Talk:Great Zimbabwe

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

Gayre and Great Zimbabwe

Welcome Wikibedia. First, I want to thank you for allowing me to comment here and give me a chance to express my opinion on the subject.

Second; to avoid the dilemma I will move this portion from the introduction to another section. "The majority of scholars believe that it was built by members of the Gokomere culture who were ancestors of modern Shona, but there are others who believe there is a possibility that the ancestors of the Lemba were responsible" Until decisiveness in the matter

With regard to lemba and their Semitic ancestors and they are the ones who built Great Zimbabwe, this theory developed by Gayre and doesn't have any support or proof on the ground. The position of Gayre from blacks and claimed their inability to construction proves the real objective behind this lie is Denial of Great Zimbabwe African Origin .

The Great Zimbabwe relate to African history, which is the property of its people, including blacks, for this I don't see how cite someone who is racist and has attitudes hostile to Africans in this subject. For this, I will delete all sections in the subject who based on the sayings Gayre. Waslalh (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that according to research done by Professor Tudor Parfitt of the University of London, who spent 20 years researching the Lemba and did DNA testing on them, the Lemba are indeed of Semitic origin through the male bloodline. See BBC article on this here. Quote:

"Their oral traditions claim that their ancestors were Jews who fled the Holy Land about 2,500 years ago. It may sound like another myth of a lost tribe of Israel, but British scientists have carried out DNA tests which have confirmed their Semitic origin. ... They wear skull caps, practise circumcision, which is not a tradition for most Zimbabweans, avoid eating pork and food with animal blood, and have 12 tribes. They slaughter animals in the same way as Jewish people, and they put the Jewish Star of David on their tombstones. Members of the priestly clan of the Lemba, known as the Buba, were even discovered to have a genetic element also found among the Jewish priestly line. 'This was amazing,' said Prof Tudor Parfitt, from the University of London. 'They have a common ancestor who geneticists say lived about 3,000 years ago somewhere in north Arabia, which is the time of Moses and Aaron when the Jewish priesthood started' ... The oral traditions of the Lemba say that ... centuries ago a small group of men began a long journey ... from Yemen to southern Africa. ... 'Many people say that the story is far-fetched, but the oral traditions of the Lemba have been backed up by science,' [Parfitt] says."

Also see Jewish Virtual Library, American Society of Human Genetics. Quote from the last of these:

"The results suggest that > or = 50% of the Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic in origin, approximately 40% are Negroid, and the ancestry of the remainder cannot be resolved. These Y-specific genetic findings are consistent with Lemba oral tradition, and analysis of the history of Jewish people and their association with Africa indicates that the historical facts are not incompatible with theories concerning the origin of the Lemba.".

Hope this is helpful —Cliftonian (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Waslalh - Many thanks again for your contributions to this discussion.

1. Regarding your transfer of the sentences on "Who constructed GZim?" - you might like to take a look the note accompanying DougWeller's edit of 23 January 2013‎ (at 16:31), when he recommended answering that point in the "lead", responding to a query by a reader.

2. Professor Gayre is not the only person citing evidence for Semitic influence in Ancient Zimbabwe. Immediately above^, Cliftonian has reminded us of the genetic analyses carried out by Professor Tudor Parfitt: the fact that Lemba priests carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype, indicates that large-scale immigration and settlement was likely. In addition, research and field studies by Magdel le Roux, Nigel van Warmelo, H.A. Junod, the Reverend Jaques, Major Leyland and T.G. Trevor all confirm that we just cannot dismiss the possibility of a Semitic contribution to the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization. --DLMcN (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To Cliftonian;

Ok, the Lemba have Jewish blood Good No one said no, but what is the link between ancestors lemba and build Great Zimbabwe . The Falashas in Ethiopia have Jewish ancestors Does this mean that the Falashas who built Great Zimbabwe Waslalh (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not Jewish blood - they have Semitic ancestors - that doesn't mean Jewish ancestors, most Semites weren't Jews. There are a few similarities between the Lemba of today and cultural evidence found at Great Zimbabwe. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want similarities I want sensory evidence that Semites who  built Great Zimbabwe.

