Talk:David Livingstone

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wasn't Lake Victoria the source of the Nile? Why did I find Lake Victoria, and then a few years later start looking for the source of the Nile? Is the article wrong? Or did Livingstone not know that he had already found it? --dave

As I recall, he (and numerous others) thought/hoped that Lake Victoria was just yet another intermediate source. They were looking for the source of Lake Victoria (and hence the Nile), or else to discover that Lake Victoria flowed into something else, not the Nile, and that the "real" source would be something different. (Everybody wanted to be the man who discovered the ultimate source. Great kudos in that. Speke had already done it by then, but no-one really knew it for sure, and everyone was still arguing.)

If I remember correctly, it wasn't until several years after Livingstone's death that the Bakers finally travelled all the way up the Nile from Egypt to Lake Victoria and finally proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. But it's been 15 years or so since I last read this stuff, so don't take anything above as gospel! I'd have to check. Tannin

Interesting, thanks! --Dave

The Bakers only got to Lake Albert, although that was interesting because nobody had suspected its existence. Stanley was the one who filled in the remaining mysteries, which included showing that the Lualaba was in the Congo watershed and did not connect to the Nile anywhere. Stan 08:32 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

The end of Charles Livingstone

Can someone fix this sentence: "The other Europeans, including Livingstone's brother Charles (the one exception -- George Rae, an engineer) either died, resigned, or were fired by Livingstone." The parenthetical is ugly, but more importantly it's unclear as to whether Charles died, resigned or was fired. Presumably died since this is most noteworthy, but we can't be sure. Curious (i.e. morbidly obsessed) readers are gonna want to know. I didn't find a credible answer in my first page of Google searches, so I'll leave it to our WP experts. --User:Chinasaur

Heart in Africa

Was his heart literally buried in Africa? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's what I've always heard and a google search confirms Mydotnet 17:50, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be ok to stick it back in with a less sentimental ending - 'the natives buried his heart in Africa' or something?Mydotnet 18:43, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

All his internal organs were removed (or the body would have rotted; practical not sentimental). I have a source here which claims they were eaten not buried though. Justinc 01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In the book: David Livingstone: Dernier Journal, 1999 Eds. Arléa ISBN 2-86959-449-6 this is discussed. To conserve his body for transport, his heart and other organs were taken out, put in an iron box and buried four feet deep close to the place where he died. The body was conserved by replacing his internal organs by salt and pouring 'eau-de-vie' in his mouth.... there is more to say on this part... Would you think this should be mentioned in the article? I could work it out. --User:AAM | Talk 13:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zambesi vs Zambezi

I suggest that, for the sake of consistensy, we use the spelling Zambezi (most used English spelling) instead of Zambesi. --Ezeu 19:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illness

When did he lose contact with the "outside" world? It says six years, but six years prior to 1871 was 1865. This says he was in London and India in 1865. It also says that he was known to be alive in 1867 (letters and a search expedition). FireWorks 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuma and Susi

These two loyal staff of David Livingstone i.e. Chuma and Susi appear in this article and many other writings on Dr Livingstone I have come across. Is it possible to shed more light-origin,ethnicity etc about them?

Comments made by 218.41.46.88

An anonymous user (218.41.46.88) recently put comments in the article, inappropriate but probably not intended as vandalism. The comments seemed valuable, you can see those edits in the revision difference here / Ezeu 08:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of personal insight

This article suffers from a lack of insight as to Dr. Livingstone's views, other than "Christianity, Commerce and Civilization." It would be nice to see a bit more detail here (I will research this if I have time). It seems like he existed at a pivotal time (the African colonization / exploitation rush) but with a seemingly more altruistic motive than, say, Cecil Rhodes.

Cause of death

Why is bowel obstruction mentioned as one of the causes of his death? Are there reliable sources for that? In his last journal he mentions he suffers from attacks of dysenteria, that this causes a lot of blood loss that was weakening him. He also writes on his malaria problem that he suppresses with quinine.--User:AAM | Talk 14:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed bowel obstruction into dysentery. I found no reference justifying bowel obstruction and see above: he writes himself that he has dysentery close to the end of his life. --User:AAM | Talk 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Livingstone, I presume?

Dr.Livingstone, I presume?- is a famous line that was spoken by Henry Morton Stanley, a fellow missionary of David Livingstone from Britan. This statement is said to have indirectly influence Imperial forces to occupy Africa and eventually promote slavery of native Africans.The mian target of slaves were the small civilized villages of western and central Africa.

Stanley wasn't a missionary, he was a reporter. It was the words of Livingstone which promoted the Scramble for Africa, the slave trade had been made illegal decades before. PhilipPage 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did that statement apart from their meeting possibly influence the British decision to colonise? That seems thoroughly absurd to me, as does the article's introductory sentence, which apparently reduces the seriousness of the article's subject. I would like to see that sentence changed; I know that I (who know very little about Livingstone) do not best remember Livingstone by that quote. A.G. Pinkwater 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]