Talk:Second Matabele War

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:British South Africa Police.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mlimo 

message: Substituted at 05:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Why did he supported the invasion of matebeleland 197.155.236.110 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khama 

message: :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)
replies: text: Second Matabele War →  – 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 October 2023