Jump to content

Talk:Zanzibar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Aren't we omitting the important?

[edit]

It's really strange that an article about Zanzibar fails to mention Big Boss' military nation. 108.41.215.105 (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013 acid attacks

[edit]

Should there be a mention of the recent acid attacks on two British women? Justgravy (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to stir up racism? Are you white?121.219.56.45 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I am blue, but that is besides the point. It has been all over the news here? Normally when a place is all over the news there is a section dedicated to the story? Justgravy (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing up race? Trying to stir up racism? Are you black? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:897A:E657:5680:268F (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the planned and calculated genocide and ethnic cleansing of non-Bantu residents gets only one sentence, I really don't think an incident of this sort is going to get mentioned. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:897A:E657:5680:268F (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other acts of religious/political violence (*if* the acid attacks were in fact motivated by religion or politics: has that been confirmed?), including some that have resulted in deaths. Are those incidents somehow of less importance than the assaults on Westerners? But I agree with the previous commenter: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizungu (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct ... Wikipedia is for fictionalising History. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:897A:E657:5680:268F (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Lakes Region"

[edit]

I have removed several references to Zanzibar as being part of the "Great Lakes Region," but now I notice that the article is riddled with many more. I do not understand what compelled a contributor to use such misleading and inaccurate language, although I suspect the reasons may be ideological. Can anyone explain? Or, can the author of those references explain his/her reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizungu (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Zanzibar is part of Tanzania, which is in the African Great Lakes. It is on the latter region's seaboard, an area known as the Swahili Coast. The African Great Lakes is a specific portion of eastern Africa, one that is co-extensive with the East African Community but distinct from the Horn of Africa to its north. When it is claimed here that 1) Zanzibar's "historic centre, known as Stone Town, is a World Heritage Site and is claimed to be the only functioning ancient town in East Africa", 2) "until around 1890, the sultans of Zanzibar controlled a substantial portion of the East African coast, known as Zanj", and 3) "Zanzibaris speak Swahili (Kiswahili), a Bantu language that is extensively spoken in East and Central Africa", this is quite misleading since the foregoing actually only pertains to the African Great Lakes region. It certainly does not pertain to the Horn since 1) there are much older ancient towns in that separate region (e.g. Axum, Zeila), 2) Zanj was in the African Great Lakes region, while the actual rulers of the Horn to the north were Ethiopian and Somali Emperors, Kings and Sultans (e.g. Ethiopian aristocratic and court titles, Somali aristocratic and court titles), and 3) Afro-Asiatic languages are extensively spoken in the Horn, not the Bantu Swahili language that is predominant in the African Great Lakes. This is why it is misleading to simply indicate "eastern Africa"; more specific geographical phrasing is required. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zanzibaris of 200 years ago would interpret Kiswahili(Kiunguja for them) as an Arabic creole (Most Waswahili still do and most Waswahili self-identify as Arab (many of their ancestors would have been freed slaves, or persons that were otherwise integrated into Islam and the Waswahili diaspora)). There is currently an ideological struggle going on in terms of trying to claim the cultural edifices of the Waswahili peoples and the Arabic/Persian/South Asian/Malay influences that contributed to the cultural melting pot that was the Swahili World for mainland Bantu people by association. The Waswahili occupy the East African coast and littoral islands. They do not consider people of the interior as part of their world.
Which is why it is seen as ridiculous that a Kikuyu should seek to claim the cultural edifices of the Waswahili ... but, that's where we are!
That's one of the reasons people are justifiably prickly about such things - cultural appropriation is offensive to most persons not least, Historians!
The biggest offenders for misappropriating African History (and yes, it is ideological):
    1) African Studies Colleges/Journals in the US [ideological drivel]
    2) Wikipedia [an outlet for ideological drivel]
    3) The United Nations [The commissioned 'official' History of Africa (used in schools) reads like a not so great fantasy novel]

2001:8003:70F5:2400:897A:E657:5680:268F (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name Etymology

[edit]

I've heard that Zanzibar originally came from Persian Zangebar (Zang= black , bar=ende of see/river, beach). is that right? As there is no g(گ) in arabic, Zangebar turned to zanjibar. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.184.141.134 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zanzibar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Zanzibar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.akdn.org/publication/aga-khan-historic-cities-programme-zanzibar-stone-town-projects. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 23:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zanzibar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official Language Arabic

[edit]

Arabic is listed as one of the official languages of the archipelago? I have gone through various documentation and the constitution and there is no mention of this.
I have not been able to find a single government notice in Arabic either. Is there a source that states Arabic is an offical language in the archpeligo? Sputink (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic is currently being cleansed from the region. Kiswahili/Kiunguja are being reinterpreted as Bantu Languages (not Arabic creoles). There is a Bantu-isation of the region that is currently ongoing (which Wikipedia is sadly a part of). The Arab Language has been used in the region for over 1,000 years and they had a dominant cultural role (as well as numerous other Indian Ocean sea-faring nations) on the East African coast. Kiswahili is an Arabic creole, but thanks to some fancy interpretation by a single linguist it's now seen as a Bantu Language (which Swahili may have metamorphosed into ... but Swahili is not Kiswahili).
Alas, most of the study in the region is financed by African Studies groups that originate primarily in America and they want History to bark in only one direction. It's something that we will have to put up with for some time to come ... it's amusing to a point (the convoluted logic) but at a certain point it marks something of a loss for humanity. The 'official' History of Africa financed by the United Nations is a great read if you're into fantasy novels. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:897A:E657:5680:268F (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Zanzibar is in Swedish

[edit]

The map is a Swedish one, so "Mafia Island" is written as "Mafiaön" and "Indian Ocean" as "Indiska Oceanen". Should it be replaced?

Afro~svwiki (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that the map on the Swedish page is an English one, so apparently there has been an erroneous swap of images for some reason... Afro~svwiki (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate and protectorate

[edit]

Currently the following appears in the last paragraph of #2.3 Sultanate of Zanzibar is: "One of Majid's brothers, Barghash bin Said, succeeded him and was forced to abolish the slave trade in the Zanzibar Archipelago by the British. ... Another brother of Majid, Khalifa bin Said, was the third sultan of Zanzibar and furthered the relationship with the British which led to the archipelago's progress toward abolishing slavery."

That's followed by "In 1856, Sultan Majid consolidated his power around the African Great Lakes slave trade, and in 1873 Sir John Kirk informed his successor, Sultan Barghash, that a total blockade of Zanzibar was imminent, and Barghash reluctantly signed the Anglo-Zanzibari treaty which abolished the slave trade in the sultan's territories, closed all slave markets and protected liberated slaves." in #2.4 British protectorate.

To me they read as if they're from two articles. Perhaps someone could edit #2.3 and 4 so that they read more as part of the same article. Mcljlm (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Wikipedia's inline links are not intended to replace writing in complete, well explained sentences, they are designed as easy additional information.

My frustration with these Wikipedia articles make it difficult to keep from using offensive language here. This is why people now avoid Wikipedia inline links and why they are called rabbit hole, lazy links. For example, talking about Zanzibar's animals in the lead, why couldn't the author have used the terms "cat-like" and "monkey" along with the inline link rabbit holes to your mystery animals?? And guess what? The lead sections that those point to, —also only have other blue hole lazy-links pointing away from the definition! And so on. This is why they are called lazy links, this is why they are called rabbit holes and this is why people avoid Wikipedia inline links. They have become a sucker's gamble.

Please stop using links as crutches. And please find out where they point before you use them. Typically a few words in context will be far better than a wordy, all-encompassing, out of context link. --Doug Bashford 2607:FB91:7905:ACD3:6046:66FF:FE6B:3915 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop with the 99% Muslim already?

[edit]

We have to stop being a part of this Islamic propaganda ok? There is no way of knowing this because Tanzanian gvt doesn't collect data based on one's ethnicity or religion and I thk that's good news henceforth there isn't any proof of this bogus 99% which is a big swallow since we know religion is barely a choice and we are assuming all that grow up choose to remain in this religion. Even by background 99% is still a huge swallow. Even in Totalitarian Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia they have placed the number to around 90% yet people insist on this 99% having conducted no census or no way of knowing. We could say it's predominately Muslim yes but no official data and by estimates maybe around 80 to 85% not 99% Nlivataye (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of "maybe around 80 to 85%" would need sourcing, so if you have alternative sources and constructive suggestions, feel free to propose improvements to the article. Otherwise, see WP:NOTAFORUM. Greenman (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the source of 99% Muslim too coz I all see is also guess work too even if I check the mentioned sources Nlivataye (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zanzibar&oldid=1218241921"