As you know, building Zimbabwe took nearly three hundred years it means several generations have passed before the completion of construction, if we assume the Semites who built Zimbabwe, why there is no trace of them such as Their writings or their tombs or anything indicating their presence in the region during the construction of Zimbabwe.Waslalh (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Waslalh - Nobody has managed to prove beyond all doubt that "the Semitic ancestors of the Lemba built GZim", so that is why the text has had to be worded cautiously; i.e. "There are people who believe that there is a possibility ...> ..."

The prehistoric Semitic presence in Abyssinia (the Falashas) was stronger than it was in Zimbabwe (because the Falashas were closer to the motherland).

Two reports passed by Moorish traders to Portuguese writers in Mozambique, state that in the early 16th century there was an inscription above the entrance to GZim (which was not written in Arabic, apparently) ...

The principal burial site of the Lemba was/is in Dumbghe Mountain near Belingwe. For them, it is a sacred place, so they have refused to allow excavations there. Nevertheless, a few sites have been found elsewhere - distinguished by gold jewellery still on the skeletons (thus associating them with ancient Zim) - where the burials were in a horizontal position, unlike the crouched position adopted by the Shona - but identical to that which is still used today by the Lemba.

According to Junod, the Lemba are/were regarded as the masters and originators of the art of circumcision, and the phallic symbols found at Gzim represented circumcised organs.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Lemba were distinguished from other Bantu tribes for their skills in mining and metalwork (which were important features of the Ancient Zimbabwean Civilization). There is also some evidence that the Lemba continued to build in stone after fleeing across the Limpopo. And their language used to be Makaranga - which ties in with their oral tradition that they came from the region around GZim. --DLMcN (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A few other possible supporting points are mentioned in http://www.dlmcn.com/anczimb.html - (i) Cotton, (ii) Written reports by Bolts and Anderson, (iii) Irrigation systems in the Zoutpansberg. --DLMcN (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to focus in the conversation here on the wikipedia managers only but I will respond to your arguments this time only because I think that you have an agenda here.

First, Belingwe town or what is now called Mberengwa is hundreds of kilometers away from Great Zimbabwe and whoever was buried there from the Lemba or others I don't think that have relationship with building of Great Zimbabwe. Second, you take your sources from Gayre and as I said before, Gayre is racist liar and we cannot adopt anything he said about Great Zimbabwe. Waslalh (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Belingwe > Mberengwa name change. In her book on the Lemba (its full reference is given in the main article) Magdel le Roux refers to, and shows a picture of Dumbghe Mountain; in addition, her field studies and interviews confirm what I say above. The area controlled by the people whose HQ was at GZim (whoever they were), covered most of [what is now] the state of Zimbabwe; that certainly included Mberengwa .... I do not think, incidentally, that Magdel can be described as a 'racist' - nor can Junod, van Warmelo, Parfitt or the Reverend Jaques: (these are others who have contributed key facts and evidence). The only 'agenda' I have [if we want to call it that?] is to discover and represent the truth - as far as that is possible. Let me emphasize that I am still prepared to listen to, and consider, arguments from both sides of the controversy. With regards, --DLMcN (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems rather prejudiced, unscholarly and, dare I say, even somewhat racist to dismiss everything Gayre wrote because you think he's a "racist liar". As Parfitt himself says, in a quotation included in our own article here, "The fact that Gayre... got most of his facts wrong, does not in itself vitiate the claims of the Lemba to have been involved in the Great Zimbabwe civilisation". Also I should probably remind everybody that what really matters here is not what I, or you, or anybody on this talk page thinks, but what we can glean from the source material. At no point has our article itself attempted to deny that the proto-Shona construction theory is the one generally accepted by scholars. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Plausibilty of the "Conquest" explanation

DougWeller - Looking at your edit of a couple of days ago, it is surely true to say that absolutely everybody (in the past and in the present) who sympathizes with the "Semitic" theory - would regard the "conquest" explanation for the collapse of GZim as by far the most plausible one; (it is not just Gayre who is suggesting that)... Regards, DLMcN (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Also included in that^ category is James Mullan - see pages 52-61 and 96-98 of his book "The Arab Builders of Zimbabwe" ... as well as Hall, who is quoted by Mullan on page 80. DLMcN (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it to them. If you have a source that says everybody does, attribute that also. Otherwise it's your own observation/research, right? Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph, since it relies on theories that fall outside the current academic consensus. The point is made in the Lemba section, which deals with these theories, and therefore doesn't need to be mentioned here as well. As a general point, we should confine outdated theories in their own sections rather than bleeding their content all over the article. Johncoz (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely - nice to see another editor here, the COI issue has been a problem. I don't have time as I'm going to take a break, but Hall needs more discussion, see [2] and [3]. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to Gayre's outdated ideas

It seems to me the section on Lemba origin is excessively long and detailed given 1) there is already a discussion of this on the Lemba page, and 2) Gayre's theory hinged on a 7th century construction date (based on early, faulty dating). So I think that given the actual academic consensus has moved on significantly, we can edit this down to avoid giving it excessive weight. Johncoz (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Gayre's thesis is by no means based entirely on that 7th century dating. Many of the key points which he makes, are supported by interviews and observations made by van Warmelo, Junod, Jaques, and (more recently) by Magdel le Roux - none of whom are/were primarily concerned with GZim, incidentally. If you feel that there was undue prominence given to the 'Semitic' theory, then it would have been constructive to increase the coverage accorded to the 'Shona' theory - i.e., with a fuller explanation of precisely what it is based on .... and showing where exactly are the flaws in the arguments which favour a Lemba connection. In addition, Parfitt's recent DNA discoveries have put a very different complexion on the controversy. --DLMcN (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz - the report which de Barros quotes in the early 1500s (from Moorish merchants) cannot just be dismissed and deleted without proper justification. Pending input from other editors, here again is the piece concerned: "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"... [This^ certainly does question the 'Shona' theory]. --DLMcN (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

While the quotation is not without interest it does not support any theory of who the builders were. If it is to be included it should be in the section "From Portuguese traders to Karl Mauch" Johncoz (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I concur that Gayre's work was not based entirely on the (faulty) date and there are other lines of evidence or similarity that he used, the section did give undue weight. That policy is clear and there for a reason... Current paragraph seems more appropriate.

As I've said before on this page, the DNA evidence is interesting about the history and background of the Lemba and very appropriate on that page, but of little/no relevance to whether they were involved in building Great Zimbabwe or not.

The De Barros quote is relevant under Portuguese traders, although it tells us very little: De Barros says a report he read says that some "Moorish" (?Arab, ?Swahili??) traders told someone (who?) that they were told by someone unnamed ("they say") that they do not know who built the ruins. Even if we assume De Barros has everything correct from what was originally said to the traders (given the extended transmission...) the most it says is that the traders met some people or community who did not know who built the structures. Babakathy (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It does imply more than that - [see the section below which discusses "de Barros's Report"]. --DLMcN (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The DNA evidence is relevant if we are asking whether there might have been a Semitic origin for GZim - see the section below about the Lemba and gold-mining. --DLMcN (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

".Gayre's thesis is consistent with interviews and observations"

