Talk:Godfrey Mwakikagile

Untitled

Can someone help with the text layout and relevant links as stated on the banner on top of the article "Godfrey Mwakikagile"? Also the superscripts are not highlighted.

Dave 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved.

Dave 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone

I'm tagging this for tone, as there are multiple instances of non-encyclopedic tone and POV. Movingboxes (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is a balanced profile of the subject and its tone is consistent with that. Its encyclopedic nature has not been compromised in terms of objective evaluation - it's neither pro nor con - and its tone reflects that. - Dave (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The article reads more like an essay on the subject than an encyclopedia. It lacks attribution for several claims and is vague in important respects (saying that "American journalists" have written about the subject without providing details). Movingboxes (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say "American journalists" in plural form - it says interviewed by "an American journalist" - in singular form - and cites the book, "Nyerere and Africa: End of an Era," where the interview appears in its entirety. The article is also well-documented, citing sources for full atrribution.

Dave (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there citations for the thoughts expressed in the multiple passages similar to this one:

Writers like Godfrey Mwakikagile and other members of the African elite have a major role to play in the development of Africa. They do have an impact on constructive dialogue involving national issues. But it is not the kind of impact that reverberates across the spectrum all the way down to the grassroots level precisely because they are not an integral part of the masses, and also because thay are not actively involved with the masses to transform society.

So, while they generate ideas, they have not been able to effectively transmit those ideas to the masses without whose involvement fundamental change in Africa is impossible, except at the top, recycling the elite. And while they identify with the masses in terms of suffering and as fellow Africans, many of them - not all but many of them - have not and still don't make enough sacrifices in their quest for social and political transformation of African countries. And Godfrey Mwakikagile is fully aware of these shortcomings, and apparent contradictions, in the role played by the African elite. He's one himself.

Yet, he has not explicitly stated so in his writings concerning this problem of African intellectuals; a dilemma similar to the one faced by the black intelligentsia in the United States and which was addressed by Professor Harold Cruse, a black American who taught at the University of Michigan for many years, in his monumental study, The Crisis of The Negro Intellectual. The book was first published in 1967 at the peak of the civil rights movement, five years before Godfrey Mwakikagile went to the United States for the first time as a student.

They come across as unencyclopedic original research (WP:OR). Movingboxes (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This needs elaboration.

When taken out of context, the statements you cited above - and others in the article similar to that - may indeed be misconstrued as being irrelevant to the encyclopedic nature of the article and what Wikipedia stipulates.

But when they are read in context, they are attributable and verifiable and they do provide a balance to what the author says in his books; which is why the article was written in the first place: to profile the author because of his work as one of the main African writers today. In fact, when you Google his last name alone, there are about 13,000 web sites about him, and more than 8,000 when you Google both his first and last name.

That's not necessarily proof of the importance of his works but it's something to be taken into account. He's someone to be reckoned with as an author. And because of that, his writings should be viewed in their proper perspective by providing balance to his works, and not by provididng just one perspective.

The statements you cited can, in fact, be empirically verified and are attributable to a source based on his writings alone. His writings collectively provide evidence of that. These include his highly controversial book "Africa is in A Mess, "The Modern African State" and others.

They are harsh criticism of post-colonial leadership in Africa, and they have inspired charges against the author by some of his critics - or detractors - who accuse him of being an apologist for imperial domination of Africa and as someone who even favours a return to the status quo ante: restoration of the imperial order or colonial rule.

That is not the case as the author himself clearly states in his book "Africa is in A Mess" and in his other works. And the charges against him have been documented, as the citation in the article on this subject clearly shows. It shows where you can find those charges. So, it's documented.

But what's equally important in this context is that because he's so highly critical of African leaders, and for reasons documented in his works and which I have read well, it's pertinent to ask: What has he - and others like him what have they - done to improve the condition of the masses in Africa suffering under rotten leadership?

