From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pages 104 and 105[edit]

Please see my reply here. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pages 104 and 105[edit]

Please see my reply here. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

More than half are Catholic?[edit]

According to the CIA fact book, where wikipedia gets most of this information, usually, it says only 38%. Whereas 47% are of indigenous faiths. Should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On this point like on mANY OTHERS, THE cia fACTBOOK IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. "47€ of indigenous faith" is simply laughable: although exact numbers don't exist, nobody in Angola ignores that people who adhere exclusively to "traditional beliefs" are today a small minority, while many of those who have become Christians still hold some of those beliefs. Aflis (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"the Kuwait of Africa"[edit]

According to to the section on the [Exclave of Cabinda], it is known as "the Kuwait of Africa".

A quick search of Google shows that Equatorial Guinea is the African country known as "the Kuwait of Africa".

This sentence needs to be removed.

Here are some links that discuss Equatorial Guinea as this moniker:

Migration from Angola[edit]

@Ndandulalibingi: I'd like to challenge you to go to Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples and include IN THOSE ARTICLES the theory of the migration from Sudan. It is not the first time that I have asked you to do this, which you obviously ignored. Also please quote Papstein, Pélissier and the other sources that you repeatedly use and let's how it goes. It is very easy to get away with fringe sources on obscure articles, so let's see how these sources are viewed in an article of high visibility such as Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples, where a lot of serious experienced editors are continuously involved. If you make one more edit reinstating what I have deleted, I will call an admin to block you. So if your sources and theories are valid, please proceed anb include them in the articles that I mentioned. If the community accepts them, I will bow my head and accept them. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) Since you have appealed for the test, I will wait for authorization. This is an on going debate by sociolinguistic scholars and therefore it will help open up the stagnation. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Whites in Angola[edit]

Recent edits have not only fiddled with the number of whites in Angola (1% vs. 2% or so), but also defined these whites as Africans of European descent. It so happens that this definition does not apply to most whites living in the country today. It could be considered as an acceptable designation of the colonial settler community and their descendents. Now, even among the 320000 to 350000 whites who lives in Angola in 1974, a high proportion were no settlers, but people belonging to the public service who were sent there from Portugal on a temporary base. After independence, due to the oil boom, many people who had nothing to do took up jobs in Angola as they coud have in other countries - and they consitute perhaps und third (or even half) of the whites living today in Angola, and who c an by no means be considered as "Africans". Aflis (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Angola"[edit]

