Talk:Second Matabele War

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

Objectivity[edit]

"According to the Ndebele, the Zimbabwe government has tried to misappropriate this history after Zimbabwe's independence by trying to rename it the First Chimurenga. In fact, the word 'Chimurenga' is a word applied by the Zimbabwe government retrospectively to facts that do not bear it out either in name or numbering. The first anti-colonial war is the First Matebele War of 1893 to 1894, called in isiNdebele "Imfazwe", so even misappropriating Umvukela as a 'chimurenga' it would not be the first but the second. Both Imfazwe and Umvukela wars are known internationally as the two Matebele Wars; there is no reference to 'Chimurenga' in those historical accounts. And both wars pitted Ndebele warriors against BSAC forces and Shona people conscripted into the BSAC force."

Divide and conquer~? Since when is "According to the Ndebele" a source on wikipedia? According to whom? Which author, which writer? What follows is an unsourced invective against the Zimbabwean government. Clearly the writer is a White South African or Rhodesian, who wants to keep a feud going between the majority Shona and the minority Matabele (they're the people with the poor land, the Shona have the rich land), just like they tried to do during colonialism. Clearly, the writer also hates the Zimbabwean government, no need to wonder why. Hint: they redistributed the land. The introduction is not the place to argue a position. The first anti-colonial war after the defeat of both the Shona and Matabele was the first Chimurenga in 1896. Only someone who wants to sow division would want to accuse the government of Zimbabwe of 'appropriating the first' whatever would want to pick an argument over this issue. MrSativa (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think think it's particularly helpful to speculate about the motives or prejudices of editors, I agree that it is inappropriate to use the article (and particularly the lead) to advance particular viewpoints. As such I have restored a previous version of the opening paragraph, which I think is less PoV. Jellyman (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title and topic[edit]

I am sure the title of this article is as contentious as Second Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War and the arguments for the current title and those for First Chimurenga are similar. However, an added problem of the title Second Matabele War is that it provides no scope for discussion of the events in Mashonaland, which were intimately linked, for example by the work of the medium Mukwati. So, as expected, I favour First Chimurenga. Babakathy (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The linkage between the First Matabele War and Second Matabele War is strong, and that segway is not captured in the name First Chimurenga. It might help this discussion to know if you also are in favor of renaming the First Matabele War. - Ctatkinson (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware for an alternative name for the First Matabele War. I follow the need for linkage to that war; the linkage to the First Chimurenga in Mashonaland is also important - especially since it was during the same year. The latter conflict is not recorded at all, even in Chimurenga, except in the individual articles on Nehanda Nyakasikana and Kaguvi Gumboreshumba. I would like to make a contribution on this conflict, but it is impossible to record the war in Mashonaland under the title Second Matabele War.Babakathy (talk) 12:41, 3 October (UTC)
I'm not sure I get your point that you cannot contribute to this article because of the name. The article states at the very beginning that the Second Matabele War also goes by the name First Chimurenga, so these two conflicts are of course one in the same. The current article doesn't have much on the conflict in Mashonaland and your addtions would be appreciated by everyone. I don't know a lot about the war in Mashonaland, but I would be willing to help out. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it is not impossible, so I may as well get started. But it will look rather odd having a section on Mashonaland in an article whose title implies it is about conflict between the Matabele (and the British): the Shona and Ndebele are two distinct peoples, and the BSAC authorities did divide the country into Mashonaland and Matabeleland even in the 1890s. It is rather like having an article on the Anglo-Zulu war containing a section on conflicts between the British and Xhosa.Babakathy (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at what I have added and see what you think.Babakathy (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent additions! I moved around some of the paragraphs to fit within the new sections. Feel free to copy-edit.
In terms of the name of the article, none of the traditional names for the Anglo-Ndebele, Anglo-Shona, Ndebele-Shona conflicts of this period adequately characterize the events; however, the names of many wars involving multiple peoples/tribes are often less than optimal. At the time of these events, the press refered to this rebellion as the conflict in Matabeleland, in part because Mlimo is credited with starting the uprising, in part because the war in Matabeleland began several months prior to the war in Mashonaland, in part because the Anglos were historically more scared of the Ndebele, in part because the First Matabele War took place only a couple of years earlier, and in part because maps of the period all depicted the entire region as Matabeland, even though this too was not a wholly accurate depiction.
I should also clarify here that I'm not a strong fan of either name: Second Matabele War or First Chimurenga. Neither name adequately captures these conflicts. Similarly the name Vietnam War in the West and the American War in Vietnam, don't adequately capture that conflict, but the name Second Indochina War is much better. I wish there were a broader category of naming for the conflicts in the Zimbabwe region, such as First Zimbabwe war, Second Zimbabwe war, Third Zimbabwe war, etc.; however, historians have not yet adopted this naming convention. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

For the Ndebele a staggering 50,000 are estimated. I would say this qualifies as "citation needed".--134.93.178.88 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:British South Africa Police.jpg[edit]

The image File:British South Africa Police.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mlimo[edit]

I believe that Mlimo is a title not an individuals name and that there were at least two during this war.

I reverted that change. Mlimo is not particularly rare as a name and there were a several of them about. JonRichfield (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Second Matabele War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The name "Mlimo" is incorrect, as Mlimo is the shona/ndebele word for Creator or GOD. The man assasinated by Burnham was called Mukwati, this is easily researched in ZIMBABWEAN history books (even thoughs written by Europeans, which seem to bare more importance on this site). It is misleading and offensive to quote old out-of-date text that refer to a "Phophet" as "GOD". If this was a "Allah v Mohammed" or a "Jehovah v St Paul" situation, wiki would have by now sorted the problem, however, whenever Zimbabwean Historians try and correct the wiki text, its quickly reverted to the incorrect European version. Can this be changed???

Last edited at 01:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Khama[edit]

Why did he supported the invasion of matebeleland 197.155.236.110 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Matabele War → First Chimurenga – The discussion of renaming this page has not been touched in 15 years, but since the Second Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War page is having a similar discussion, I believe now is the time to revisit it. Per WP:COMMONNAME, here is a Google Ngram for a few common names for the conflict.

While "Second Matabele War" is certainly the oldest common name for the war, it has clearly not been the common term in over 40 years. I suggest using the term Chimurenga as it appears to be the most common, and I suggest First Chimurenga as the article title as it is both common and unambiguous.

Chimurenga is also more accurate, referring to the conflicts fought by both the "Matabele" (Northern Ndebele people) in the north and "Mashona" (Shona people) in the south. While the article includes a section on both conflicts, the article title only refers to the former. Sophie (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Very definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME outside Zimbabwe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp Do you have proof that that is true? Is there some reason we should discount what it's called in Zimbabwe, the place where it happened, where it's most relevant, and where it's most often referred to? Sophie (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia is a world encyclopaedia and this name is clearly a POV term which is not commonly used or understood elsewhere. See Indian Rebellion of 1857 for why we don't use loaded terms (i.e. not the Indian Mutiny or the First Indian War of Independence, which would be seen as looking at it from the British or Indian POVs respectively). The current title is entirely neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to me like the sort of Anglo-American focus which we should be actively working to counter-act. If this is a world encyclopedia (written in English for English readers) then we should be using the most common English term rather than a less common one that might be more identifiable to a Westerner (which Ngram suggests is likely not the case. [British English][American English])
    Also, even if the name could be considered non-neutral (I don't believe that's the case) it would be acceptable per WP:POVNAME as it is, very definitely, the common name currently in use. Sophie (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The ngram evidence provided by the nom is drawn from a global corpus of english language sources. It would indicate that this is clearly that First Chimurenga is clearly much more common than Second Matabele War. Google book (4500/2880), Google scholar (1460/118) and JSTOR(98/5) searches for "First Chimurenga" and "Second Matabele War" as an exact string give the results indicated respectively. The evidence does not support this not being common outside Zimbabwe but common in the global corpus. Incidentally, the JSTOR and ngran would indicate mixed usage such that we should not capitalise first in running prose per MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisted following Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 October. The previous close was "moved"; see here for the summary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Matabele_War&oldid=1194955469"