They have fallen short of that, although their criticism is valid and the solutions which they propose serve a purpose in terms of pointing the right direction in which Africa should go. And that's exactly what the statements you quoted say. They're contextual and objective, hence ancyclopedic - even if the last term is subject to "normative" interpretation.

That's the context in which they were written. They provide balance, or counter-balance, to what the author says in his books in terms of criticism of African leadership.

Also in his writings, he does not claim to have achieved his goal - in fact he states exactly the opposite in "Africa is in A Mess" and in "The Modern African State," when he says the condition is getting worse and worse, thus documenting his own shortcomings and those of others like him. The two books provide ample evidence of that as an attributable source.

Without looking at the statements - the statements you quoted - in that context, they can easily be misconstrued or dismissed as irrelevant to the encyclopedic nature of the article.

The books themselves, which he has written, not only provide documented evidence for the validity of those statements; they in fact forcefully refute any argument to the contrary by highlighting the plight of the masses in Africa. Why are things so bad, then, if the elite have done a lot, or have achieved a lot, in helping the masses?

Also nowhere in his writings does he say other elites have achieved their goal. In fact, it's the contrary, as the continent's appalling condition tragically demonstrates.

If the statements you cited above - and others similar - are taken out of the article, you're left with only one perspective without balance.

There's ample evidence showing that the African elite have failed Africa as the statements you quoted say. Just look at the continent's miserable condition including abuse of human rights, and not just economic misery, forcing tens of thousands of Africans every year to flee the continent for greener pastures in the West and elsewhere as the author bluntly states in "Africa is in A Mess." At least 5 million have already left and live outside Africa. This is also documented in his writings, and much more.

But should people like Godfrey Mwakikagile, the author, be given credit for helping improve the condition of the masses simply because they write about it or talk about it at academic conferences and in other forums?

The answer is "No." And the evidence also says "No." They're not in the trenches with masses, and they are not on the ground with masses, battling rotten leadership. Only a few do so, as the statements you qoted point out.

And that's exactly the context in which those statements were written.

Also, if you do a random search, you'll find that Godfrey Mwakikagile's books are found in university - and public - libraries across the United States and in many other countries. I have verified that. I sell books to university libraries myself.

For example, schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Toronto, University of London, Cambridge, Oxford, universities in Australia, South Africa, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, the Caribbean and public libraries such as the British Library, Toronto Public Library, New York Public Library, Los Angeles Public Library, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC public libraries and many others have his books. And those are just a few examples.

The point I'm trying to make when I mention all that is that the subject of the Wikipedia article, Godfrey Mwakikagile, is taken seriously as an author. And because of that, a profile of him and the article featuring his works should be put in proper perspective. And that can't be done without provididng balance to what he says; which is what the statements you cited do.

Otherwise the article is going to be one-sided and not objective, hence not encyclopedic.

Dave (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Using his writing as a primary source to create an encyclopedia article isn't appropriate and probably violtes WP:OR. You'll need to find secondary sources (that is, other people writing about the subject) that put forward the analysis in the article. To be clear--I'm not challenging his notability (you seem to be answering that unmade charge in your response and it isn't necessary). If there is "ample evidence" that elites have failed Africa, then you'll have to point to sources, per WP:RS, that say that. Don't just tell me it is documented--show me where I can find it. Movingboxes (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Sections and Quotations

I would suggest breaking up the sections into sub sections. It gets very hard to navigate. Also a suggestion to use block quotes when quoting something. It makes it easier to follow. Manual_of_Style: "Block_quotations"

I agree. The article was slightly better couple of years ago. As it stands, it is very painful to the eyes. Will add it to my to do list. Tamsier (talk)

This is an eye·sore and needs some work

The childhood section alone is a huge bundle of text and needs editing as stated aboved. Although very interesting, most of it do not tell us much about Mwakikagile's own childhood, and many of it are not necessary for a biographical Wiki article. Working on the whole article and if any can help please do so. Tamsier (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I am also concerned about the copyvio of his own biography by David E Kyoso [1]. The childhoold section needs total re-editing. Tamsier (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Working on it with assistance. Dave

