Talk:Kingdom of Mapungubwe

Some facts

Look at this section: "Mapungubwe's location was initially kept secret as its existence conflicted with the official South African Version of History, which, maintained that southern africa was completely uninhabited until the first Dutch settlers arrived there in 1652."

This is not true. The existence of indigenous people such as the Khoi was well documented. Perhaps you could research some material like "H.J.J.M. van der Merwe: Scheepsjournael ende Daghregister". Many mentions are also made by other voyagers of the bantu migration across the Zambezi and Limpopo in the 1500's and 1600's as far south as Umtata. No mention was made of bantu people in the western Cape, however. Another well-written overview is provided by: "Pieter Moeller: Vryheidstryd van die Afrikaner". Okeydokey100 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the accuracy of information in this section. It seems very biased (with no or very few citations to support claims), and a brief search (for instance, into the document submitted by South Africa to the World Heritage Committee) does not lead me to suppose that the excavations were either "kept secret" or "forgotten". When (if) I have time I will rewrite the section to be more factual. --Leviel (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no expertise on Mapungubwe, but I refer debaters to Thomas N Huffman's scholarly, yet readable little book: Mapungubwe: Ancient African Civilisation on the Limpopo. Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2005. ISBN 1-86814-408-9. It is written in neutral language. Huffman states (on page 60): "Before the 1990s, few people in South Africa had heard of Mapungubwe." However, nowhere in his book does he make the claim that Mapungubwe was deliberately kept secret. In his book, he references and draws material from an earlier book: Fouche L (ed). Mapungubwe: Ancient Bantu Civilisation on the Limpopo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937. He also references a book published in 1963: Gardner GA. Mapungubwe. Vol. 2. Pretoria: JL van Schaik, 1963. He gives a third more recent reference: Voight EA. Mapungubwe: An Archaeo-geological Interpretation of an Iron Age Community. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum, 1983. To me, the existance of these publications refutes the claim that Mapungubwe (or Mapungubwe's location) was kept secret. Indeed I recall attending talks on Mapungubwe and the civilisations/cultures responsible for its creation in the 1980s. Carolinza (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that such allegations are made, by "Africanists" I presume, while the people which discovered and published on Mapungubwe were actually Afrikaners (hence whites) and not Blacks. --197.228.63.52 (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Where's the irony? And where do you derive your presumption from that the allegations are made by "Africanists", whatever that means? (Africanists, without quotes, are simply scholars, not activists, as I presume you believe.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mapungubwe

I am not certain of the accuracy of stating that one the key inhabitants of Mapungugwe were Shona.My take is that the Shona that is refered to is a tribal grouping of people that inhabit present day Zimbabwe.The term Shona was actually given to this grouping by the Ndebele(Mzilikazi) when they settled in present day Zimbabwe around 1840s.My further understanding is that the name Shona had never been used in reference to this tribal grouping until 1939.Before then sub groups that now make up Shonas were known as Karanga , Manyika and Zezuru.Further research has shown me that there never existed a Shona kingdom.Maybe the contributor mistook the Munumutapa(Mambo) Kingdom for Shona Kingdom whereas in fact the Munutapa Kingdom was a Lozwi empire and it still exists today led by a Queen.Research has not shown me any Shona influence in Botswana as evidence that the Shona Kingdom spread to Botswana.The only fact that links Shona and Kalanga is that both are influenced by Lozwi language hence the similarity in language.````Ndabenhle Mabhena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.15.117.234 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mapungubwe is zezuru for Stone masonry, Vano pungudza mabwe. Please find the common 'bwe' in both zimba'bwe' and 'ibwe' zezuru for stone. and 'pungudza'is flinting. It means surfers of stones. In karanga it also means the same thing. The reason why it was hidden, and unspoken of for a long time was that Cecil Rhodes had claimed the region for the Shonas, Just the same as why the Zezuru and Karanga claim vast parts of Mocambique, Botswana, and South Africa up to areas surrounding Johannesburg. It was just a prevention of conflict, then and now. It is really Shona territory, but who cares, Shonas have never been greedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.75.109 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The last comment lacks neutrality. Mapungubwe is Venda and it means place of the jackal. Venda is closer to Kalanga than any other language under the umbrella of shona languages. The writer fails to realise that the term Shona is of recent construction. Some researchers pin the origin of the term to Mzilikazi. There has never been a Shona Kingdom. The term Shona collectively refers to the present day inhabitants of north and east Zimbabwe. These fall under the categories of Karanga, Zezuru, Manyika and other sub categories. Kalanga was the language spoken by the Mapungubeans and the Great Zimbabweans. The term "Zimbabwe" in Zezuru translates from "Dzimba Dzemabwe" which means dwellings of stone. In Zezuru "bwe" means pebble while "dombo" refers to boulder. As seen in the word "dombo shava". The Zezuru does not make sense when applied to the ruins at Great Zimbabwe for there are no houses/dwellings of stone/pebbles in the ruins rather we see mud hut structures. "Zimbabwe" in Kalanga translates from Nzi Wemabwe which in Kalanga means Home Stead of Stone. In Kalanga it refers to the territory structured from stone rather than the dwelling structures which are made of mud. Of the languages Karanga, Kalanga, Zezuru, and Manyika the one that most resembles Venda is Kalanga. This definately has to do with the history of the Kalanga in Mapungubwe, Limpopo. To further buttress the Venda - Kalanaga connection one simply has to consider the religious influence of the Venda on the Kalanga. The Njelele rain making spirit is housed in Kalanga territory, the Matopos. The patrons of the shrine are strictly Kalanga of Rozwi heritage of the surname Moyo. What is interesting is that the first Njele shrine still operates in the Limpopo province of South Africa where its patrons are the Venda. Its interesting that the patrons of the Njele shrine should be of the Moyo surname and that surname is the most common in Kalanga communities in Botswana and Zimbabwe and means heart/soul in both instances. For some reason females of the surname Ncube also qualify as patrons of the shrine. The Ncube surname is supposedly not found in the Karanga communities but is common in Kalanga. No research has associated areas in or near Johannesburg to the Shona. Botswana's history is heavily influenced by the Kalanga not the Shona because the term shona is recent and preceded by Kalanga influence in Botswana. So Botswana is NOT Shona territory it is the territory of present day citizens of Botswana. Other ruins and their names attest to the fact that the Shona, as the term is used today, did not move west of Gweru. The Lusvingo ruins, the Khami Ruins in Zimbabwe, the Shoshong hill ruins in Botswana, the Mmamagwa ruins in Botswana, the Dhlohlo ruins in Zimbabwe and other similar masonry architecture are all west of Present day Mashonaland and still have Kalanga influence. Why are there much fewer other ruins East and North of the great Zimbabwe ruins were there was little Rozwi influence.

I take it some skeletons were found at the site. What do they tell us about the racial or ethnic identity of the inhabitants of Mapungubwe? The article is not really telling, just that the position of burial seems to be similar to some Bantu people, it just happens that some Amerind and ancient European graves have people buried in a similar fashion. The skull bones should be more telling. --197.228.63.52 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Point of correction the Njelele shrine is not located in present day South Africa in limpopo province and its not monitored by the vhavenda people but however it connects 3 major ethnic groups who shares a great ancestor Thobela,Tovera among the Karanga/khalanga,Vhenda and the Shona. The Njelele shrine is located in Matopos hill present day Zimbabwe in Matebeleland province and is heavily associated by the khalanga as the most dominioring group around that area 41.220.31.26 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The writer closes his statement by saying the Shona have never been greedy. This is not consistent with the fact that every community has good people and bad people. The present day Zimbabwean ruling elite, largely Shona, can be described as greedy. The list below is just a tiny list of examples to support the point.

