Talk:Chilembwe uprising

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chilembwe uprising/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Looks pretty good overall. Will note comments as I read through. Copy-edited a bit myself.

Thank you very much! I've made some changes, some against your edits - please let me know if you feel strongly about any of them. I've tried to avoid the use of "According to Historian X" in the main text, per the comments of another user, by the way.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   "with over 900 pupils"—in total or in each school?

   We still don't seem to have dealt with this? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   Fixed now. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

   "On 24 January, he sent a letter to the German governor" On 24 January 1915, we mean? But the rebellion was already underway, right? Why not put this later? Y - I have moved this down a section.

   Why not mention earlier that the white managers burned Chilembwe's church down in November 1913? I think this deserves to be mentioned earlier and more prominently. Y

   Isn't Ranald a man's name? I'd check whether or not this really was a woman. - The book is, unfortunately, back at the library, so it may be a month or so before I can see it again. I've changed it to "dinner guests" which I hope is OK in the meantime?

   That does fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

   "Jonathon" shouldn't this be Jonathan? Y - I think, in this context, that either is OK, but I've changed it to the more common "-an" ending anyway.

   "The disaffected Mlanje or Zomba tribes" Who? We haven't mentioned these people before. Y - I have removed the "disaffected" which I agree makes them sound more important to this than they were; but I don't think they are important enough here to merit too much attention.

   We say that Chinyama didn't actually join the rebellion, but then say that he was later seen as part of it. What actually happened with him? ? - I've actually no idea. Once his non-involvement has been noted, the sources don't seem to say. I guess he didn't do anything, but said he would have.

   For GA I don't think this is that pertinent, so I'll get it go, but for FAC I would try to make this clearer. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

   "After independence, Chilembwe's death was commemorated by an annual holiday"—immediately after independence in 1964, or later? is it a holiday now? ? - will try to check. The source doesn't mention.

   Yes it does. From 1995. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   "Chilembwe's portrait was also added to the national currency, and has also featured on Malawian stamps" Again, when? More recently I believe, as the original stuff tended to have the President-for-Life Hastings Banda on it, unless I am very much mistaken. N - I'm afraid the source doesn't say. Are you sure that this is important though, in an article of this scope? I agree that on the Malawian kwacha article this would be important, but I'm not sure its so key here?

   I feel it would be important to mention if Banda, who was president for three decades, put Chilembwe above himself in the nationalist narrative by putting him on the money. As it happens Banda put himself on the money instead. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   "Chilembwe was symbol, legitimizing myth, instrument and propaganda"—would you mind checking the source for this again? This quote doesn't seem grammatically correct to me.Y - this is what it says, it does sound a bit odd at first, but it does make grammatical sense.

   Have dealt with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   "Chilembwe's speech of 28 January" don't we mean 23 January? Y - well spotted!

   Is there any reason we capitalise "Thangata" the first time we use it, but not thereafter? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   "It is notable, however,"—avoid this kind of thing, borders on peacocking.Y

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   No inline citation for usage of forced labour. ? - Can you be more specific?

   "Increasingly, the plantations were also forced to rely on a system of forced labour or corvée, known locally at the thangata." (end of second paragraph of the background section) has no inline citation —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Y - done!

   No citation for influence by John Brown and Booker T. Washington.Y

   First paragraph under "Preparations" has no inline citation. Y

   No inline citation at end of first paragraph of "Attack on the Livingstone Bruce Plantation".Y

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   We mention Livingstone got decapitated in his bedroom, but what happened to his wife? They just let her go? N - I think that's covered in the next phrase. I can make it clearer though?

   I would prefer to make this clearer with just a couple words, as it's important to immediately make clear that they were specifically going for Livingstone and not just killing everybody (as many, judging from the context, would assume). I have had a go at this myself, I hope this is okay with you. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, I've also added a bit to specify this in the important of Magomero as a target. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article seems slightly skewed in favour of the "liberation history" narrative. ? Can you identify some instances of this more specifically? I've consciously tried to avoid it, but it is possible some has got through... The "analysis" section was included as an attempt to remove any analysis from the main article at all.

   Eh, on reflection I actually think it's all right. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Maybe use this image of a modern banknote with Chilembwe on it? In the lead image, do we know who the white guy with Chilembwe is? ? - I'd prefer to use that article in the "In later culture" section, but I certainly agree it is worth including. I do worry about the copyright data on that file, though. May I re-enstate the other Shire Highland picture?

   If you really want to by all means, but I don't think it adds much. (It's Shire Highlands, not Shire Highland.) —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

   Forget about the bank note, you're right, bank notes are copyrighted in Malawi. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing now, very well done. A really fine article. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

CE

• Removed some duplicated citations and combined others where contiguous, since the narrative didn't seem contentious. If this is undesirable, they can be put back using the edit revert.
• I was a little disappointed to read the term "blacks" though, wouldn't it be better to use the term "people" or "black people" when the narrative needs to distinguish between locals and invaders?Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the help Keith. I disagree however that there is any problem with the term "blacks" to describe black people in a more concise way—just as we might say "Jews" rather than the more cumbersome "Jewish people", or "Swedes" instead of "Swedish people". In any case the article also uses the term "whites", so this would presumably also have to be changed? —Cliftonian (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Did John Chilembwe preach a form of Millenarian Christianity?

In this article, John Chilembwe is said to have preached a form of Millenarian Christianity, and the works of Jane and Ian Linden and Robert Rotberg are quoted in support of this claim. Rotberg’s main theme was the link between early 20th century resistance movements and secular nationalism after 1950. He regarded Chilembwe as preaching orthodox Baptist views rather than millenarian teachings to a relatively small but stable congregation, at least until 1914. However, although he considered Chilembwe’s revolt was a reaction to the colonial government’s failure to pay attention to protests against African deaths in the East African campaign, he concedes there were “…also overtones suggestive of millenarian eschatology.”

Similarly, the first comprehensive biography of Chilembwe notes that he received an orthodox theological training in the USA supported by of the National Baptist Convention, which also provided financial assistance for his work in Nyasaland, and never broke his link with it. Chilembwe rejected the Saturday observance favoured by the Seventh Day Adventists, and stated that he had no connection with the Watch Tower movement, although a few in his congregation that might have been influenced by that movement.

The Lindens take a different view, but do not consider his ministry before 1914. Much of what they produce in support of their assertions relates to Elliot Kenan Kamwana and his followers. Kamwama was associated with the African Watch Tower movement, which survives in the form of Kitawala, and which was influenced by black American missionaries from the Watch Tower Society (later renamed Jehovah's Witnesses). While there is little doubt that Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watch Tower movement and Elliot Kamwana all held millenarian beliefs, whether John Chilembwe held them, and whether they were central to his preaching, is more doubtful. The Lindens present a form of guilt by association: that, after Kamwana was deported from Nyasaland, some of his supports may have joined Chilembwe’s congregation or that some of that congregation received Watch Tower publications; nothing links these directly to Chilembwe.

The Lindens’ paper also seek for evidence of millenarian beliefs in the writings of Chilembwe’s congregation rather than him. However, belief in the Second Coming is an orthodox Christian belief; it is the belief that this event is imminent which is peculiar to Millenarian Christianity. Looked at objectively, there is little in what the Lindens present that relates to a specifically imminent.. In addition, they quote writings relating to broader concepts in eschatology such as predestination and the last judgement which are not unique to millennialism; where they do, the evidence is not sufficiently specific to indicate an explicitly millennial eschatology. It may be that Chilembwe and, to a greater extent, some of his congregation were influenced by millenarian eschatology in the last year or so of his ministry,, but to say he preached a form of Millenarian Christianity without qualification goes beyond the evidence.

Finally, the Lindens note that, after Kamwana’s prediction of the dawning of the millennium in October 1914 proved incorrect, a number of what they term his “hard core” supporters turned to Chilembwe and armed revolt. They also accept that Kamwana and those followers with the strongest millenarian beliefs condemned the uprising, and the pacifism of Seventh Day Baptists and Watch Tower adherents in the Ncheu district contributed to the failure of the attempted rising there. They do not draw the conclusion that, if those with the strongest millenarian beliefs also believed that the millennium could not be brought forward by violent action, those of Kamwana’s former supports that changed their allegiance may have been attracted more by Chilembwe’s call to action in place of Kamwana’s pacifism than prompted by their belief in, or Chilembwe’s promise of, a literal New Jerusalem.Sscoulsdon (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument, but please read WP:OR. As the sources you cite show, the idea that Chilembwe was a millenarian is pretty mainsteam in academic writing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have done a considerable amount of work in creating this article but, under the ordinary rules of Wikipedia, it is open to others to improve on it with appropriately sourced material. I would welcome a constructive discussion on this issue with you, but this is probably not helped by making comments about WP:OR: as above or POV as in the note on your edit. I'm not sure of your point on WP:OR: as my sources are quoted. Unless you are suggesting that any attempt to balance conflicting sources or to say whether a source is credible or not is original research or a well sourced comment is a point of view, theese comments are not to the point. You say the idea that Chilembwe was a millenarian is pretty mainsteam, but Shepperson and Price, Rotberg, White and Fields (who have done original research) don't say so, and it is you who quote no original sources for your rather sweeping comment.

However, rather than talk in generalities, let's talk about your edit. Before your revert it read:-

"...an American-educated Baptist minister, whose radical evangelical views of racial injustice may also have been influenced by millenarian Christian views..." and was referenced to T Jack Thompson's paper.

To quote from Thompson's abstract:“It argues that while many of these ideas were initially influenced by radical evangelical thought in the area of racial injustice, Chilembwe's thinking in the months immediately preceding his rebellion became increasingly obsessed by the possibility that the End Time prophecies of the Book of Daniel might apply to the current political position in Nyasaland”. As far as I can see, what I wrote was a fair summary of the work of Thompson, not to mention others such as Rotberg, who conceeded “…overtones suggestive of millenarian eschatology.”

As edited by you it read "...an American-educated black millenarian Christian minister..." but still referenced to T Jack Thompson's paper.

I'm not sure why you deleted Baptist, as Chilembwe was baptised as a Baptist, trained in a Baptist college and ordained as a Baptist minister, and he retained his association with that denomination until his death. He was certainly not trained or educated by any American millenarian organisation as the grammar of the edit implies and (unlike, for example Elliot Kamwana), he received no training or support from the Watch Tower or similar organisations. This does not prevent him having been influenced by millenarian ideas, but his own statement, that he no connection with the Watch Tower movement, although a few in his congregation that might have been influenced by that movement. must be given due weight.

I have replaced the original wording and trust that, after reading the above you will either agree that it reflectsT Jack Thompson's paper more accurately than your edit, or will at least discuss the matter before getting into an edit war.Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References