Talk:Anglo-Zanzibar War

message: :While the war is often seen as a comic episode in military history, it nevertheless exemplifies the late 19th-century colonial policies of the British Empire, including a disregard for local traditions and legitimate governments, a willingness to carry out conflicts with its German rival on the backs of the local population, and a willingness to use its firepower on civilian populations to reach its aims. (I've moved this here from the article for now. — Matt Crypto 23:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it more or less accurately describes the situation, and because it's also pretty much the common interpretation of the conflict amomg historians - I won't mind a more NPOV phrasing (would it be better if the sentence read "Despite blahblah, most historinas agree that..." ?), but I think the paragraph shold be there to counter the common view that the whole episode was some sort of comedy event (the Guinness book entry, for example, reads like the affair was a little joke and conveniently ignores that several hundred people died in the conflict, despite its short duration) -- Ferkelparade π 15:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't object if it's a common historical interpretation, but it currently reads like it's someone's personal thoughts on the matter. Maybe it would be better to attribute this sort of commentary to someone -- maybe a quote? — Matt Crypto 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's quite clearly editorialising. I've moved it here for now. It could be NPOV'd by adding a "some historians argue that it exemplifies..." at the beginning, but I'd like to see an actual source first. — Matt Crypto 23:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does "neutral point of view" mean "don't criticise anyone"? SpookyMulder 09:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "No Original Research" means that we don't editorialise. We have to limit ourselves to representing criticisms published in reliable sources on the topic. As I said above, if this is a common historical interpretation on this matter, then we can use it, but we need sources. — Matt Crypto 10:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV statement?

message: What did the Sultan do after 2001?
:Not much? This war took place over a century ago, after all. Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  After 2001 

message: Can someone explain this issue in some more detail? Who was legitimate heir then? To seize power one should overthrow someone, isn't it right? Verdi1 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  his nephew, Khalid bin Bargash, seized power in what amounted to a coup d'état. 

message: This is informatively useless, at least to me. Dumelow, please do not remove the  tag again without discussing it here. Reverting to B-class. Ottre 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the problem here.  Hernon (2003) which I have cited states that casualties "topped 500", Patience (1994) gives "around 500" and Owens (2007) states 500.  If you like change it to "around 500" which is perhaps a little better but there is no way to specify a figure that was counted approximately at the time, that is as accurate as we can get.  I cannot see why you have removed the ref I put on the casualty figure, unless you dispute it as a reliable source?  I am restoring the GA tag as this article has passed the formal review process at WP:GA and can only be downgraded to B class via a reassessment- Dumelow (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well does the source say how many wounded had to be shot? I can't help but think that would have some lasting impact upon colonial policy. Ottre 01:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources say that any wounded were shot.  Such actions usually took place in prolonged wars where the opposite side were known not to take prisoners (such as the Anglo-Zulu War) and I have not heard of any such actions in this instance.  I do however have three reliable sources that put the number of Zanzibari dead at 500.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to go ahead and remove the tag as it simply cannot be put any more accurately how many dead there were on Khalid's side.  It has been a week since this was first brought up and there has been no other comments put forward.  I have added a statement shortly after that one which states that the number of dead who were actual combatants and the number of wounded cannot be ascertained as such things were not recorded at the time.  That should hopefully clear up the situation that existed a bit.  Thanks for your help in improving this article and your comments, they are really appreciated and do help to improve the standard of Wikipedia.  I will shortly be nominating this article for A class review at WP:MilHist following encouraging comments I received during a copyedit.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stuck out some of my comments above, I have just re-read as many of the sources as possible to try to sort this out.  Bennett says 500 "killed or wounded" and the 500 dead in Hernon is a quote from an Illustrated London News article and he later says 500 casualties "of whom most died in the scorched wreckage of the old palace".  Also Patience defines casualties as killed or wounded.  From this I think I must have grabbed the wrong ed of the stick when first reading Hernon and Patience and that they must mean the 500 number to be the number of killed or wounded and not just killed.  I'll fix this now in the article, apologies for this dragging on so long (purely my fault!) and for the resulting confusion.  Thanks once again - Dumelow (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 500 reported deaths 

message: The introduction lists him as the commander of the Zanzibar forces, but the info box on the right hand side lists him on the British side.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.15.230 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accodring to the article text, he was the commander of Zanzibar land troops fighting for the British. AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Lloyd Matthews was British, and fought on their side, he had resigned from the Royal Navy in 1881 so shouldn't have the white ensign next to his name. He was also the serving First Minister of Zanzibar, a position he had held since 1891. He was fighting against what he saw as an illegitimate usurper of the throne, as well as in British interests. It therefore seems more appropriate to use the flag of Zanzibar for him in the infobox, which I've just done. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate all stated above but Lloyd Mathews was (surely!?) still a British civil servant in his role as First Minister. The Manual of Style leads me to believe that no flag would be the best solution in this situation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.166.64 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you like to sort him, Mathhews and his troops did not participate in the 38 minutes of shooting. That is at least the story as told at https://www.zanzibarhistory.org/Zanzibar_Courage.htm (a website devoted to Zanzibari history; has no detailed footnotes but at least a literature list for this chapter). According to this versions the British diplomats did not trust his army and had them deployed as security for their houses. So it seems Matthews decided to be on the British side (or the other faction of the Royal family) but had no part in the fighting. And btw he was not a British civil servant. He retired from the Royal Navy in 1881 to become Zanzibari general, and later did not accept a position as British consul. Kipala (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lloyd Mathews