1. 1987 Zisco Steel blast furnace scandal

2. 1987 Air Zimbabwe Fokker Scandal

3. 1986 National Railways Housing Scandal

4. 1988 Willowgate Scandal

5. 1989 ZRP Santana Scandal

6. 1994 War Victims Compensation Scandal (Where healthy ZanuPF elite claimed up to 100 percent disability and received hundreds of thousands of good Zimbabwean dollars in compensation)

7. 1995 GMB Grain Scandal (Kangai Walked free)

8. 1996 VIP Housing Scheme (Public money, including Yours Truly's, was used to build VIPs', including First Lady Grace's house)

9. 1998 Boka Banking Scandal ($968 million fraud perpetrated on the Zimbabwean people with the RBZ and the office of the President accused of attempting to it up)

10. 1998 ZESA YTL Soltran Scandal

11. 1998 Telecel Scandal

12. 1998 Harare City Council Refuse Tender Scandal

13. 1999 Housing Loan Scandal

14. 1999 Noczim Scandal (managers corruptly siphoned millions of dollars out of the oil firm, which was reeling under a deficit of about $5 billion.)

15. 1999 DRC Timber and Diamond scandals (UN reported military and other bosses were implicated)

16. 1999 GMB Scandal

17. 1999 Ministry of Water and Rural Development Chinese tender scandal

18. 1999 VIP Land Grab Scandal

19. 2001 Harare Airport Scandal (Leo Mugabe , nephew of president Robert Mugabe, implicated, together with the the son of a Saudi oil minister, and the son of then UN chief, Kofi Annan in a 75 million Pounds contract to redevelop Harare International Airport, possibly affecting Annan's ability to deal with Mugabe while the UN was concerned about rising political violence. Government officials implicated or convicted in corruption cases continued to be recycled in positions of authority. The First Lady, Grace Mugabe, was mentioned as among those who benefited from the pay-for-your-house scheme. Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri, Vice President Joice Mujuru, benefited from the war victims' compensation fund, illegally.

In 2004 a list of 30 was compiled by the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) topped by Zimbabwe Defence Forces Commander Constantine Chiwenga and his wife Jocelyn, after police gathered prima facie evidence that the individuals concerned could indeed have been involved in illegal foreign currency dealings.But Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri moved to stop the investigations in all 30 cases despite President Robert Mugabe's assurances that no one would be spared in the anti-corruption crackdown.Officials alleged to have been externalising foreign currency as well as being involved in forex dealing included Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Chiwenga's - with two houses in South Africa and one in Britain, bought over the previous two years, then MPs Phillip Chiyangwa, Saviour Kasukuwere, Sydney Sekeramayi, Oppah Muchinguri, Obert Mpofu, Cephas Msipa, and Shuvai Mahofa, and then Mugabe chief propagandist, Jonathan Moyo, were all implicated. However eventually the list compiled by the CID disappeared after what the sources described as a "compromise" by the heavyweights, leaving a few individuals, such as businessman James Makamba and Finance Minister Chris Kuruneri to be sacrificed. All these facts paint a picture of greed.

This is not to say the Shona, as then term is used today, are corrupt and greedy but rather a few individuals within all communities can be corrupt and greedy if checks and balances are not in place.

Mapungubwe dispute of rediscovery

It is well known and recorded in several publications that Mapungubwe's discovery (see South Africa's crown Jewels by Sian Tiley published in 2004 Jonathan Ball Publishers) by the University of Pretoria and not hidden from the public and the the claim of 'gold' hidden in a room cannot be verified by an authentic and professional source. The Mapungubwe Museum was opened to the public in June 2000, and has since received over 30 000 visitors. The rich Mapungubwe archives, a primary source of information (www.upspace.co.za) at the Univeristy of Pretoria attests to several major public exhibitions held in Pretoria and Johannesburg in 1933, 1936 1368, 1940, 1970s, 1980s as well as the 1900s before the museum opening (www.up.ac.za/uparts). A history of the discovery and the publicity of the finds by major South African newspapers cannot be contested as over 450 archival newspaper articles exist and can be viewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.215.6.53 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear 137.215.6.53

1. The story of the locked room can be found in several places: South African Sights – South Africa Travel – The Lost City of Gold Mapungubwe, The South Africa Guide, March 10, 2010; Mapungubwe – Building of the Year Isiza N. 10, April 26, 2010; The Golden Hills of Mapungubwe: Home to the World Building of the Year, Directory of Design. Do you know what is the original source of the story?

2. You mention Sian Tiley’s book. I have not read it but it is surprising that the first sentence of its presentation is “Mapungubwe was discovered 75 years ago and has remained one of South Africa's best-kept secrets”. What does Tiley really says about secrecy? and about the locked room story?

3. What are the other “several publications” you mention?

4. You refer to a site http://www.upspace.co.za which does not exist. You also indicate as reference http://www.up.ac.za/uparts, but which page(s) mentions “several major public exhibitions held in Pretoria and Johannesburg in 1933, 1936 1368 [1938?, 1968?], 1940, 1970s, 1980s as well as the 1900s before the museum opening”?

5. What are the “450 archival newspaper articles” you mention? Where did you find that number? Is there a list available somewhere?

Your statements may be partly or fully right. Unfortunately, you do not provide much evidence.

Who knows where the "locked room" story comes from? Can someone who has access to a copy of Tiley’s book (or could ask Tiley) indicate what he really says?

Best regards; Touchatou (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what that person wrote. I immediately gathered that the excavated site was kept secret, while some artefacts were put on display in the museum. I think that unsubstantiated claims from third parties and online hearsay articles should not be transcribed, but possibly added as links for further reading. Even books, journals, and notes can be misleading (purposely or not) or simply incorrect. Magunz (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bakalanga

What does this word in the first paragraph mean? Please link it, or define it please.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

mapungubwe

show me notes on the mapungubwe social,economic,political system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.221.241.208 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Mapungubwe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819081731/http://www.sahra.org.za/content/922400001 to http://www.sahra.org.za/content/922400001

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) 09:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

San Rainmakers

Good morning fellow editors.

I would like to add a section on the San people being employed as Rainmakers, does anyone object to me doing so? Vusi (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Should (and will) be moved to simply "Mapungubwe".

Reasoning is rather straight forward. The article almost exclusively discusses the archaeological site and barely talks about a broader kingdom. Hence, it should be designated as an article about the archaeological site, with perhaps some discussion of the supposed "kingdom" (small polity) whose existence as an actual kingdom (compared to, say, some other form of localized political organization) is mostly archaeological speculation. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Old sources

A lot of the sources used are far too old and outdated. I plan to rewrite the history section using Huffman 2005 Kowal2701 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I've used this book (Mapungubwe Reconsidered: A Living Legacy: Exploring Beyond the Rise and Decline of the Mapungubwe State (2015)) which is brilliant, but I can't access most of the chapters. If anyone can get access to it, it'd improve the page a lot. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are not "far too old and outdated" -- they are entirely relevant as they discuss the historiography of the site. Historiography, as in the history of how the site has been studied and researched. I do not know why you saw it fit to remove the contents of that section, as opposed to simply adding to that section, or perhaps even starting a new article if you genuinely intend to flesh out that section (in which case, it would be fitting to leave a summary of the contents of that section, and a link to the new article). As-is, you have removed multiple paragraphs worth of useful information which addresses a common idea about the site (that it was "khoisan"), without providing any material. It has been 24 days since you did this. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll add, many of these "old" sources are genetic analyses which are more recent than either of the texts you have brought up (presumably "up to date" according to you). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AGEMATTERS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literature review. Due to the pace of the field, we should only be using recent sources. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has multiple articles which go into thorough detail about the details of scholarly literature. "Due to the pace of the field", we should be ensuring people understand its history, so that they can understand how it has gotten to its current point. A regular encyclopedia does not have articles with 22,403 words and 1,276 citations. Wikipedia does. New era, and all that. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That is for philosophical concepts and the like, not history articles. We could have a section on historiography of Mapungubwe but I don't think that's really necessary, but we can do that if you want Kowal2701 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it is for historical articles too. Check the articles on the Shirazi people, for example: Shirazi people HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not a good example, that article needs to be completely rewritten. It shouldn't be a literature review. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That article is good. The fact of the matter, is that articles regularly engage in thorough analysis. This is part of what makes Wikipedia good. Should the Mfecane article not discuss the Cobbing controversy? Should the "Late Antiquity" article not discuss the historiographic origins of the field? Should an article on Nazi Germany not discuss the "legacy" of the state? HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I take that back. The article is not perfect, but its willingness to discuss historiography is absolutely good and is precedent in well-written Wikipedia articles on controversial topics. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The main issue with the Shirazi article is that it is only about the historiography rather than the actual ethnic group in line with other ethnic group articles Kowal2701 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree; more attention should be given, and it is unfortunate that the said attention is not duly allocated. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is awful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Notice how they have small sections on historiography, not writing the whole article using nearly century old sources! Kowal2701 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. The section on "historiography" in the article on the Mfecane is four paragraphs. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Mfecane is in the process of being rewritten by User:Pliny the Elderberry who hasn't gotten to that section yet. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd hope the "Controversy" section is not removed by the said user, as it is similarly useful in understanding the history of the Mfecane (where different claims about it originate, and so on). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Tbh the controversy section is quite good. I agree with you that historiography is important generally. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There were heavily relied upon sources on that previous revision from 1937, 1949, 1955, and 1956! Kowal2701 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then one should fix inaccurate information contained in those sources, using current (good) sources. You removed an entire section on ethnicity which actually contained the most recent findings (w.r.t. the claim of "Khoisan" background), and stated it was because the sources were out of date. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't use old sources at all. If the information in them is valid, it would be reproduced in newer sources and especially books. The focus on ethnicity derives from the racist worldviews common at those times, I haven't seen recent RSs focus or even mention ethnicity. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

