# Talk:Sihayo kaXongo

Hey, Dumelow! Women are killed for "adultery" after being raped even now. Or accused of adultery based on nothing but rumor, or just out of malice because someone doesn't like them and wants to do them serious harm. And so goes the oral history; decades later, people will be repeating that she was killed because she committed adultery. I'd love to see the evidence modern male scholars have for what these women actually did versus what they were killed for. I mean, TWO of his wives just happened to be caught at the same time? And the person who caught both of them was the eldest son of the one? What, he walked in on them all having a foursome? Uh-huh. And, huh, the whole thing happened while Daddy was away. I'm sure there couldn't possibly have been any dysfunctional family dynamics in this very large and extremely influential household. And the primary source is oral histories from 75 years later taken by a male interviewer in 1965? It's all very fishy. :) 
Are these modern scholars (who btw all seem to be male?) not even questioning whether the oral histories might have been informed by the culture of both the interviewer and the interviewees? Is there any actual evidence that these women were indeed having voluntary affairs and then both absconded with their lovers when discovered? I can think of so many reasons why a couple of women might flee from their husband's eldest son, perhaps taking along a couple of male servants for protection. Like maybe he'd accused them of adultery, which they know carries a death penalty, and that he would be believed? There are so many reasons why men kill women and then blame the women. Even accounts from the British officers might assume the women actually had done what they were accused of doing; in the US even in 2021 the police often don't believe women who say they've been raped unless they've been beaten, and sometimes not even then if the beating isn't vicious enough. I feel like these women were executed for adultery, but does that actually mean they were adulterous? I can see that's the wording modern scholars are using, from the quotes you provided. Are they not saying anything like "according to contemporary accounts" or "according to oral history recorded in 1965" or anything like that? No one is even commenting on whether a wife executed for adultery was actually an "adulterous wife"? And how odd that neither lover ever saw any repercussions. So weird. 
I'd love to see what modern feminist scholars are writing about this kind of stuff. —valereee (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi —valereee, thanks for the well-thought out points above.  I have copies of most major works on the Anglo-Zulu War and am not aware of any contrary opinions on this particular subject, though, as you say, all of them are written by men.  I have Greaves' latest work The Zulus at War: The History, Rise, and Fall of the Tribe That Washed Its Spears on my wishlist; it is a wider history of the tribe but his co-author is Xolani Mkhize, a Zulu man, and it apparently contains some new insights on the war from the Zulu point-of-view.  Rest assured I will update this article with any new information - Dumelow (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for listening. I know this all represents speculation/OR and really is iffy even for discussion here. If you ever do come across a feminist critique of this story, or find scholarship that characterizes it as "according to oral history" or some such instead of simply treating it as fact, I would love to read it. I'm actually finding it a little surprising that modern scholars aren't saying 'two wives executed for adultery' instead of 'two adulterous wives were executed.' The language just sounds kind of out of date. No one is saying they were killed by 'murderous family members'...oh, but yeah. The murderous family members were all men. Silly me. :)  —valereee (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sihayo kaXongo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


### Overview
Hi Dumelow, I will take this on as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. I'll make a start now but I don't think I'll have the time to complete the review today. Mujinga (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

An interesting read, I've made some comments and put them below. I'll put the article on hold. Mujinga (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the review Mujinga, I'll start working through your comments and will try to address them all today - Dumelow (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mujinga, I've think I've acted on everything now.  Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Nice one thanks for the fast answers, this is now a good article. I've taken the liberty of adding alts to the pix per MOS:ALT and a couple of wikilinks on one caption, please revert/alter as you wish. I enjoyed reading the article and collaborating with you on it. All the best for 2022! Mujinga (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


### Pictures
Licenses ok, and pix relevant
"An 1879 map of Zululand. Sihayo's territory (labelled uSirayo) is shown at the southern end of the western border with the Transvaal (the straight blue line), set out by Sihayo and Pretorius." could add some wikilinks here
Linked Zululand,  the Transvaal and Pretorius
"Cetshwayo, photographed in 1875" - could add a wikilink
Linked Cetshwayo
"The crossing of the Buffalo at Rorke's Drift" - could add wikilinks and can you rephrase so it doesn't sound like buffalo are crossing the river?
Added "river"
"A depiction of Chelmsford observing the action at Sihayo's Kraal" - could wikilink chelmsford
Linked Chelmsford


