Talk:Great Zimbabwe/Archive 4

Significance of de Barros's report

Babakathy - I think you are incorrect to have removed this (recently inserted) piece of mine:

The suggestion that Great Zimbabwe was built by the Shona is not really compatible with the following report obtained in the early 1500s from Moorish merchants: −

Symbaoe ... is guarded by a ‘nobleman’, who has charge of ... some of Benomotapa's wives therein... When, and by whom, these edifices were raised ... there is no record, but they say they are the work of the devil, for .... it does not seem possible to them that they should be the work of man

It does constitute important evidence, with a bearing on the origins of Great Zimbabwe. It is appropriate to add, incidentally, that it is an embarrassment to supporters of the 'Shona' theory, such that at times they even try and 'cover it up'. Perhaps there is a way we can reword it, to come to some sort of compromise?--DLMcN (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps David found the wording a little loaded (specifically the words "suggestion" and "not really compatible", I would guess). I suggest rewording it thus: "The Shona construction theory for Great Zimbabwe was not found by Gayre, writing in 1972, to be compatible with the following report, obtained in the early 1500s from Moorish merchants:" I hope this is acceptable for you and for David. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the observation is an important part of Gayre's work (it being Gayre's reference that is cited), then by all means add it to the section of the article where Gayre's work is discussed.

The general statement that Gayre does not support a Shona/Gokomere origin for the ruins is made explicitly where we discuss Gayre's work and does not need stating earlier in addition.

Pertinent points raised by Barros could be included in the first sub-section of history of research, which is the appropriate place for reports from that time. Babakathy (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not put the quotation at the end of the Gayre section? Using wording such as "According to Gayre, the following report, obtained in the early 1500s from Moorish merchants, is not compatible with a Shona construction theory for Great Zimbabwe:", for example? —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "...report obtained by João de Barros from Swahili merchants..."? Where we first discuss Gayre's views on origins, not at end?

First part of quote, dealing with use of the structure during the Mutapa period, probably not relevant to issue being discussed. Babakathy (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, but think the word "Moorish" should be used, not "Swahili", which could be misinterpreted as meaning merchants from anywhere in East Africa. However, I think that the earlier part of the quote is actually relevant, specifically because it makes reference to a "nobleman" in the context of both Benomotapa (Monomotapa) and Symbaoe (Zimbabwe). I think this is certainly of interest and relevant to the quote's latter part. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Gentlemen ! ... I will come back to this in the near future. It is relevant - surely? - that people from Benomotapa's 'entourage' were actually living in GZim, but still had absolutely no idea who might have built it.--DLMcN (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - I hope that is now acceptable.--DLMcN (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Think that captures it well. Babakathy (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User 69.15.109.117

This user's Talk-Page shows that he has displayed a tendency to add questionable points in various places. His recent edit here is certainly not "vandalism", however. I've put an invitation on his Talk-Page --DLMcN (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks concur. Having looked through per your suggestion, some of the edits are vandalism, so I have added a warning. Babakathy (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection ?

I notice that the Wikipedia Rubik's Cube page operates in a semiprotected status - thereby excluding edits which are signed only by an IP number - in order to reduce the number of trivial and vandalistic modifications ... Maybe this would be worth considering for the GZim page too. --DLMcN (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is it's a temporary measure and our "vandal-count" is not high enough for them to consider.Babakathy (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all sign out and repeatedly vandalise the page until this issue is resolved? —Cliftonian (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Three reversions

Doug ...

From what you wrote earlier, it seems that there is a definite possibility that you would block me if I were to revert StarMagicxxx for a third time. Or would you take into account the fact that he has failed to give any reasons for continuing to truncate that subheading? [despite my asking him more than once to please come and discuss the matter here in the Talk-File] - whereas I have tried very hard to justify the extra wording.

Was I successful in trying to explain to you that we are considering evidence that the 13th/14th century ancestors of the Lemba might have built Great Zimbabwe? (when - quite possibly - they may have been known by a completely different name) ... and that their [likely] Semitic ancestry provides support for the "Semitic" theory? [for the origins of this ancient civilization]? --DLMcN (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would never block you. I might ask for you to be blocked but I would leave that up to other Administrators, as I am involved in this article. In any case, you can occasionally revert 3 times, that doesn't break [[WP:3RR]. Continually reverting 3 times a day would be blockable. WP:3RR doesn't allow exceptions for simple content disputes, there are other ways to handle those. And I still think that the section heading should be about the Lemba. Sources need to directly discuss the Lemba and Great Zimbabwe, as long as your sources do that and meet our RS criteria, fine.