message: Surely that is a typo for 9:00 am and I have corrected it.  I have also changed any mm/dd/yy dates to dd/mm/yy dates for consistency.  The latter form seems to be the prevailing one. 76.123.208.229 (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 9:99 am?

message: Swedish writer Sven Lindqvist, in his Exterminate All The Brutes, writes extensively about the Anglo-Zanzibar war and uses it as an important exemplification of the "invisible" power/domination of colonialism. I believe he mentions it in A History of Bombing as well. Maybe it's a potential source of contextualisation? --Birdseed (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible contextualisation - Sven Lindqvist 

message: There appear to be some pics of the damage done at:
http://repository.library.northwestern.edu/winterton/browse.html#action\tnewItem|item\tinu-wint-58
©Geni 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: some pics we don't have

message: So what was the second-longest war in history? Is there a table/list with durations? 194.80.106.134 (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As theres still no wikilist, heres a list I found for you that may not be exhaustive;
1. Anglo-Zanzibar War, 38-40 minutes
2. 6 Day War, 6 days
3. Indo-Pakistani War, 13 days
4. Serbo-Bulgarian War, 14 days
5. Georgian-Armenian War, 24 days
6. Sino-Vietnamese War, 27 days
7. Greco-Turkish War, 30 days
8. Second Balkan War, 32 days
9. Polish-Lithuanian War, 37 days
10. Falklands War, 42 days
The Hundred Days War (aka Second Napoleonic War) also comes to mind, lasted 111 days. Theres a handful of other short wars which were either border skirmishs or civil wars.
The longest wars;
1. Hundred Years War - France v England, 1338 - 1453 - 115 years  
2. Wars of the Roses - Lancaster v York, 1455 - 1485 - 30 years  
3. Thirty Years War - Catholic v Protestant, 1618 - 1648 - 30 years  
4. Peloponnesian War - Peloponnesian League v Delian League, 431 - 404BC - 27 years  
5. First Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 264 - 241BC - 23 years  
6. Napoleonic Wars - France v other European countries, 1792 - 1815 - 23 years  
7. Greco-Persian Wars - Greece v Persia, 499 - 478BC - 21 years  
8. Second Great Northen War - Russia v Sweden and War Baltic states, 1700 - 1721 - 21 years  
9. Vietnam War - South Vietnam (with US support) v North Vietnam, 1957 - 1975 - 18 years  
10. Second Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 218 - 201BC - 17 years 
WatcherZero (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second-longest war? 

message: The "View History" tab says the article is approximately 38,000 bytes.
The war is generally accepted to have lasted 38 minutes.
The ratio is approximately 1000 bytes per minute of war.
Is that the highest of any Wikipedia war article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.144.14 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article vs length of war 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Zanzibar War. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204031446/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=8208 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=8208
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203234718/http://members.cox.net/ggtext/harryrawson1843_obit.html to http://members.cox.net/ggtext/harryrawson1843_obit.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does this thing really qualify as a "War"? It seems as if it's probably too small a conflict for that classification.  Skirmish?  Maybe this is a large societal conflict that resembles mob action?  It's not, really.  I just want to point out that terrorism and mass shootings are much more like a war then this.
Yet, it's probably a war because there are organized forces and real assets: artillery, gunboats, battery, cruiser.  
Liberty5651 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much makes a "war"? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shortest war" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war in history. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shortest war in history" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Shdhduebeks 2601:345:8303:9DE0:2C5B:FFE5:2B0D:866C (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won 

message: The shortest battle in history is the  Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas revolution! It was only 18 minutes long. 98.194.106.248 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and if you read this article you will see that this is the shortest war in history - Dumelow (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG!!! 

message: Muji 103.181.226.218 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortest war 

message: Someone changed the British losses to 236 sailors killed, I'll change it back I hatetheantixchrist (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: on this regard, someone also changed it to say Zanzibar Victory, someone vandalized the wiki page I'm pretty sure I hatetheantixchrist (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

text: shit I broke the reference link to the British losses, I tried to add https://www.britannica.com/event/Anglo-Zanzibar-War#ref343711 as a reference, if someone knows how to add reference links, please add this or another source I hatetheantixchrist (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, fix anything else thats wrong, I just fixed a few I noticed, sorry for posting alot I hatetheantixchrist (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: there were 500 casualties for the Sultan's forces, as stated literally 2 or 1 paragraphs away from the info box, let me fix that aswell I hatetheantixchrist (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalization