Jump to content

Talk:Edward Makuka Nkoloso

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about the cats?

[edit]

In the Aftermath section, the reasons for Matha Mwambwa leaving the project are described, but no mention is made of the two cats. Were the cats ever interviewed? OakMiner (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

THIS... IS... HILARIOUS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.107.253 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment might provide basis of a serious treatment of the Zambian Space Project: ridicule by the west. A quick check, https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+Makuka+Nkoloso&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs , makes clear that the project is seen as a joke. The articles on the project are jokes. This incident could be turned into an examination of attitudes toward African industrialization and western views and attitudes. Will (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)woodpainter[reply]

In regards to the above two comments, while the events may have been used to get media attention, by way of satire, all evidence suggests his actions were in earnest. He is not just an anonymous figure in Zambian history. Although it would not surprise me if many Zambians feel embarrassment about the "space program", there are also many who are inspired by his audacity. Indeed, there is a certain degree of flamboyance and over-the-top attitudes common in Africa. Roguetech (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The letter from the Minster of Power stating the government was not involved is marked as needing verification. This is independently verified by another source. Verifying Mr. Kamuyuw was minister of Power [correction: assistant secretary] in 1988 would go a long way, but the information contained is extremely credible, with no reason to doubt its accuracy. Leaving unreliable warning for further discussion. Op-ed by Mr. Nkoloso was also marked as unreliable. However, it is visually consistent with a 1960's newspaper, all facts are consistent with other sources, and it contains a photo of Nkoloso holding a spear that is independently verified he had in 1965. In addition, source is only used to establish Nkoloso's personal intentions, which are described consistently in other sources. Further, his son has tacitly confirmed the contents. Ergo, the source is verifiable beyond any reasonable doubt, despite not knowing the exact publish date or the newspaper it was published in. For these reasons, removed its unreliable warning. With 11 separate largely independent sources, this article is well sourced, and all sources have reasonable verification, and therefore removed of additional citations needed notice. Mr. Nkoloso is an important figure in Zambian history, and the space program garnered wide-spread media attention and clearly not a common occurrence. In addition, it is still relevant to the people of Zambia, and continuing to receive media attention, including an art show and two documentaries. Therefore I removed the notability warning. Roguetech (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

Placing this here as summary of arguments, to make it easier for 3rd Party editors to see what's relevant (so you won't have to read through pages of us bickering). There are more involved statements of position below. Inanygivenhole, you may add to this, to properly frame your argument. If I misrepresent your position in any way, my representation is biased in any way, or you feel this edit is inappropriate in general, let me know and I will reedit or remove it. I grant permission for you to remove this post, or add text to it. It is intended to be - with your input - a joint statement of the bare facts. If there are other issues still in dispute, please add them.Roguetech (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is citation #8 (see below). It is the sole source used to establish three facts: 1) A goal of Nkoloso's with the space program was to convert Martians to Christianity, 2) The space craft was sabotaged by "foreign elements", and 3) the number of cats. The source is a document purportedly written by Nkoloso and appears to have been published in a newspaper. The publication date and newspaper are unknown. The link goes to a photograph that Erik R. Trinidad (a blogger) claims to have taken while at the Lusaka National Museum in Lusaka, Zambia. A documentary produced in Africa (source #1) displayed a document visually identical to Trinidad's photo, and also featured a man claiming to be Nkoloso's son. He did not mention the document. Inanygivenhole feels that a goal of converting Martians is an extraordinary claim, and requires a commensurately extraordinary source (and that either way, having an unreliable-inline tag to say "hey! This isn't a very well-attested-to-claim!" does nothing to 'hurt' the page). Roguetech disagrees, and feels the source is well enough established to support the claim.
Nkoloso, Edward Makuka (c. 1965). "We're going to Mars! With a spacegirl, two cats and a missionary". Lusaka, Zambia. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |layurl= ignored (help)Roguetech (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed orphan status again. Article is linked from two other article. Removed self-published status. There is no indication that the Wiki article has had any contributions made by the deceased Nkoloso! There are 11 separate sources, only two of which are self-published; neither are used for self-promotion of Nkoloso, but rather to establish intent of otherwise established actions. Removed unreliable source status. The source in question is an article published by Nkoloso in a newspaper. It is been verified by: 1) visual consistency with a 1960's newspaper with no evidence it has been altered or faked (it's a photograph/photocopy); 2) All facts stated within have been independently verified by other sources, so would have required knowledge of events and great skill to fake (some sources used for verification have only recently been published); 3) The article contains a photo verified as being Nkoloso from c.1965, so anyone faking it would have required access to said photo, and indicates likelihood it was published in his lifetime (with no refutation being made available to Western journalism); 4) It is only used to source his personal intentions, and these are consistent with statements made in other sources; 5) His son did not refute the validity in a documentary in which he participated, despite the source having been used and mentioned (CCTV); 6) Only used to source intention to go to mars, to convert martians to Christianity, and belief of vandalism - these beliefs are in no way extraordinary. Therefore, there is no reasonably doubt Nkoloso is the author. Since we can conclude he was the author, exact publication date or the name of the publisher is not relevant to either the information sourced or to the veracity of his statements. The other argument presented is that due to this being a Biography of a Living Person article, higher standards are required. Not only does this article meet those higher standards, but Nkoloso is deceased, so it's not a BLP. Removed stub status due to this article containing all facts available through Western media sources - while more information may be available through African sources, and hopefully these will be added in time, the article does not meet stub standards. In addition, article has been published for several years. Finally, no reason in Talk has been provided for these statuses having been added, and the burden of evidence lies on the one making the allegations. Editor inanygivenhole has been in personal discussion with myself regarding Nkoloso's editorial, and was aware that I oppose considering it unverified. It is my belief inanygivenhole is retaliating for not being able to counter the above list of validation methods, and made no prior mention or argument in support of article being designated stub, orphan or self-published. Roguetech (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Plain and simple. There's no tag for this in particular, but the basic gist of the notion is that *this* source is not reliable enough to make *this* claim. Calling inclusion of this "vandalism" will not make it go away, and in fact will incur civility warnings in the future. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is extraordinary about which claim in which source? All sources have been verified, all sources are corroborated by further sources, and so far as I know, all sources are properly cited. The letter from Ministry of Power was published by Investigator magazine, with a publication date and URL, as sourced. If you feel it would be better sourced as "web", we can discuss that. I have changed the article titled "We're going to Mars! With a spacegirl, two cats and a missionary" from being "news" to "web", on the basic premise that it is equivalent to a self-published and/or primary document (e.g. a newspaper article of established authenticity but unknown publication). The repository is the Lusaka National Museum, the photographer is Erik Trinidad with date of photograph and a URL is provided for the image. (And I've stated the reasons authenticity is justified from the document itself above - even without publication/repository information.) If you feel it would be better sourced as "news", "image" or "web", we can discuss that. I have tried to find the correct notation for a primary document, as was unable to, so please feel free to suggest how to cite it in such a way as to include all available information. Nonetheless, both Nkoloso's article and the letter from the Ministry are well documented. Setting an article to stub status (on a 5 year old, reasonably thorough article), orphan status (blatantly false as *stated above*) and setting self-published status (blatantly false with a deceased person) all with no discussion (including offsite) as retribution for an offsite conversation is vandalism. Just so you know, I have changed all sources to use endnote cite template, so that the citation data is more clear (and to prevent article clutter). Both of these sources have been in place for years; the original status quo is with the citations in place and unflagged. Therefore, replacing the citation and unflagging the other. If after discussion, we can not agree, then an admin or neutral arbiter can decide, but I will report unilateral deletion of these sources, citations of these sources or flagging these sources again without a consensus as edit-warring. Therefore, if you feel no consensus can be reached, by all means - state your case and refer to an admin, and let *them* change it (or not). Roguetech (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance for further information. Roguetech (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it from "news" to "web" still doesn't change the fact that it's self-published (in fact, it now explicitly makes that an issue: if it's not a news article, then it's a self-published web bit), and an extraordinary claim. I removed bootnsall from most citations because we have plenty, and there's MOS guidelines against using many citations for the same claim. The article is the opposite of well-documented: we have no idea who published it, or when. Calling my edits "vandalism" is blatantly misusing the term, in full disregard of what guidelines and policy actually say, and is uncivil.
I'm letting ANI know because it's clear we're getting nowhere. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI = ? [edit-NM, found it. Good post.]
I had already typed (and apparently lost) statement that I would refer to admin or editor review, due to you reverting an edit that includes substatntive change not in dispute despite specific request not to do so. Requesting you provide input as to your preferred method:
Editor review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests
Refer to specific editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance (please state preference(s) on editor)
Report for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW
As you state you will let "ANI" know, I guess you're already taking care of it, but if not, please provide input. (And otherwise, let me know what ANI is. [edit-see above]) Roguetech (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "substantive change" was kept, and the only thing changed was in-line with policy. It's an extraordinary claim, and one so fundamental to the program, you'd think someone else would have mentioned it. All of the links you have given are irrelevant, and there are proper venues for this: ANI and 3O. EW is only needed if the revert rule is broken. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The "substantive change" was kept"" - Thanks.
The three-change rule has been broken, so EW would be an appropriate avenue to take. However, I personally feel that if we both agree on a third-party method, it is unnecessary. Despite not having agreed upon it, I am fine with ANI, though alternative has been suggested.Roguetech (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three revert rule was never broken. I would suggest getting acquainted with it if you haven't already-I noticed you're new-And it's a pretty fundamental rule. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three reverts in 24 hours is the limit. Many edits one-after-the-other count as one revert. The only time that changes is under arbcom sanction. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing even remotely "extraordinary" about planing on going to Mars, when it's well established he planned on going to the moon. What's a few dozen million miles, when your space craft is a barrel? If the claim was that he *had* gotten to Mars in a tin-can, *that* would be extraordinary. I could *want* or *plan* to go to the Mars three times a day. Not only would it be not extraordinary, but the *only* way to validate it would be through a personal statement, which is what we have from Nkoloso. The fact that we don't have the original publish date or can trace it to Lusaka Times beyond conjecture is not relevant, since there are multiple reasons to believe it's credible, and no reason or plausible reason why it would be faked. Not only do I feel that "extraordinary" claim requirements not apply to begin with, but considering how well established the source is, being kept in the Lusaka Museum and tacitly verified by Nkoloso's son, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the requirements anyways!
"There is nothing even remotely "extraordinary" about planing on going to Mars, when it's well established he planned on going to the moon." that was never the issue, it was always been the Martian missionary bit, and we don't have an extraordinary source for that. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also nothing extraordinary about people c. 1965 believing there were Martians, and there is nothing extraordinary about people wanting to convert others to Christianity. Having implausible to the point of impossible goals is extremely common - therefore, having any impossible goal is no more absurd than having any specific impossible goal. Clearly the goal of reaching space already places him in that position. In addition, he is not unique in this idea. Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles predate Nkoloso's plans, as does Robert Heilein's Stranger in a Strange Land, and both explore the concept. Decent literature, but not "extraordinary" simply because they make the claim. Attempting to convert others to Christianity is so extremely mundane, I feel silly for even needing to point out it's mundane. Further, since they are his own words, they can be attributed to him regardless of how absurd they may seem, or even if his own behavior or events contradict them.Roguetech (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to convert aliens to Christianity is not mundane. The fact is that the source is unverifiable, we don't know when or where or by whom it was published, and for that reason we don't know what it is, it can't be verified except by someone stumbling onto it by chance. The apparent aim of the program was to convert Martians to Christianity and it was only covered in that one source. That's a red flag. If this was the aim of the program, why wasn't it mentioned elsewhere? Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to convert aliens would be all but impossible, but how is having the goal of converting aliens to Christianity not mundane? There are two cases of well-received works of fiction that purport to do just that, and that is by no means an exhaustive list. The article is featured and displayed in the CCTV documentary featuring his son, which was produced in Africa. It is beyond any doubt the same document as the document used as the source. Erik Trinidad claims to have photographed this source document while at the Lusaka Museum, and provided the date it was taken (an add amount of detail to provide for a fake). Therefore, either CCTV got it from Trinidad without realizing it did not match the document in the museum (or isn't actually in the museum), or they got it independently from Lusaka Museum, and the original is fake. Given that the documentary features a man who claims to be Nkoloso's son, it's would be an extraordinary claim that they the director, editor or Nkoloso's son wouldn't have noticed the issue. They may have been in on the great Martian conversion conspiracy, but the number of seemingly independent people in on it surpasses credulity. In addition, the amount of work involved in simply faking or significantly modifying the document would be beyond the vast majority of people and exceed any realistic pay out. Since *your claim* is extraordinary, seems only fair you should have to provide extraordinary sources to demonstrate it. What evidence do you have of a conspiracy?Roguetech (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having the aim of a space program be to convert Martians to Christianity, and no rambling wall of text, no distorting the other side, no amount of begging the question will change that. Red flags have been noted, and the source is unverifiable. It's becoming very hard to have a conversation with you since you keep going off on all these tangents and making mountains out of molehills. My previous responses address these issues already, and at this point all we can do is wait for another opinion on the matter. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you have never stated why it's extraordinary, or addressed the extraordinary claim it could have been faked, or any pretty much any other thing. You simply repeat "extraordinary" over and over again. How is it extraordinary?? Why do you feel it would be so difficult for someone to want to convert hypothetical other people to their religion?? More to the point, why is it so extraordinary that someone would make the claim that they wanted to do it?? How is it unverified, despite the mountains of evidence for it's authenticity that you admit I've made?? Just to prove it's not extraordinary, I'll demonstrate how easy it is. I want to convert Martians to Christianity. You can quote me. Just to be fair, I want to convert them to Islam, Hinduism and Bhuddism. Again, feel free to quote me. If I can do it from the leisure of my living room on a lark simply to demonstrate a point... You're just going to have to explain how it is that I am extraordinary.Roguetech (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have given reasons as to why it is more than a little hard to believe that the aim of the program was to give Martians the good news. Saying that I have not will not change that. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Plain and simple."
"Attempting to convert aliens to Christianity is not mundane...The apparent aim of the program was to convert Martians to Christianity and it was only covered in that one source. That's a red flag."
"...it was always been the Martian missionary bit,..."
"Having the aim of a space program be to convert Martians to Christianity,... My previous responses address these issues already..."
You are mistaken. You have repeated that it is several times, but you have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why.Roguetech (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind? I noted several red flags which require that the source be checked in my penultimate post. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind?? I quoted the one "red flag", which is nothing more than asserting the document is important. If that weren't an issue, then none of this would be an issue, so it is just "begging the question", and has nothing to do with how common the desire of converting Martians is to people who dream of visiting Martians. WHY is it in any way "extraordinary"????? How have you determined it is uncommon in any way????? Until you have established it is an extraordinary claim, there's no need to even discuss how well documented the source is, so it seems to me you're just grasping at straws.Roguetech (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence for extraoridnary is on you. Nonetheless, here are a few illustrations of how mundane it is:
A Voyage to Other Worlds; WS Lach-Szyrma; 1883 - First book to use the word "Martian", portrays Christian Martians
The Secret of the Near East; George Lamsa; 1923 (nonfiction) - Discusses Martians preferring Islam
Martian Chronicles; Ray Bradbury; 1950 - stories involving converting Martians to Christianity
The New Christian Advocate, Volume 2, Issue 1-6; 1958 (nonfiction) - Discusses converting Martians to Christianity
Stranger in a Strange Land; Robert Heilein; 1961 - Discusses a Christian human raised on Mars converting humans to new pseudo-Christian denomination
Jesus On Mars; Philip Farmer; 1979 - Proposes Jesus lives on Mars
Shaping a Christian Worldview; David Dockery, Gregory Thornbury; 2002 (nonfiction) - Discusses ramifications of space exploration to Christianity
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview; JP Moreland, William Craig; 2003 (nonfiction) - Uses Martians as an example for brain states
Eat My Martian Dust; Michael Carroll, Robert Elmer; 2005 - Stories of converting Martians
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Writing Christian Fiction; Ron Benrey; 2007 (nonfiction) - Uses story of Martians as example
Ender's Game series; Orson Scott Card; 2010 - Discusses converting aliens to Christianity
It seems a significant proportion of literature that deals with "Martians", either as fictional or philosophical discussion of them, deals with religious beliefs of Martians.