Tamsier (talk) The material I have added to the article is intended to provide more details about Godfrey Mwakikagile. I notice that you have edited some of it for relevance. I hope you will get the chance to finish editing it. Dave

Hi @Dave1959:, I really want to help but every time I come to this article I find you've added another bundle of text sometimes without citation which makes it extremely difficult for me to navigate. On a side note, you don't need to write your username like this [[User:Dave1959|Dave]] after a comment. Simply write 4 tildes ~~~~ after your comment and your signature will appear along with the time stamp like this: Dave (Dave1959) 04:40, 21 November 2018‎ (UTC). I don't know whether that was a technical error or something. It if was, I apologise and didn't mean to patronise. Moving forward, I think the following strategy might help:

1. Don't add any more content for the time being. The article is long as it is. We don't have to know about everything about Godfrey, his family and his family's friends unless it is relevant to Godfrey's own bio and is encyclopedic. Remember! This article is about Godfrey, not about his extended relatives or friend of the family.
2. We can work together and try to move things around based on the headings. For example, previously, I had to go deep into the article just to figure out who his parents were. That kind of information should have been in the first paragraph of the Early life section.
3. Removing irrelevant text that has nothing at all to do with Godfrey. If you feel that such a text is notable and encyclopedic, what you could do is create a new article for that so we can link it to this article and vice-versa. It will also help remove the clutter in this article.
4. We need to add independent and reliable sources that verifies the claims. Godfrey himself is a well respected scholar not just in Tanzania but in many parts of Africa. Other than the obvious Wikipedia's reliable source policy, especially the bio of a living person, we need to ensure that if we are going to add or leave text in his biographical article such a text is reliably sourced and independent of Godfrey i.e. what other scholars say about Godfrey, and not what Godfrey says about himself.
5. The issue for me is not necessary the length of the article. There are loads of articles which are much longer however, they are organised in a way that will not scare the reader and put them off from reading it. After all, you want people to read the article don't you? For help, you may want to read the Cham Joof article and see how it is organised. That article is long but it is divided in a way that will not scare the reader - and very easy to navigate. You can read it to get inspiration.

One of the first things that goes to my mind when writing articles for Wikipedia is how to structure it. There is a lot of good content in this article, however it lacks structure - which can scare people off and also deter others from translating it to other Wiki languages as I told you on your talk page in May 2012 [2]. If you and/or any other editor has another way of structuring this article, please kindly write it here and let's get to work. For the time being, I will try to help. Regards.Tamsier (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Tamsier:, Thanks for the suggestions and for the advice. I am not going to add anything else. I think I have provided enough information, some of which may be irrelevant to the subject (Godfrey), and I leave it up to you to edit the article. What I have done lately is to correct typos - spelling, missing words, etc. I hope you can do the rest. Dave (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dave1959: You say you are not going to add anymore content but in many of your edit summaries you state you are fixing typos when in fact you've added content here, here, here, here, and here. In here, you gave too much detail thereby rendering the sentence from making any sense. We don't need to know about the school his mum attended and other stuff, because this is a bio of Godfrey, not a bio of his parents or his parents' friends. We don't need to go into detail about his father's primary and secondary schooling and whom he met and befriended there. Too much information. The article is going back to looking like a bio within a bio. Too much information about other people but little about Godfrey. Anyway I have to disengage from this article for now because I think I'm dealing with a possible OWN. Good luck! Tamsier (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Tamsier:, Did you add the section "Family connections"?

When I saw that, I realised it had to do with his parents, not just Godfrey himself, and decided to elaborate on how his parents were connected to the individuals mentioned. The article also mentioned that his parents were "highly educated" - I don't know where that came from. I did not write that. I never mentioned that they were "highly educated". Educated, yes, and, to make that point, that is why I named the schools they attended but not the level of their education.

You can undo what I did - remove the names of the schools his parents attended, etc - if you want to continue working on the article.

Also, from my reading of Godfrey Mwakikagile's works and other sources online, there were a few factual errors.

I don't know why, whoever added the details, had to state that Godfrey Mwakikagile was Brown Ngwilulupi's "nephew"; I thought that was stretching it too far.

I have not seen anywhere in Godfrey Mwakikagile's writings in which he claims or states that he was Brown Ngwilulupi's "nephew". He has, instead, stated that Ngwilulupi was "a relative-in-law."

Ngwilulupi's wife was related to Godfrey Mwakikagle's mother. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make Godfrey Brown Ngwilulupi's "nephew", and Godfrey Mwakikagile himself has never claimed that in his writings.

It was Godfrey's mother who was the first cousin of Ngwilulupi's wife and I saw no reason why it was important or necessary to stress on the family connection linking Godfrey to Ngwilulupi as his so-called nephew instead of just saying, and that being enough, that his mother and Ngwilulupi's wife were first cousins, a connection which really had to do with Godfrey's father being a classmate of Ngwilulupi from primary school to secondary school.

Godfrey Mwakikagile has named his uncle, Chonde Mwambapa, in his writings stating that he was his mother's elder brother and helped to take care of her after their parents died. His uncle was mentioned in the Wikipedia article because of his direct connection to Godfrey's mother but that part is no longer in the article. It has been edited out. He is the one to whom Godfrey was a nephew, and Godfrey Mwakikagile himself clearly states in his writing that Chonde Mwambapa was his uncle. Nowhere in his writings has mentioned that Brown ngwilulupi was his uncle - he said he was a relative-in-law because of the family connection explained above.

That is one of the reasons I added the material you say I added when I said I was not going to add anything else. I did to clarify that. And had Godfrey's - really his parents' - connections not been added to the article, there would have been no need to go into all that.

I edited out the part that says Godfrey Mwakikagile was Brown Ngwilulupi's "nephew" and instead ended with the part that says Elijah Mwakikagile's wife, Godfrey's mother, and Brown Ngwilulupi's wife were first cousins to each other. Ngwilulupi's children are, of course, Godfrey Mwakikagile's blood relatives as cousins to him, second cousins to be specific since their mothers are first cousins. But there is no need to add that to the article. Otherwise Godfrey's other cousins on both sides of the family, his father's and his mother's, would have to be added as well. That would be irrelevant information to the subject of the article which, almost exclusively, should be about Godfrey Mwakikakgile.

The article also wrongly stated that Brown Ngwilulupi was Weidi Ngwilulupi Mwasakafyuka's son - he was not; they were brothers as Mwakikagile has stated in his autobiographical works.

I have, of course, corrected a few typos, spelling errors such as "Pam-Africanist" replacing it with Pan-Africanist" - just a typo. I have also noticed some factual errors; for example, where the article said Godfrey was born into a middle class "Tanzanian family."

I don't even know if his family was 'middle class" and have no sources to cite to verify that - other than the fact that his father was a medical assistant during colonial rule but have no way of knowing if the salary medical assistants earned was "middle class". Still, I have not changed that. I have left it the way it is - the way you wrote it since you are last person who edited the article before I did other parts.

With regard to Godfrey being born into a middle class "Tanzanian family," I have made this correction: There was no Tanzania as a country when he was born in 1949. The country then was Tanganyika. Tanzania came into existence in 1964 when Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form one country. So I have replaced "Tanzanian family" with "Tanganyikan family."

Sorry for the inconveniences. Go ahead and continue to edit the article. There will be no more additional material coming from me, although I may continue to correct typographical errors if I find any - but nothing else.

I have even left alone what to me seems to be a factual error or just an oversight to elaborate where the article states that when in the United States, Mwakikagile was president of the African Union whilst studying at Wayne State University. The implication is that there was an African students union for all African students in the entire United States of which Mwakikagile was president. That was not the case. He was president of the African Students Union only at Wayne State University.