@Rui Gabriel: Fiquei surpreendido com a sua reversão. Para mim, "di" é brasileirismo. Claro que em Angola o "de" não é pronunciado à maneira de Lisboa, mas a minha noção é que se fica em geral mais perto do "e" do que do "i". -- Aflis (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pois é, Aflis, o que lá estava não era um "i" e sim um símbolo com o seu valor específico no IPA. O Aflis substitui-o por um "e", que também tem um valor específico no IPA, que não é a mesma coisa que o "e" usado na ortografia. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel: Bem sei que o símbolo fonético que lá estava representava um som que, em linguística, é às vezes chamado de "i surdo" - mais perto do "i" do que do "e". Também sei que, quando é utilizado como símbolo fonético, o "e" representa um entre vários sons assinalados (em português e noutras línguas) pela letra "e" - concretamente um som breve e "fechado". É mesmo por estas razões que fiz a alteração no texto, e a observação acima. Abraço --Aflis (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please listen to the words:
I could not find a single occurence of anyone saying "déAngola"/ "dé Angola" or "dêAngola"/ "dê Angola", but I am certain that you will be able to provide such examples. I look forward to receiving them. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Bem, estas variações evidentemente existem - como sabemos ambos com base da nossa convivência com lusófonos de vários quadrantes, de Portugal e Brasil até aos PALOPs. E é esta convivência que nos diz que a pronúncia "dê Angola" (com um "ê" breve) também existe, mesmo se não houvesse registo audio. Toda a questão é então de saber qual é a variação que prevalece em Angola. Continuo a achar que é "dê Angola", mas posso estar enganado. Duvido aliás que alguém tenha uma base segura para afirmar a prevalência de outra variação. Mas há uma boa solução: nada impede que se indique no artigo duas (ou mais) variações usadas em Angola. Sendo importante excluir a variação lisboeta (ou bahiana...). -- Aflis (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am responding in Portuguese out of courtesy, because you addressed me in Portuguese, but I am including a translation for the record Caro Aflis, Então agora chegamos ao ponto em que fazemos as coisas por "achar" que são deste ou daquele jeito? ("Continuo a achar que é "dê Angola", mas posso estar enganado. E se ninguém tem uma base segura para afirmar, então por que é que muda (sem essa base segura)? (Duvido aliás que alguém tenha uma base segura para afirmar a prevalência de outra variação."). Então, resumindo, se (a) não tem uma base segura, (b) pode estar enganado, (c) está a editar a Wikipédia na base do achismo, sugiro que reveja os seus métodos. Sei que tem esse hábito de mudar as coisas na base do "mudo porque eu sei que é assim, e as fontes que se lixem", e bem sabe que isso é a mais pura verdade, como uma rápida análise dos inúmeros avisos na sua página confirma. Essa é a sua característica em todas as Wikipédias em que colabora, mas infelizmente não é assim que trabalhamos. E isso surpreende-me muito em alguém que diz que durante anos esteve ligado ao meio académico. Tolerei as sua visão paternalística para com o editor dos artigos Mbunda, que levaram o dito editor a ser bloqueado, quando na verdade você deveria ser bloqueado por o encorajar a persistir nos seus erros, em vez de o ajudar a aprender a trabalhar de forma condizente com o projecto. É assim que ensina os seus alunos? A ignorar os factos e ir inventando pelo caminho? O que aconteceu com o rigor académico e de investigação?
[In English] Dear Aflis, So now we have arrived at the point where we do things because we "think" they are this or that way? And if you say you doubt anyone has a solid basis to change it, they why do you change it (without such a basis)? So, to recap, (a) if you don't have a solid basis, (b) you say it is possible that you are wrong, (c) you are editing the Wikipedia on the strength of gut feeling, I suggest you review your methods. I know you have the habit of changing things based on "I am changing it because I know it to be so and to hell with the sources" and you know too well that that is the purest of truths, as a quick look at all the warnings on your user page will confirm. That has been your trademark in all Wikipedias that you work with, but unfortunately that is not how we work. And this surprises me in someone who says that for years was part of the academic fraternity. I tolerated your paternalistic worldview towards the editor on the Mbunda articles that ended up getting said editor blocked when in truth you should have been blocked for encouraging him to persist in his errant ways instead of helping him master a way of working in tune with the project. Is this how you teach your students? To disregard facts and make it up as they go along? Whatever happened to academic and research rigour? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Request for comments to create a chapter "Environment". This could bring knowledge together on the topics of "Nature", "Climate Change", "Environmental Issues s.a. water-, soil-, air-pollution". Angola is one of the few countries that didn't enter an INDC at COP21. --SvenAERTS (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent claims in edit summaries[edit]

Please disregard the claims made by the editor in the edit summary to this edit. It is wrong on both counts. Mbunda was NEVER slected as a national language, it was picked as one of six to be included in a pilot programme to define orthographies for Angolan languages. The claim that the Mbunda are the most populous of the Nganguela group is either sheer laziness to look it up or pure disruptive editing. Let it suffice to point out that there are 135 000 Mbunda, while there 400 000 Luchazi. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Just in case the recent edits including 2% Mexicans in the population of Angola were made in good faith: except (possibly) for diplomatic personnel, and perhaps one catholic missionary or another, no Mexican ever sat his foot on Angolan soil......Aflis (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)