So "mostly fictional books mentioned it therefore it isn't extraordinary when applied to real life"? Come now... Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding you blatantly ignoring the fact that FIVE of those I cited are clearly labeled as NON FICTION... Yes. Nkoloso's intentions are also fiction, since they never happened. Once again, NO ONE is claiming he ACTUALLY made it Mars and converted Martians! The statement of having the concept is anything but extraordinary.Roguetech (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would changing the verbage from "Nkoloso stated goals of the program were to establish" to ""Nkoloso stated a goal of the program was to establish" satisfy you...?


Removing BLP from staus of Talk. It's been established he's dead. Correct me if there is still any confusion and/or dispute over this. NOTE: Leaving stub status, though it is not on article page, but I am not going to assume that it's under dispute (e.g. leaving it to 3O discussion). If you have no issues with it, feel free to remove it. Why is the article listed as orphan again?? There are two articles linking to it. Is this still in dispute? Also just noticed the citation under dispute (We're going to Mars! With a spacegirl, two cats and a missionary) should be citing vandalism to the space craft. I mention it as both a note to 3O reviewers that too is relevant, and as "note to self" to re-cite it, depending on 3O outcome. I also suggest a redirect from "Afronauts", but I am making no changes until resolution. Roguetech (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing orphan status due to clear and unambigious policy: "It is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan)
This is getting very close to the 3RR, if it hasn't already violated it. I'd suggest cooling down and coming back later. There's reasons to include, and there's reasons to not. We need a consensus to decide which is best for the article. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, the policy is clear. however, if it's a disputed issue, change it back. I'm fine with letting 3O do it's thing.Roguetech (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is pretty clear: you violated it with your edit sprees at 21:40 UTC, 5:29 UTC, and 19:15 UTC. It is neither a guideline nor a policy. There are arguments for both sides of the issue. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocritical much?? You swap between marking sources "unreliable" and "unverifiable", tagging the article as stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and multiple issues all specifically to get away with it more often. Still no explanation on any of it, except "extraordinary". Yes, it's vandalism, since you clearly are not doing it to improve the article, but rather to interfere. Call it uncivil if you want. I'd agree.Roguetech (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to remain civil in your use of language. Verifiability, as I see it, is a part of reliability. Wikipedia does much to distinguish them, but seeing as how a source must be verifiable in order to be reliable, they are in this case interchangeable. Instead of assuming that I'm an idiot, I would encourage assuming good faith. It'll save you a lot of trouble in the future. You're also using a nonsense definition of "vandalism" (essentially "things not done to improve the article are vandalism"). You've exaggerated, oversimplified, ignored, and misunderstood what I've been saying the entire time and it is getting very difficult to even have a conversation with you. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not distinguish between stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and multiple issues??? there's no way to characterize that statement without a personal insult. I'll leave it to you to pick an appropriate one. I have not "exaggerated, oversimplified, ignored, and misunderstood what [you]'ve been saying" in regards to any of those things, with the possible exception of "ref improve", since you have yet to state any reason for any of them except, and this is a direct quote, "(few parameter, per template help pg)" and "(Again, per policy. Orphan has a 'few' tag.)". Frankly, I see no way to interpret that without exaggerating and/or misunderstanding, and you have not addressed any of the other changes that you have implemented. So by all means, explain why you have continually changed the tagging? Why do you feel the article is stub quality? Why do you feel it's unnotable? Why