Who says it's consistent? Do the sources for this mention Gayre and say his thesis is consistent with whatever? If not, please remove all this as original research. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Magdel le Roux mentions and cites Gayre's publications to support what she says about the Lemba ... and in his book and articles, Gayre cites relevant evidence presented by the the older writers --DLMcN (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So you can cite what she says about Gayre, but you cannot claim his thesis is consistent with anyone else's interviews and observations because you don't have a source stating that. It's original research. If you don't believe me, ask at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already quite late here - I'll try and reword it tomorrow morning. --DLMcN (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller that this now constitutes OR. Reverting until an acceptable formulation is proposed. As for the dating, this is critical to Gayre's specific claim about the impossibility of the Shona having constructed GZ (see p114 of his book). Johncoz (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

btw, the central issue of dating also responds to the request above that "we need to be more specific as to what exactly are the flaws in Gayre's reasoning", without excessively lengthening this section. Johncoz (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Johncoz, please give me a good reason why you deleted the reference to Parfitt's publications. His discovery of the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" in Lemba males, is significant and important in this context. And why did you remove the [sourced] reference to the fact that George Murdock supports the Lemba hypothesis? --DLMcN (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Murdock did not support Gayre's Lemba thesis (even according to Gayre, p91). Parfitt is quoted on Gayre thesis with what seems a fair observation. The issue of the genetic markers of some Lemba males is appopriate for the Lemba article but are only tangential here—your contention that they are "significant" in this debate is an unsourced OR conjecture. Finally, the entire thesis is now a fringe theory, so the constraints of WP:UNDUE are highly pertinent in maintaining proper balance in this article. Johncoz (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding DNA, see my comments below (in the part discussing Lembas and gold-mining). --DLMcN (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Murdock wrote his book before Gayre wrote his, when Murdock mentioned many of the key points made later by Gayre - see below.... Parfitt's work certainly cannot be described as "fringe theory"... And once again, the main article does need to be more specific as to What exactly is the evidence which the Shona theory is based on? --DLMcN (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Parfitt is primarily concerned with the possible Jewish connections of the Lemba. He is considerably more circumspect about Lemba involvement in GZim (as reflected in our existing quotation). And you cannot misrepresent Murdock as supporting a Lemba origin for GZim. One of the principal problems here is your attempt to synthesise disparate sources to advance original research. Please consult WP:SYN Johncoz (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what Murdock says:

"A number of authorities have bracketed the Venda with the Shona as the Bantu tribes associated with the culture of Zimbabwe. As evidence they cite the presence among them of the Lemba, an itinerant tribe of metalworkers, potters, and merchants, who allegedly possess markedly Semitic features and who exhibit a number of cultural traits that distinguish them sharply from their neighbors, e.g., circumcision, absence of totemism, tribal endogamy (unless the alien spouse is ceremonially adopted), a predilection for fish, burial in an extended rather than a crouched position, a distinctive new-moon ceremony, and a taboo on eating the flesh of animals unless their throats have been cut before death. The fact that they reveal no trace of either Judaic or Islamic religion, however, argues against the hypothesis of their descent from Jewish or Moslem traders of the Arabic period. Could they be a remnant of the Cushitic founders of Zimbabwe? Their fondness for fish, to be sure, is un-Cushitic, but the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea records a similar exception for the ancient Azanians (see Chapter 26)."

I don't see how that can be used for the edit suggested on my talk page, "The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was supported by Murdock". Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[Thank you for inserting that^ quote from Murdock]. OK, maybe it's a question of exact choice of wording, but I just do not see how you can deny the fact that Murdock was (at the very least) open-minded regarding the Lemba hypothesis; in other words, Gayre was not the only 'flag-bearer' in that regard. --DLMcN (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Big difference between being open-minded about a hypothesis and supporting it. I'm opened-minded on it, otherwise I'd argue for only a brief mention of this, like for Queen of Sheba.Babakathy (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sympathetic" [to the Lemba theory] might be a suitable compromise way of describing Murdock's attitude. --DLMcN (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, unless you can quote him saying he is sympathetic to the theory. Johncoz (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What does he actually say - he is mainly talking about similarities between the Venda and the Shona, and cites the presence of the Lemba among them to support his thesis. Gives some examples of unique features of the Lemba which I imagine Ruwitah disagrees with but not relevant - that's for Lemba page. He suggests Lemba might be Cushitic - same thing. Only mention of Great Zim is reference to the Cushitic founders of Zimbabwe. So he is assuming GtZ has "Cushitic" origins but does not say anything in support of this. Babakathy (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Points made by Gayre (and others) supporting the 'Lemba' hypothesis