I didn't note the edit today. 3RR is about 3 edits in 24 hours, but the other thing is that you don't have consensus for the section heading you prefer, so you shouldn't try to force it in but should instead start a WP:RfC, a very easy thing to do, on the wording of the section heading. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy edits

I made some copy edits to the lede and first section, but didn't go any further in case the edits were not deemed beneficial. I proposed the exchange of the placement of two images, which better suited the section breaks - there didn't appear to me to be any detail in the images that specifically associated them with their sections so that they couldn't be exchanged. As I noted in my edit summary, feel free to revert and undo any edit. If there are no problems I'll come back and do a little more in a few days time.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversions by 'theDarknight'

Dark Knight, why are you so reluctant to exchange thoughts and ideas on this Talk-Page? I would defend my preferred version by saying that it conveys more information - (which can if necessary be supported by published books and articles). Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Query... Construction and growth

"The ruins span 1,800 acres (7.3 km2) and cover a radius of *100 to 200* miles (*160 to 320* kilometres)." That seems a bit big, no? 203.38.100.131 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. I found the probably source: "Located in the south central African nation of Zimbabwe are the ruins of monuments and cities built of stone. These ruins extend around the well- preserved Great Zimbabwe site by a radius of 100 to 200 miles, a diameter almost as great as the nation of France. Built by Africans from AD 1000 to 1400, they are evidence of a thriving culture. The wealth of Great Zimbabwe lay in cattle production and gold. There are a number of mines to the west of Great Zimbabwe, about 40 kilometres away. The wall of the great enclosure measures 244 metres in length, is 5 metres thick at its greatest point, and 10 metres high. There is a tall beehive-shaped stone tower within."[1]. I've removed those figures. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The ancestors of the Shona = The ancestors of the Lemba

I read the article, and it suggest that the Gokomere are ancestors of both of the Shona and Lemba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waslalh (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Waslalh - Many thanks for coming on to the Talk-Page.

Genetic and other evidence indicates that the male ancestry of the Lemba contained a very large Semitic element, whereas it was their female ancestry which was apparently derived mostly from the Shona (and thus - ultimately - from the Gokomere).

Your edit describes two categories (both presented as candidates for the people who built G-Zim) - but each of your categories consists essentially of the same group. Thus, to me, it seems completely unnecessary to include them both, and to imply that they represent two quite separate opinions.

So to make the picture clearer, I have added the word "Semitic" - which is of course subject to agreement from other editors.

If [despite my argument against it] you still insist on retaining both your categories, then we would really need to introduce a third category ... because there is a body of opinion which believes that the Semitic [male] ancestors of the Lemba might have built (or at least contributed to the construction of) G-Zim. --DLMcN (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gokomere > Shona

Waslalh - with your edit, the two 'rival' categories are in fact the same group. See under "Gokomere" in the main article, where we read: "The Gokomere culture also likely gave rise to ... the modern Mashona people, which is a cluster group comprising distinct ethnic groups including the local Karanga clan or subgroup...." ... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The lemba and Great Zimbabwe

I don't understand what the relationship between Semites and build Zimbabwe.

There is no evidence proves that the Semites who built Great Zimbabwe.

The Kingdom of Zimbabwe was trade state and, of course, there were many traders from around the world who live in it and maybe they had intermarry with the local population, resulting to some breeds such as the Lemba. But that doesn't mean that those traders who built Great Zimbabwe, because construction began in site long a time before the expansion of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe and start trade relations. Read about the Kingdom of Mapungubwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waslalh (talk • contribs) 07:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can deny that there are people**, still alive today, who "believe that it is possible that ancestors of the Lemba were responsible" for building G-Zim. This is a true fact, so it may be stated, surely? - particularly if it is supported by specific references (which I shall be adding). However, I will drop the word "Semitic" (compare my previous edit of 18 February, 21:08) - in an attempt to find an acceptable compromise. I'm busy with other commitments today, but will get round to editing the main page soon. ... And who knows? - Helpful comments might even appear here before I do that!

Anyway - Thank you, Waslalh, for coming in here and discussing this subject. On a purely personal basis, you may be curious or interested to learn why certain people are reluctant to dismiss the "Lemba" theory. Did you know, for example, that you can actually read Gayre's book online - at http://www.rhodesia.nl/onbook.htm - although it is quite a demanding task to extract the 'meat and essence' of his thesis from that text; (I have the impression that there are a number of academics who tried to do that, but just gave up). Alternatively, http://www.dlmcn.com/anczimb.html is my attempt to summarize the argument in just a few pages - at the same time updating and enhancing it. However, I will not add this item to the list of people mentioned above**^ because the "RSN Wikipedia Jury" voted against it. (Even so, this is now a different context from the earlier one, so I am wondering whether it might actually qualify for inclusion here? - i.e., just in this particular paragraph?) --DLMcN (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Semitic influence from ancestors of the Lemba - (avoiding an edit-war!)

