Talk:Maji Maji Rebellion

message: According to the Gustav Adolf von Götzen article the casulties of the Maji Maji rebellion were: "It is estimated that up to 300,000 Africans were killed, while the German side lost 15 Europeans and 389 African soldiers, according to official data compiled by Götzen."
This article states otherwise. Fred26 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article no longer states otherwise, the info box does. Which number is correct, I don't know, but there is quite a discrepancy between them.--172.162.12.102 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I think that the larger number includes the subsequent famine which killed many more than the fighting ever did, even though it was certainly a result of it. I may be wrong though. Why not add the cited figure you mention to the article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But if exterminating the population through a deliberately engineered famine is an established war strategy (as was the case here), surely the resulting deaths should be included in the conflict casualty count? Why not have the numbers the other way around, namely 250,000-300,000 in the info box and then specify in the article that while ~10,000 died in direct fighting a further 250,000+ died as a direct result of a strategy of extermination that was central to the German war effort? I am quoting Isabel Hull again here: “The greatest mortality in numbers occurred not in South West Africa but in German East Africa. It was the result of a type of total war Europeans regarded as peculiarly colonial: the destruction of all dwellings, food stores, domestic animals, and planted fields. Kriegsbrauch (the semi-official manual of war conduct) specifically permitted such a war only against ‘wild people and barbarians’; the British export on ‘small wars’ thought these tactics ‘unfortunate’ but sometimes necessary. A ‘hunger war’ of this type appears to have been conducted by Germans for the first time in East Africa in 1897 against holdouts in the Wahehe rebellion.” (155)  ClaireV (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, if you have a figure quoted in a WP:RS, please add it (with the citation) to the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood what you said very well, but I suggested something different, which I am happy to further discuss if you still disagree with me. It is not the same thing to mention the greater casualty figure in the article while leaving '~10,000' in the info box and to state '~250,000-300,000' in the info box. You are speaking of adding alternative information, while I am speaking of replacing what I consider to be an erroneous figure. The rationale I have put forth is that if deaths result from an explicit military strategy/a set of war tactics, they should be counted as 'casualties and losses' in the info box, not excluded on the basis that they didn't result from 'the fighting,' by which I suppose you mean 'direct combat'. Only counting casualties from direct combat seems unduly restrictive, particularly as this is not even a page about a specific battle but about the rebellion more broadly. Would you exclude, for instance, the deaths caused by strategic bombing in the casualty counts of any of the main twentieth century wars? [I am still speaking of the numbers that appear in the info box of these conflicts, not in the broader article] If so, please explain, and if not, then why proceed differently here? Perhaps we could discuss a possible military deaths/civilian deaths distinction in the info box, but I am not sure it would actually particularly accurate here, hence my initial suggestion of just using the global figure cited by contemporary historians. ClaireV (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

text: , I'm trying to be as clear as possible: if you can find a reputable secondary source which uses the methodology you describe and cites the same figure, add the information (and the cite). This isn't about what any of us feels should be the case - we can only report what published books/articles/news stories have said about it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. Isabel Hull, the source I initially cited, is the most recent scholarly monograph on the subject and counts the conflict casualties exactly as I have suggested (as in, including the deliberately induced famine). This was my initial point. As you say, it is not up for us to decide what the methodology ought to be, so if you have another more widely recognized source that reports the conflict casualties differently then we can discuss this again, but otherwise I will go ahead and make the edit. ClaireV (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting casulties figures 

message: I checked the link from the name "Hongo" and found, correctly enough, a disambiguation page for it. What I was disappointed to see, was no further link to anything other than Japanese or Asian persons or meanings. I challenge the usefullness of linking the name Hongo at all in this article, since there is nothing truly related to the use of the name Hongo in this article. Wouldn't it be better to remove the link until someone writes about the African version/use of Hongo?
--TrondBK (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hongo and the misleading link 

message: "The New Is Not Yet Born: Conflict Resolution in Southern Africa
 By Thomas Ohlson"
German authorities created famine as a weapon to crush the Maji Maji rebellion.
Should be added to article. Perhaps also a series/template of German military use of famine should be created considering plans to starve Polish population in WW1 and Hunger Plan--Molobo (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organised famine as a weapon against conquered people 

message: This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Text entered in   duplicated at least in part material from . Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem