thompson is indeed stating that the effect of Ngoni's actions and trading "on Tumbuka and Tonga was by no means wholly destructive either." Thompson means it was destructive, but not wholly because he clarifies later, "Tumbuka learnt to defend themselves". Thompson is not discussing ivory trade though, which is your real question. It is Edward Alpers book published by University of California Press that is discussing ivory and its impact on Tumbuka. He is stating that the large scale hunting for elephant-ivory and slaves disrupted settled farming, which led to the ruin/devastation. Here is another source, published by Cambridge University Press, stating the same on page 67. If "ruined" is too strong a word, I am fine with "devastated" or "ravaged" or some other such. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that the Tumbuka people's Vimbuza tradition uses dance, music and singing for healing illness and this is on UNESCO's list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity?
- @Yoninah: is that more hooky? Alternate hooky suggestions welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: The Cambridge University Press source is a good one; I think you should add it to the article. I also think you should spell out what "devastated" means in this sentence, which quotes an entirely different source: "This led initially to a devastation of the Tumbuka people". (Did it mean tribal deaths, destroyed farms, population dislocation?) I still favor ALT2, which has some nice, vivid elements, but would replace "ruined" with "devastated". I struck all the other hook versions.
- ALT2a: ... that the Tumbuka people of Africa were devastated by the elephant ivory trade and the Arab slave market?
- ALT3a: ... that the Tumbuka people's Vimbuza tradition uses dance, music, and singing to heal illness?
- @Yoninah: Added the CUP reference and explained "devastated" in the article. ALT2a and ALT3a are ok with me. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: is that more hooky? Alternate hooky suggestions welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)