Johncoz - Here, for the record, are the points which you deleted, despite the fact that they are backed up by properly sourced references. Instead of just removing them, it would be better to explain Why? you consider them to be defective and incorrect... [DougWeller maintains that Mullan's work does not qualify for mention here, so I have (for the moment) left him out - even though Mullan did carry out a lot of research on the topic, citing numerous sources - for which his work deserves to be acknowledged, surely?] :-

---

Arguing that the South African Lemba are probably descended from members of the original community who fled southwards, Gayre, and Murdock point out that the Lemba were esteemed by neighbouring tribes as exceptionally skilled miners and metal workers. A distinct (and partly Semitic) identity for the Lemba is also supported by observations and interviews carried out by van Warmelo. The discovery of models of circumcised male organs in some of the ancient ruins, has been cited by Gayre (and by Lembas interviewed by le Roux) as evidence of a direct link between the Lemba and Great Zimbabwe; (that is significant because surrounding tribes regarded the Lemba as the masters and originators of the art of circumcision). Gayre, le Roux, and Murdock also mention that the Lemba buried their dead in an extended rather than a crouched position, i.e., in the same style as in certain Zimbabwean graves which contained gold jewellery.

---

--DLMcN (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reply above @ 4:18. Johncoz (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As 2 of us disagree with you on policy grounds, if you think this is not OR, take it to WP:NORN and defend it rather than try to keep it in the article. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is now underway at WP:NORN on this issue Johncoz (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

De Barros's report

I may well be "laying my head on the block" by my failure to obtain permission before reinserting (just now) the report on GZim by de Barros; if so, please accept my apologies. Certainly, I do not see why it should produce an adverse reaction (although I was admittedly surprised by DougWeller's reluctance to acknowledge George Murdock's assessments regarding the Lemba and ancient Zim). Anyway, rightly or wrongly, I decided that it was unnecessary to submit this particular item to the WP:NORN 'Jury' for approval, and that DougWeller has more than enough other projects on the go to be bothered by a specific request for this extra one. It has been relocated in a place which sounds as if it might be acceptable to Johncoz. Let me mention too that there was a fair amount of discussion about this report when it was approved and inserted in December 2011 (right at the very beginning of this present Talk-File). --DLMcN (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me :) Johncoz (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, if not very helpful. Babakathy (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

However, it does sound as if the people actually living in GZim in the early 1500s had absolutely no idea who might have built it. --DLMcN (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it? Did De Barros know where the conversation took place, e.g. Great Zimbabwe area or Mutapa or somewhere else? Did the traders have the reported conversation, or was it reported to them? Did the traders write the report, or did someone who spoke with them write it - how many links in the chain? Also, did more recent travelers report the same from community of the area? Babakathy (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sound as if those Moorish traders actually visited GZim and spoke to the people living there. That is confirmed by other interesting points which the traders reported (which are also recorded in McCall-Theal's account): for example, that there was an inscription above the main door to GZim. No, the Moorish traders did not provide a written record of their observations - at least, not one which has been found.... Later, William Bolts and A.A. Anderson apparently heard reports implying that the BaLemba were responsible for constructing GZim. --DLMcN (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"sound as if" is a bit tenuous, what did De Barros actually say? Similarly "apparently heard" for WB and AAA. Babakathy (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The University of Zim Library does/did have a copy (in its 'Rare Books' section) of McCall-Theal's translation of de Barros's "Decadas de Asia", or I could try and post you a photocopy - if you really are keen to read more. Or we might be able to locate an online copy - maybe in Portuguese, though. In any event, I am happy to leave that part of the main article as it is; (let me add that my quotation is accurate, if selective). Indeed, different individuals will interpret the account in their own way. --DLMcN (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ken Mufuka

I do not think that treating Mufuka as a normal Zimbabwean archaeologist is quite proper: Garlake has described his work as having grotesque exaggerations and as "yet another example of the racist cult history which Great Zimbabwe has always inspired ... there is no common ground between this nonsense and normal processes of historical research"[4] I have added something on this to the political implication section

It would also be far better to quote Mufuka than Parfitt saying that "Mufuka thinks that"

It's also a bit problematic to refer to "other Zimbabwean archeologists" without any idea who is meant.