Rather than going straight into an edit-war with StarMagic, it would undoubtedly be better to ask (and perhaps discuss) what other editors think. (I reverted him earlier today; he then reverted me). Thanks DLMcN (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My [suggested] longer subheading conveys more information - which is supported by sources published in peer-reviewed journals. --DLMcN (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And you reverted him again. The discussion is whether the Lemba built Great Zimbabwe and I don't understand why the section heading should mention 'possible Semitic influence from ancestors'.

But I have another problem. 18 lines on this claim, and only 4 for the mainstream view? I think this section needs to be made much shorter. This is not an appropriate article for discussing any claims for a Semitic origin for the Lemba, and removing that will make this shorter (are you aware of WP:UNDUE?

And yet one more problem. I've started by removing the link to your article. I hadn't noticed who you were, but you should not be adding your own research to articles as this is a conflict of interest, see WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by apologizing for the fact that I have apparently broken a Wikipedia rule.

You write "The discussion is whether the Lemba built Great Zimbabwe" - which is not strictly true: > The discussion is whether the *ancestors* of the Lemba built Zimbabwe, and here it is relevant to mention evidence that the [male] ancestors of the Lemba seem to have been Semitic.

You [correctly] describe me as a "Meteorologist/Astronomer", but is it not possible for such a person to become a "Historian" later? How many peer-reviewed articles does one have to publish in a new field, in order to 'become' a member of that new fraternity? Or, looking at it from a different angle, it could be argued that Scientists have been trained to critically analyze and assess research, so they should be capable, surely, of contributing useful and valid comments in many other fields too?

I confess that I was not aware of the rule that people are not allowed, in Wikipedia, to refer to their own work. Does that mean that another editor would be permitted to insert text referring to my work?

Instead of focussing just on this particular sub-section (about the Lemba), if you look at the article as a whole you will see that the "Shona" theory is indisputably the dominant one.

DLMcN (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of Semitic ancestry

We might say that there are two 'rival' theories regarding the builders of GZim - the "Shona" one, and the "Semitic" one. It is true that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists etc. favour the first theory. If, however, we include laymen, then the difference in numbers is not nearly as great. Anyway, assuming that we are permitted (under Wikipedia rules) to mention the "Semitic" hypothesis, then surely it makes sense to look at evidence suggesting that the male forebears of the Lemba were Semitic? --DLMcN (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your point that Wikipedia articles should always devote more space to a 'majority' opinion - but I would like to suggest, please (if you feel that there is an imbalance) - that you redress it by increasing the coverage of the "Shona" theory, instead of removing some of the arguments in favour of the Semitic one. There are people who genuinely wish to know what the various arguments are - on both sides of the controversy. In particular, it would be relevant if somebody could explain why the different components of Gayre's thesis are considered untenable. For example, it is not enough just to say that Garlake believes Gayre's book to be 'worthless polemic' - we need to be more specific as to what exactly are the flaws in Gayre's reasoning.--DLMcN (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Could a scientist be capable of examining and collating historical literature?

Doug ...

As suggested, I took a look at WP:COI - and it seemed to imply that Wikipedia might occasionally be prepared to consider allowing authors to quote from their own papers. So - let me emphasize that (when inserting that link) I was genuinely trying to throw extra light on the matter. My motives were purely for scholarship and for truth. I would certainly not derive any financial benefit if that link were to be included in Wikipedia.

Regarding your other reason for removing that link - you are completely out of order > [You said that because I am a meteorologist/astronomer, my article (on Great Zimbabwe - http://DLMcN.com/anczimb.html ) could not be regarded as a 'reliable source']. In fact, it could actually be argued that your implication was an unnecessary insult, a 'personal attack' on me.

Surely it would have been fairer to judge the article by its content, without prejudice? --DLMcN (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

COI isn't particularly about financial gain, but we do have a noticeboard where you can argue that it isn't coi, WP:COIN. As for my reasons, here an edit summary said " McNaughton is an astronomer/meteorologist, Mankind Quarterly, well see the article", and at Lemba I wrote " we only need Gayre here, editors should not add their own work & I'm not convinced that with all due respect, an astronomer/meteorologist is a suitable source for this)" (and note that if we already have a suitable reference, adding your work is unnecessary even if it weren't COI). Even if I had said you weren't a reliable source, this is Wikipedia and that is not a comment on you but a comment on whether your work meets our criteria as described at WP:RS (and again you can argue your case at WP:RSN. So in no way was it an insult or a personal attack. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug, if his work can be shown to present a notable view on the subject, which has influenced opinions by being referenced in other works, then I assume reference could be made to it as a notable speculative theory? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean significant. Possibly, see WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. I did suggest he go to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)