You can rewrite that part if you want to, since you edited the article, or leave it the way it is if, according to your judgement, you see there is nothing wrong with it.

Also, the school he attended is known as "Wayne State" in short form, according to various sources, not just "Wayne" as the article states.

By no means do I want to give the wrong impression that I own the article. I don't. I hope you are going to finish editing it since you have done an excellent job in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.

Best wishes. - Dave (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dave1959: I spent more time removing stuff and reordering things on this article than actually adding content. The little content I've added was actually paraphrasing or abbreviating what was already there and after checking the relevant sources cited, as I was also concerned about copyright violation issues as stated above. Anyway, here is what I wrote/re-edited :

Brown Ngwilulupi and Mwakikagile's father (Elijah) became relatives-in-law. Their respective wives are first cousins to each other, thereby making Mwakikagile a nephew of Brown Ngwilulupi, who in turn was son of Ngwilulupi Mwasakafyuka—a former senior diplomat at the Tanzania Mission to the United Nations and later as Tanzania's ambassador to France and Nigeria.

You see! I mentioned the "relatives-in-law" thing and then elucidated further a point that is not controversial at all. I don't know where you are from but if you were African you would have caught on to that. As is standard throughout the African continent (unless of course one is not native to the land or have adopted a foreign culture not native to the continent), if your mother and my mother are first cousins (regardless of their age differences), your mother would therefor be considered my aunt and my mother would be considered your aunt. Their respective husbands will also be considered the uncles of one and other i.e. your father would be considered my uncle and my father your uncle. I know the history and culture of my people very well, thank you. When writing Wiki articles, we should not be copying and pasting other people's work here. That would be a copyright violation. We should be using our own words with reference to the sources cited. Here is Godfrey talking about his relationship with Brown [3]; and here is Kyoso talking about it and also naming Brown's father - another point you've raised [4]. The source about Brown's father came from Kyoso, not from Godfrey. If we have 2 different sources saying different things, then obviously there is contradiction somewhere and we should name both sources with respect to weight. I have not seen anywhere yet where Godfrey said that Ngwilulupi was Brown's brother. If he had said it in any of his work, I haven't seen it and therefore cannot comment on that. The source that mentions Brown's father is found in Kyoso, as stated above (see the link).

Please do not accuse me of such a thing. Those kinds of accusations can be extremely dangerous and damaging especially when made against Black and African editors here. I do not have any dog in this fight. My interest here was merely to help improve it by giving Godfrey's Wiki article (with help from the community and yourself) some scholary respectability which it rightfully deserves, as Godfrey is a well respected scholar in many parts of Africa and not just Tanzania. I mentioned this before. I was thinking of probably coming back to this article to help some time in the future (like I've been doing since 2012 when I added it to my watchlist) after you've finished with your additions. It is quite evident there is a lot of work to be done and I didn't even finish what I was doing. However, after your above remarks, I think it is wise for me to disengage myself from this article and leave you and other editors to deal with it. For your information, the "bibliography section" comes after "references." I will change that and leave it with you and remove this article from my watchtlist. You are free to revert my edits or delete anything I've done to this article. i do not own this article. I think you've been so invested in this article that you didn't even notice that another article you have created (Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa) which you've added no sources to was actually nominated for deletion as can be seen here. I had to go there and argue for the article to be kept on grounds of Wiki policy and also provided sources to the article. I don't know why would anyone create an important and notable African article like that and not add a single source. This is why some people here do not respect African related articles especially our history, culture etc. That kind of lazy editing gets on my skin. Even if you do not know how to add inline citations, you could have done what you've done in the John Mwakangale and Jeremiah Kasambala articles by adding sup tags which I saw and removed later [5] - [6] - and then added inline citations. That would have at least been better than no sources at for the Pan-African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa until I've added them [7]. Anyway thanks for correcting my typos. Good luck with the editing! My contribution to African related articles over the years (which is the most under represented on English Wiki) is my vindicator. Good luck! I remove this article from my watchlist.Tamsier (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tamsier (talk),

Thank you very much for your response and for the elaboration on the two articles involved: Godfrey Mwakikagile and PAFMECA.