Finally, I have removed the first reference to Parfitt talking about Mufuka, as it is a repetition. Babakathy (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should try to integrate a bit more of that Kaarsholm paper, it's really quite good. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestors of the Lemba - anxious to mine the gold?

Babakathy - Looking at your recent deletion of: "... the Lemba maintain that their male forebears came in ships from a distant country in order to obtain gold.((ref name="VanWarmelo"/))" - I think you are wrong to say that this^ fact is not relevant on this page - because there was, apparently, a very strong association between GZim and the gold mines. Would I be correct in saying that most, if not all scholars believe that the same group of people (whoever they were) were responsible for both, [i.e., constructing the gold mines and building GZim]? ... Elsewhere, the article does mention oral traditions of the Shona (in supporting their claim to GZim), so presumably we are also entitled to mention oral traditions of the Lemba? --DLMcN (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's not directly relevant, I think it is worth mentioning why the Lemba say (and how) their ancestors came to the area. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it's not directly relevant, its appropriate location is the the Lemba page, surely. Also bearing in mind WP:UNDUE I've deleted another extraneous clause from this section. —Johncoz (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The relationship with gold-mining is directly relevant. In addition, the Semitic DNA in the Lemba is also pertinent in this context, because if the Lemba theory is correct, then the genetic evidence points towards a Semitic origin for GZim rather than a Bantu one. Indeed, that is also why the Lemba oral tradition of an overseas origin is relevant. --DLMcN (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) --DLMcN (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Detail of who the Lemba are is appropriate to their page. This page does mention the partial Semitic ancestry, but there is no value to keep repeating it. Oral tradition of why Lemba came to Mberengwa is again 100% relevant to Lemba page. Babakathy (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Conquest and Absorption

Johncoz - you should not have removed this piece: "... he [i.e., Gayre] added that the ones who remained would have passed some of their skills and knowledge to the invaders".

Earlier [at 12:10 on 5 May], in the section on [causes for the] "Decline", you removed my statement that Conquest was a very plausible explanation for the collapse of GZim, justifying your action by the fact that this was already covered in the Lemba section. However, you have now deleted both! So am I now entitled to restore it to the section entitled "Decline"?

In addition, Gayre's point is important because it weakens the arguments supporting the 'Shona' theory - namely, the fact that there is an apparent continuity between the pottery and artefacts found in GZim and those used by the Shona in the 18th/19th centuries. In the history of mankind, conquests of territory almost always involve some absorption by the invaders of the original inhabitants - at the same time learning and adopting many of their skills and techniques.

Indeed, that could also help to explain the Karanga [/ Shona] oral tradition that their ancestors built GZim - because some of their ancestors could well have been Lembas. --DLMcN (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, that's essentially Ruwitah's argument: that the Lemba are a subset of the Karanga, therefore Lemba are essentially Shona with some local differences. On that basis there is no conflict between Gokomere culture vs Lemba origins... NB I am not recommending we add this to page, just showing where scholars have taken Karanga-Lemba common ancestry. Ref: Ruwitah, A. (1997). Lost tribe, lost language? the invention of a false Remba identity. Zimbabwea, 5, 53-71. Babakathy (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The genetic analyses do indeed indicate a substantial female contribution to the Lemba ancestry: [the large Semitic element apparently came through the male line]. --DLMcN (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is the common ancestry point you make above cuts both ways: you say Karanga oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Lemba and the Lemba did the building not the Karanga (Gokomere). One could just as easily say that the Lemba oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Karanga (which at least we know) and the Karanga (Gokomere) did the building not the Lemba.

And if point is pushed further we end up at Ruwitah's conclusion: Lemba is not a distinct ethnic group from Karanga.

And your points and mine are both original research... Unless actually want to quote Ruwitah... Babakathy (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

According to van Warmelo and Hammond-Tooke, the Lemba oral tradition (which Gayre quotes) concerned their male ancestors; while according to Spurdle and Jenkins (and Parfitt), their Semitic ancestry also came through their male line. To me, that weakens the possible argument that "that the Lemba oral tradition could be because some of their ancestors were Karanga". And OK, yes, this^ is indeed original research (although backed by reliable sources) - so we won't add it to the main article... But I still believe that the point made by Gayre which was deleted by Johncoz, is important, and should be mentioned somewhere - probably best under "Lemba", otherwise under "Decline". --DLMcN (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "conquest" theory is mentioned: "The Lemba claim to Great Zimbabwe was also supported by Gayre, who suggested that the Shona artifacts which were found in the ruins, were placed there only after they conquered the area and drove out or absorbed the previous inhabitants." That seems sufficient, particularly since Gayre's proposal was based on the incorrect notion that GZim was built in the 7th century, and was "conquered" by Bantu peoples when they arrived in the 12th or 13th century (citing Dart). None of this has any support in modern scholarship, and indeed is demonstrably false. Johncoz (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. That's sufficient. Gayre's comment on skills being passed on between Lemba and Gokomere/Karanga is not relevant to the topic - we are not discussing the origins of metalworking skills in southern Zimbabwe, but who built the structures. Babakathy (talk) 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Section order change

I have moved the Lemba section to beneath the Queen of Sheba section to create a more logical order, and swapped a couple of pictures to correspond with the text. The Lemba claim is clearly quite old, but is not supported by current archaeological evidence. So we now go from oldest to most recent claims, from oral traditions and impressions to scientific excavations and the most recent scholarly consensus. Johncoz (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good move, although the initial reports of the oral tradition predate Bent? By the way, do we have an actual citation for Bolts and Anderson - to add to Le Roux mentioning them? Babakathy (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also added reference on Le Roux re Lemba oral tradition to a proper journal article. Peer-review status of UNISA book is not that clear to me, but the journal is highly reputable and so a stronger citation Babakathy (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"...the initial reports of the oral tradition predate Bent?" Well, not the initial reports, but I don't think they achieved any kind of prominence and substance until after Bent, if that makes sense. Johncoz (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent Research

BTW, I think it would be a good idea if someone could fill out the "Recent research" section with a bit more detail of the archaelogical findings of the past 30 years. Johncoz (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, will do some work on this. Garlake and Pikirayi's more recent work is available in Google books, and some of Beach and Hoffman's is available in full form online too. I will check if I have any papers offline in full if others want to read? Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm a bit time-constrained at the moment, but I'll try to dip into the literature a bit myself. Johncoz (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A call for a clearer explanation of the 'Shona' hypothesis

The most serious defect in this GZim article is the fact that it does not offer a convincing explanation as to What is the evidence supporting the 'Shona' theory? for the origin of the building. There is a brief reference to "pottery, oral traditions and anthropology", but (as I have tried to indicate) that is not really enough - in view of the possibility that Shona invaders might have absorbed and learned something from earlier inhabitants.

I have tried writing to prominent supporters of the 'Shona' hypothesis, asking for more details of the evidence in its favour. Some of them did reply, but nobody even attempted to answer my question. A few just called me a 'racialist', perhaps believing that this would be enough to clinch and close the matter. I have also read various books and articles which those 'Shona' adherents have written, but again without discovering an adequate explanation.

All this does raise the question whether there might be political reasons for describing the 'Shona' theory as "proven beyond all doubt". It is true that during the 1960s and 1970s in Rhodesia there was 'political motivation' working in the other direction - but, if there is any truth in that first possibility, then we should remember (to use a trite expression) that "Two Wrongs do not usually make a Right".

An indication that there might be a marked reluctance to give the 'Semitic' theory a fair hearing, came with my efforts to publish www.http://DLMcN.com/anczimb.html (which we are not permitted to use as a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia (i) because it appeared in a right-wing journal, and (ii) because I am "only" a meteorologist/astronomer). I did actually submit the manuscript to other journals before approaching "Mankind Quarterly", and none of those other editors criticized the content of its text; it just seemed that they did not want to "touch the controversy with a bargepole".

Anyway, I am certainly not qualified to 'fill the gap' and remedy [what I call] "the most serious defect" in the GZim page. I was, however, prepared to have a go at presenting what evidence there was in favour of a 'Semitic' theory, if only because the relevant arguments did seem rather plausible (although not 100% conclusive). However, as we have seen, the material which I have put together is unacceptable in Wikipedia (i) because it represents only a minority theory, and (ii) because it is contrary to editorial consensus.

The other reason/accusation which is often thrown at me - namely, that I am guilty of presenting "original research" - is somewhat weaker - or, putting it differently, this problem could easily be overcome. Looking, for example, at the question which I recently put up in the 'NORN' forum (and leaving aside, for the moment, the consideration of "Undue Weight"), could it be argued that the suggested wording cannot be described as "Original Research"? - because it just involves quoting from a published book, and no more. --DLMcN (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies were developed in large part to stop articles becoming platforms for the pet theories of editors. The Gayre/Lemba theory is discussed and given prominence in accordance with its support in the scholarly community. To quote from WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Johncoz (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

An NPOV tag has been placed at the top of this article by an editor who by his own admission is seeking to promote a POV that has minority status in current scholarship. Some explanation of why the article in its current state is not "neutral" (ie does not give appropriate weight to different viewpoints) would seem to be required if the tag is not be summarily removed. Please note policy in relation to these tags:

The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Johncoz (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The points concerned - which are repeated here below - have all been raised before in this Talk-File, but without success.

If we look back at my last entry here above^ (calling for more evidence, uploaded on 10th May at 19:06), we see that there was only one reply - but it did not really address the issues which I was trying to highlight - many of which suggest (to me) that there are several items in the main article which definitely need attention.

1. Let us assume, for the moment, that you (and other editors) do not manage to find, in the relevant literature, a more complete answer to the key question: What is the evidence supporting the 'Shona' theory? In that event, what would your [/other editors'] reaction be? - to inserting words like: "[however, Gayre ((ref/)) insists that those phenomena could easily be explained by Shona invaders capturing Great Zimbabwe and absorbing some of the original inhabitants, at the same time learning their techniques and skills in pottery]". Could we put something like that after the reference to "pottery, oral traditions and anthropology" in the "Gokomere" section?

2. Perhaps the real reason why the Lemba hypothesis has prompted such a strong counter-reaction, is its implication that the builders of GZim may have been Semitic. Thus, could we agree that it would be a more accurate reflection of the controversy, if we expanded the heading there to read: "The Lemba, and their Semitic ancestors"?

3. By placing the statement: "However, Gayre's thesis is not supported by more recent scholars such as Garlake and Pikirayi" immediately after mentioning Gayre [in the "Lemba" section] - we convey the misleading impression that Garlake and Pikirayi actually managed to demolish Gayre's arguments. In fact, neither Garlake nor Pikirayi bothered to do that. I have read Pikirayi's book (and also corresponded with him) - but his book does not even acknowledge the existence of the Lemba.

[There are also less important points, e.g.-]

4. Nobody gave me an adequate explanation for rejecting my point that the gold-mining activity was intimately associated with GZim and therefore it is relevant to mention gold when considering the question "Who constructed GZim?" --DLMcN (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact the article as currently constructed does not conform with your POV does not mean it violates WP policy on NPOV. Please re-read the policy summary I quoted above and address this issue. Johncoz (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)