### Copyvio check
All good with earwig


### Lead
"In some contemporary British documents he is referred to as Sirhayo or Sirayo." could copy the sentence below and then the ref is in the body not the lead
Good point, done
" iNdabakawombe iButho (social age group and regiment)" is a bit hard to parse; so it's a regiment formed out of people the same age?
Yes, a bit hard to describe.  The iButho (plural amaButho) was the basis for Zulu society at this time.  The men of a similar age were banded together into an iButho.  These varied in size depending on the age range the king selected and the demographics of the kingdom but could be anywhere between a few hundred and several thousand men strong.  It served as a means of economic (the amaButho could be directed to carry out labour for the state) and social control (it served to bind their loyalties to the king rather than their region and were under strict control of the king, including having no freedom to marry until directed to do so) but also functioned as a regiment in times of war.  I am not sure how best to phrase this in the lead as I don't want to go into too much detail.
"became one of the casus belli of" suggest "became a casus belli of" because it works better singular
Done
"in the first action of the war" prob true but not referenced or mentioned below
It was, but not important, removed
"The Zulu kingdom was broken up after the war and Sihayo lost his land, he continued to support Cetshwayo who was permitted to return" suggest breaking the sentence with a semi-colon or even deleting the second half
Yep, just deleted the last part


### Early life
Link Zulu?
Linked to Zulu people
Link kraal
Linked
"to mark the kingdom's western border" suggest "to delineate the kingdom's western border" or similar, because there's a mark in the next sentence as well
Agreed and done


### 1878 border incident
"attending Cetshwayo" - attending the court of Cetshwayo?
Agreed and done
"turned over for justice in Natal" - "turned over to justice in Natal"?
Changed to "be handed over to face justice in Natal", if that's OK?
Great! Mujinga (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
" his standing as king as Sihayo was his" - " his standing as king since Sihayo was his"?
Agreed and done


### Anglo-Zulu War
"and a large herd of these were" suggest "and a large herd were"
Agreed and done


### Post-war
"chief Mnyamana kaNgqengelele" what's the hierarchy with Sihayo here? are they both chiefs or was Mnyamana kaNgqengelele senior?
He was Cetshwayo's senior chief (and had advised against war), but refused any appointment by the British inthe post-war partition.  Added "Cetshwayo's senior chief" here
Thanks for clarification Mujinga (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
"He was killed in a hut there on 2 July" suggest "He was killed in a hut on 2 July"
Done
"Cetshwayo fled to the Reserve Territory and would die there on 8 February 1884. Cetshwayo's son Dinuzulu recovered the kingdom with assistance from the Boers but was forced to cede territory which became the Nieuwe Republiek and then the Vryheid District of the South African Republic.[36] Zululand was formally annexed by the British in 1887.[37]" - are these last sentences needed in the article about Sihayo kaXongo or should we end with his death? or indeed anything on his particular legacy
Not much more to say about Sihayo unfortunately.  I agree with you on the post-death bits and have trimmed these right back


### References
References well laid out, article is neutral, stable, broad and has good focus. No original research.
Can I check the Laband references really go to pages such as  p. lii–liii? i can't find such pages with a google book search
I have only an e-book copy (with 2009 publication date) but yes teh first fifty-odd pages of background information prior to the start of the dictionary are numbered in Roman numerals.
Thanks for checking! Mujinga (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Damn I can't reconcile the citation on "On 11 January 1879 Frere's ultimatum expired and British forces, under Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand in three columns, starting the Anglo-Zulu War.[19]" as p. 292 Knight 2000 either, can i ask you to check is correct as well, thanks
Hmm, I don't have a copy of that book to hand (and not sure why I used it in the first place!).  I've switched to Laband.  The relevant part (from page l) is: "Finally, the British issued an ultimatum requiring him to abolish the iButho system and make other concessions that would disrupt the political, social, and economic structure of his kingdom and place it under British supervision. Cetshwayo did not respond. Thus, on 11 January 1879, British and colonial forces invaded Zululand. The intention of the British commander, Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford, was that three invading columns would converge on oNdini, Cetshwayo’s capital, forcing a decisive battle and a quick end to the war".  I've changed the wording of the article to state there was no response to the ultimatum, not that it expired on 11 January (as there were some conditions that had to be met after 20 days and some after 30 days).
Great thanks for the clarification Mujinga (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)