First and foremost, let me apologise for what may have been misconstrued as disrespect to you as an individual and to black people and Africans in general. I don't know much about African extended families; that is where the confusion comes from on my part. I could not come to grips with the fact that your definition of nephew is that elastic in the context of African cultures; hence the validity of the contention that Godfrey is Ngwilulupi's nephew.

I didn't even know that cousins are considered to be brothers and sisters in African cultures. That is the interpretation I get since Godfrey's mother and Ngwilulupi's wife were not sisters but first cousins yet Godfrey is said to be Ngwilulupi's nephew as if the two cousins were sisters!

I don't dispute that interpretation in the African context. I just didn't know. I think I also heard Nelson Mandela say that when explaining African family ties. He said people outside Africa don't understand when we say my aunt's and my uncle's children are also my brothers and sisters.

I know about a handful of African countries, Tanzania being one of them, but not in as much detail as you do. My interest in Godfrey Mwakikagile's works arose from what I found out some time ago, in fact accidentally, that his books were being used in many colleges and universities in African studies up to the PhD level in many countries - in and outside Africa - but had never heard of him although I knew somethings about his home country Tanzania. I am also interested in East Africa and Africa in general. I also noticed that Tanzania, unlike for example Nigeria and Ghana, is one of those African countries which does not have many articles about its people in Wikipedia and concluded that Godfrey Mwakikagile was one of those scholars who should get the attention they deserve. I intend to do some research on other African scholars from countries such as Malawi, Swaziland, Burundi, Gabon, The Gambia and others that are not so "well-known" like Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia and others. They are equally important.

Suffice it to say that I also am pulling out, just like you, and hope that you will change your mind in the future and return to the subject (Mwakikagile especially being a reputable African author and scholar) about which you know more than I do.

My interest in East Africa and Africa as a whole is also what led me to start the article on PAFMECA. I am not going to get involved in a debate on the subject and will let others, like you, defend the validity of the article or refute it as some people intend to do because they don't see it to be an important one.

I know black people and Africans have been disrespected by other people for centuries and scorn is still being heaped on them by many individuals. I am not one of them. I respect all people.

Best wishes. Dave (talk)

Abbreviations for "United States" can be confusing. Is it US or U.S.? Or is it just USA that's acceptable without periods? I changed U.S. to United States in the article about Godfrey Mwakikagile. Insight45 (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

British spelling is used in the article and all editing should conform to that. Insight45 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This article still needs extensive work to bring it in line with how other WP:BLP articles are done on wikipedia. On first pass, some sections are way too long and have WP:NOTESSAY issues, including the section 'Book: Africa and the West'.Dialectric (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tidy

I've done a pretty radical tidy on this article. As noted by others above, it was full of non-neutral text, particularly peacocking. It also contained massive digressions into talking about the lives of people Mwakikagile either knew or was related to. While his relationship to some of these people might be of note, a biography of their lives doesn't belong here. Also, and most significantly, the article contained masses of text directly lifted from one of Mwakikagile's books. This was all copyright and has no business being in this article. There was also a "Controversy" section that was devoted to not documenting controversy, but rebutting criticism of Mwakikagile. If there is any defence of Mwakikagile by notable people, then it should be cited here. It should not be constructed here. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you intervene and rescue what you edited in Godfrey Mwakikagile's article? This seems to be war editing where almost the entire article is now blocked - with implications it could even be deleted - because someone, another "editor", saw what you didn't "see" that almost the entire article about Mwakikagile is based on his book "Reflections on Race Relations: A personal Odyssey." All references come from other sources independent of this work, "Reflections on Race Relations." Dave (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)