do you feel it's orphaned? Why do you feel it's self-published? Why Why WHY?? Until then, your statement I've exaggerated, oversimplified, ignored or misunderstood anything you have not said is completely ridiculous. So I'm forced to assume it is to impede improvements to article, and therefore "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Roguetech (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even making the slightest attempt at reading comprehension? You just turned "Verifiability, as I see it, is a part of reliability. Wikipedia does much to distinguish them" into "Wikipedia does not distinguish between stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and multiple issues" because you won't even give me the time of day: you're speeding through what I'm saying without taking the time to understand it. It's making discussion impossible. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even making the slightest attempt at reading comprehension? What I am asking is what have you verified at all to determine the article is stub, unreliable, orphan, self-published, unnotable, ref improve, improve categories and/or multiple issues? Until you provide some reasonable rationale for those changes, I'm forced to assume it is to impede improvements to article, and therefore "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Once again, you have completely avoided any attempt at an answer.Roguetech (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a "Manned mars mission plan" (possibly moon, haven't checked). Depending on 3O outcome, perhaps should link from them. Please comment.Roguetech (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only link i didn't liked was "http://ed5015.tripod.com/PaZambiaSpaceFlight2.htm", which should be either replaced or the information can be removed. Rest of the article seems to be fitting well, if we go by the Roguetech's version. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is agreed it is weak, but it's removal would not affect the article; the fact it sources has another source (albeit potentially even weaker, since it may be secondary source based on this one). However, I don't think anyone would disagree the Zambian government has not had any great involvement in the program. Nonetheless, to be clear, you feel it would be in the article's best interests to remove this source entirely? (I have attempted to find a replacement for it, unsuccessfully.)
Found another source for it. It is included Afronauts, Cristina De Middel, 2012. It appears the original letter is included. However, the book does not explicitly state it is a reproduction of the original. [1] (There's a better photo of the page, however, it is harder to link.) [2] Not sure if it's good enough or how to source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguetech (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone must avoid wordpress sources though, whether here or outside, same with blogspot. Anyone can write just anything in those sites. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same issue with tripod, too. That would be less of an issue if we had a date or at least just the name of the newspaper, because then it would be theoretically verifiable. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, for now, we can work on confirm information, collect better sources. Remembering that this subject is neither controversial nor it's heavily viewed, so no hurries. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree on not rushing for but searching for better confirmation, except I am continually finding new information, and just waiting for it to come off of edit freeze to rewrite a good chunk of the article. For "tripod", that is a webhost, and has nothing to do with anything - it'd be like complaining about using Earthlink as an ISP. More to the point, the webhost/datacenter is not addressed in Wikipedia standards, that I know of. The dubious nature of the tripod document isn't due to the webhost, but because it is quoted from an unknown webzine (roughly equivalent to a blog). The same thing applies to "wordpress" and "blogspot" - they are software platforms and/or webhosts. Wikipedia standards do address blogs, but "wordpress" and "blogspot" are just simple means to determine a blog from a more credible source. Nonetheless, it has yet to be explained how it applies to the photographed document, which unlike the tripod document it is the photo being sourced, not the blog author's text.
