Talk:First Matabele War

Untitled
I editted the introduction to give it a more neutral point of view and added a reference.--Cellocellocello 07:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is neutral at all. The author ignores the sources cited at the end that clearly state that the 'Victoria Raid' (mentioned in the leader paragraph) committed multiple murders and reports this as; During that raid, Ndebele destroyed property and killed livestock Why? The article implies that the war began immediately when there was a pause of some time (about 2 months) while it was considered whether the atrocities carried out were worthy of making war. It then says that after inquiry the company was questionably exonerated from the charge by Lord Ripon in the section on Defeat of the Ndebele. Why was it questionable? This is POV along with numerous other chunks of the article. The 'Start of the War' section is given no context and the first statement of the article absurdly asserts that Lobengula avoided war because he might win so easily. This is nonsense. This is not a B Class article. It needs substantial revision.--AssegaiAli 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'Nina Hartleys' mentioned in the first paragraph links to a pornstar! Does anyone know the correct information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.1.230 (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by "nine pound Martini-Henrys"? To me as a layman it seems as if a gun is meant when it is much more probable that the 9pounds are referring to the weight of the rifle. Is it typical to name a rifle after its weight? Why not "Mark IV Long Lever" or whatever is meant by it? Just as a suggestion. (Einbauschrank) --78.51.97.226 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The .577-450-caliber Martini-Henry was the standard infantry rifle issued to regular troops in the British army. Nine pounds refers to the weight of the arm. - Ctatkinson (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "nine pound" because it's confusing if you're used to reading about 18th-19th century cannons, where they're referred to by shot weight. 67.5.195.219 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:British South Africa Police.jpg
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 Media copyright questions. --21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of Bulawayo
At the end of Start of the war it says that the magazine was blown up by the advancing pioneers, leading to the destruction of Bulawayo. But in the section Destruction of Bulawayo is says that it was Lobengula who blew up the magazine, in order to deny its use to the pioneers. Would it be possible to either establish who did the destruction, or to make the two sections consistent?


 * To clarify, it was blown up by Lobengula when he burned the town and left. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It should definitely say one way or the other. I'm having trouble figuring out what is actually being used as a reference here, is it supposed to be a book? A few of the references are done in this way, and I can't tell what any of them are, who wrote them, or where to find them. Greedo  8  17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of this was copy-and-pasted from the Shangani Patrol article, which I wrote, but it seems somebody got confused interpreting the source as I have just looked again to be sure and it does not say the pioneers blew it up. To clarify again it was Lobengula who blew it up—it was the tradition of the Matabele nation to destroy the old royal town whenever the seat of the monarch moved, so when the king retreated from his city he deliberately burned it down. I will alter the article now to make this clear. Thanks for bringing this up. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good job, it makes alot more sense now. I'm still confused about the sources though. Greedo  8  18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)