Talk:Khaua-Mbandjeru rebellion

article written like an essay

Imo, that's not really an encyclopedic article. The lead section is supposed to provide an overview, but it's rather a personal statement about the legal backdrop of the incidents, with no sources given at all. The section called "summary" actually contains a sequence of quotes from one sole book, using non-encyclopedic words like "unfortunately" in the few sentences connecting the quotes. While this may or may not give an accurate description of the incidents, it does not explain the article's name at all. It does not explain who the Khaua and the Mbandjeru were and it does not even explain in what way the incidents constituted a "rebellion" (in the lead section, it is just called an "objection" and not explained any further, either). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

More problems: Title, content

There was no such thing as a Khaua-Mbandjeru rebellion. The main reference does not mention this name, and neither does anyone else. For one, the tribes today would be named Nama and Herero, respectively. More importantly, the title suggests that they did something together, but that is only true for a small faction of either tribe, namely the Khauas Nama, led by Eduard Lambert, and the Herero faction under Nikodemus Kavikunua.

Summary: It is wrong to suggest in any way that Nama and Herero cooperated in any sort of uprising against Germans in 1896. I see the following possible titles for an article that covers resistance to colonial Germany in 1896:

• German Ovambanderu War or German Ovambanderu War of 1896: This would have to cover a lot more than Eduard Lambert and Nikodemus Kavikunua; without an appropriate background (Succession fight after the death of Maharero) it would be of little value to the encyclopedia. Dierks names the events that way.
• Battle of Gobabis: Currently my favourite because that best coincides with the current content. The title is common in many sources.

I would also be fine with the re-insertion into Herero and Namaqua Genocide; the relevance is that this war had a number of preceding conflicts, and the 1896 fightings were among them.

The content should in any case not cover the different perceptions of property; this clearly belongs to German South-West Africa. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion.

It may be that this article could be renamed, or that the material could be re-inserted into Herero and Namaqua Genocide. (Certainly I would not object if the material covering different perceptions of property was moved into German South-West Africa.) However, it seems clear that SEVERAL rebellions took place before the rebellion of the Herero and the subsequent rebellion of the Nama, and not limited to the area of today's Namibia, but in other German colonies as well (and colonies other than Germany). Do you have more information?

Best regards, Virago250 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with a transfer towards the article Herero and Namaqua Genocide. These two conflicts/rebellions are related but they are not the same, being separated by a couple of years. About 'the material covering different perceptions of property' (main body of the article). Could you please provide proper sources asap? Flamarande (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to watch this page and saw your comments only now. @Virago: This is a list of uprisings in Namibia, the wars are here. I don't know much about the other German colonies.

@Flamarande: The section on property currently is a bit pointy but can be referenced. Indigenous people of South-West Africa certainly had no idea about land titles. Quoting from memory, the Herero regarded land as theirs "where our cattle have grazed", Nama and Damara claimed all land "as far as the eye could see" at whatever location they happened to be. It is in Heinrich Vedder's book on the history of South-West Africa, the pagination I would have to look up.

It is therefore indeed questionable whether headmen or chiefs understood what a sale of property is. This does not only apply to the Sperrgebiet area where the contract itself was fraudulent (applying German Geographical Miles (7.15 km) as unit of measurement, counting on the fact that a Nama chief would not spot the difference to an ordinary mile) but to probably many of the other acquisitions like Karibib and Lüderitz.

But in any case, the property section does not belong to this article, and there was never a Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If that name (Khaua-Mbandjeru Rebellion) isn't commonly used then what is the proper name? The article should be transferred (i.e.:renamed) towards it asap. The author should realize that too many important sentences lack sources. Come on ppl, this isn't a simple article about a common subject where we can simply wait for a later improvement. This article stinks of OR and SYNTH and its subject is of a very delicate nature. The author should provide the sources ASAP. Flamarande (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait until later today. If Virago doesn't comment I'll be bold and move the article to Battle of Gobabis and remove the property section. --Pgallert (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I had a closer look at the article to see what is salvageable, and that's unfortunately not much.

1. The property section, as stated, needs to go. Once proper references for it are found it can be summarised in German South-West Africa.
2. The article mixes information from February/March 1894 and March 1896. The latter is known as the Battle of Gobabis, for the former there is to my knowledge no commonly accepted name. The 1894 incident is covered in the articles on Andreas Lambert and Leonardville, Namibia, albeit not in this detail.
3. To mix quotes about Andries Lambert and the happenings in 1896 is misleading. Andries was two years dead by then.
4. To cover events from 1894 and 96 under this title is misleading, because it suggests that there was a rebellion that lasted 2 years.
5. The article says nothing about the Mband(j)eru. They entered the scene only in 1896, not 1894.
6. The quotes are nice and could certainly be used elsewhere. Unfortunately at least one of them is wrong: in the negotiations of 17 March 1894, Andries Lambert accepted Leutwein's conditions. Andries was executed 9 days before, it was his brother Edward that agreed to the protection.
7. There are also many spelling errors in the first longer quote. This makes me think, was it improperly copied from the original text, or is the author Helmut Bley not quite the expert on this topic? As the quoted work received a favourable review in The Journal of Modern African Studies, it might have been sloppy copying.
8. Finally, please don't get me wrong, we must be very careful using plenty of quotes from an author who clearly has German roots and possibly close ties to Namibia, from the year 1971, the height of apartheid.

My suggestion: Move the article to Battle of Gobabis, insert general information about this battle, shorten the 1894 events significantly and treat them as part of the battle's background. I must admit that I am not overly comfortable using offline sources that I have never seen. If you want me to perform the move, the resulting article would be very short. Your input is welcome, thanks for the cooperation so far. --Pgallert (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

As this page has now been silent for three weeks I have performed the first step of the suggested improvements. I removed the unreferenced entry section and checked and marked the quotes from the Bley book. Now a new problem becomes visible: The body of the article contains basically nothing else but direct quotes, certainly too many to treat them as fair use citations. These citations are not bad and can be used in a number of related articles, but I do not think we can have an article built on them in this way, due to copyright concerns. I will leave a notice on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Pgallert (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note I'm a clerk over at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I had a look at the article and the amount of quotation is in my view far in excess of what would be permissible under Wikipedia's fair use policy. I have removed all but a couple of short quoted phrases. I have no comment on the article's other issues, but if some the information contained in the quotes is re-added, it must be in new and creatively written sentences and not closely paraphrased or directly quoted from the source. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  This is what I started to do, and it is unfortunate you have not check the history. I will now return the quotes because it is easier for me to rework the article when the quotes are there. I promise that they disappear by the end of the day. It is ok to mar the issue as resolved at Wikipedia:Copyright problems--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you should work on the quoted material off Wikipedia, not here. Please copy it from the old version into a word file (or similar) and work off line. I am reverting again. Copyvio cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia, including user space or temporary drafts. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it is inconvenient for me to work on the old version, so I just abandon the article. You should just realize that you activity brought net harm to Wikipedia: The quotes were here for several months, and by the evening the article could have been fine, but now because of you insistence that the quotes may not stay here an extra hour the article will remain a stub forever, and I will show no further interest to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where I found a link of this article in the morning (after Maggie posted a link on the Village Pump). I have other things to do, and it is unlikely anybody would work on this article anytime soon. Cheers.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found it inconvenient to work that way. I've subsequently summarized the information from the deleted quotes and added to the article. It took me only 15 minutes. Thus the article did not "remain a stub forever" and it now complies with Wikipedia's copyright guidelines. It could certainly use improvement and wider sourcing, however. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

how important was the mbanderu and khauas uprising against the German rule 105.232.23.206 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)