The tripod source can be re-sourced to the Afronauts photobook. Since it reproduces the original letters, I would think that would be sufficient. It also reprints the photographed document. It is based on research performed by the artist/author in Zambia, so I would assume the document it shows is independently photographed from the Lusaka museum, but it doesn't state that. Also there is no freely accessible photograph to link to. That's why I prefer the Erik Trinidad photograph as a citation, even if it is on a "blog"... It's not just some unknown dude babbling about some random topic, it's a photo by a photographic journalist (though not one with established editorial standards) that can be linked to, and offers easier confirmation to readers. Also, still hoping other Third Parties will weigh in - one Third Party a consensus does not make. Just want it over with, so I can finish out the article, so as much of Nkoloso's story can be told as possible.Roguetech (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did more checking and Investigator Magazine (tripod site) was a print magazine, so that source is fine. Roguetech (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So long as we can get a verifiable source for the Martian claim, I'm happy. Inanygivenhole (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've stated all along that the source is completely verifiable, I'd rather a little more precision in the statement. Is the photo by Erik Trinidad, as a photo-journalist who in turn sources it to the museum in Lusaka a "verifiable source"? If not, is being published in Afronauts (De Middel, 2012) a "verifiable source"? If not, is the Lusaka National Museum a "verifiable source"? If not, exactly what would be required for it to have a "verifiable source", given that the original newspaper is almost certainly lost to time? Roguetech (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to see a linked article from The Spectator which asks what happened to the Mars mission http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6705163/india-deserves-our-aid-despite-its-nuclear-programme-or-rather-because-of-it/ within the context of discussing aid to India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMMonty (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that doesn't mention plans to convert the Martians to Christianity, just a trip to Mars.Roguetech (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was also covered by Discovery news (http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/to-mars-zambias-forgotten-space-program.htm) and they state Time magazine (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876312-2,00.html), however I'm unable to access the Time article so I'd be careful. It is however a rather amusing story without the cats or the Mission trip.FMMonty (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A little more research. Seems The New Scientist has the same article (http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/the-worlds-forgotten-space-programmes/1), the Southern Times of Africa a version (http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/news_article.php?id=7922&title=The%20Afronauts%20-%20a%20Zambian%20space%20odyssey&type=65), and the always polite Daily Mail newspaper http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135354/Meet-afronauts-Hilarious-pictures-poke-fun-Zambian-space-programme-quite-got-ground.html. I think that might be enough for it to be real on balance of probabilities.FMMonty (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any of those are fine by me. New Scientist implies the document is published in Time. Discovery News article leads back to a travel blog by Mr. Tanguy, who sources it to the museum in Lusaka. Southern Times and Daily Mail source to De Middel's book Afronauts. Interesting to note, that book sold out immediately, and now (less than a year later) copies sell for several thousand dollars.Roguetech (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You guys might be missing the point of Nkoloso's endeavor. The converting Martians to Christianity thing was a kind of live-action satire. He is quoted (somewhere. Sorry. Source lost.) as saying he planned to try and convert the Martians but would not force his values upon the Martians -- just like the Colonialists told the Zambians. The whole Zambia space program was a cover for training freedom fighters. How else would the British permit Zambians to be taught to make chemical combustion etc. Several of Nkoloso's afronauts were involved in bombings of bridges etc. Nkoloso was educated. He knew his rockets could never fly and he wanted to appear like a fool because only then would the authorities ignore his true intent--to overthrow the British government. ... I cover this in a short historical fiction called "Of Halves and Afronauts" [Kaz Morran: fivefiftyau@gmail.com] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:57:E86F:1:3C58:6600:6DB0:E064 (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also: Is it Edward Makuka Nkoloso or Edward Mukuka Nkoloso? because the wiki title spells the name differently than the body does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:57:E86F:1:3C58:6600:6DB0:E064 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be a huge mistake! Does anyone can finally edit the title? Thinte (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COMMONNAME. The "Life"-section states that Some sources refer to him as "Edward Makuka Nkoloso". Do you think that the article should be renamed? NotAGenious (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Makuka Nkoloso. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward Makuka Nkoloso. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia resistance movement?

[edit]

What exactly is this movement? All my Google results from searching the term lead to this specific person Fasscass (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Zambian Space Programme" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Zambian Space Programme has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 15 § Zambian Space Programme until a consensus is reached. Tollens (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Makuka_Nkoloso&oldid=1196487120"