An old worldview being "racist" does not mean we should not discuss the fact that people at one time thought the said "racist" thing. At the end of the day, the misconception that Mapungubwe was "Khoisan" is widespread, and deserves a thorough addressing (which, incidentally, ultimately brings us up to the present day). The notion that all useful information contained in old sources must be reprinted if it is useful, is absolutely incorrect. I regularly research African History -- are you telling me the old descriptions of battles are not useful, simply because current scholars have not reproduced them in their works? Or is it simply that current scholars have other priorities. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A worldview being racist means we should not validate it in WP:Wiki voice! Yes they are not to be used unless they are discussed in new sources. Maybe at the very least a single sentence on the misconception that they were Khoisan would be due but definitely not a discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not being validated, if the entire section directly demonstrates why the presumption that they were Khoisan is incorrect. Discussion of population genetics, physiology, etc. are not racist. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hyperfixation on them is. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Merely discussing a topic is not "hyperfixation" on the said topic. The length of that section reflects my own verbosity and the nature of my research and writing process (ie: it is thorough; I read a lot of things to compile that). Insulting to assert that it's racist, honestly. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying you are racist. But the sources you were using have racist bias. You should have used a recent source that summarises the issue retrospectively, rather than the primary sources themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The recent sources are used.

• Steyn, Maryana (1997). "A Reassessment of the Human Skeletons from K2 and Mapungubwe (South Africa)"
• Franklin, Daniel; Freedman, Leonard; Milne; Oxnard (2006). "Geometric morphometric study of population variation in indigenous southern African crania" ; Pickrell, Joseph K.
• "Patterson, Nick (2012). "The genetic prehistory of southern Africa
• Vincente, Mario; Jakobsson, Mattias (2019). "Genetic Affinities among Southern Africa Hunter-Gatherers and the Impact of Admixing Farmer and Herder Populations"

I could go on. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay that's good. But it's got to be really concise. I know you want to give thorough account but it has to follow WP:Proportion, for instance it shouldn't be longer than the etymology or diet and lifestyle sections. The historiography section shouldn't be longer than the History section Kowal2701 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I will see what I can do at a later point (currently working on another research project, though I see certain paragraphs can be truncated)--though I will note that, to my knowledge, proportionality is with respect to fair representation of viewpoints (proportionate to their standing in the field), not space allocated to topics in an article.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Historiography may take up large portions of space where relevant -- History of Study takes up roughly 20% of the page Human Evolution, even though it is only one of nine sections.

My honest opinion is that the other sections should be added to, instead of current sections being removed. I had planned to do this at one point, but uh...

As a final note, I will reference the section on stated opinions:

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion (see also § Editorial and opinion commentary, above).

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Using the subject as a self-published source.

The exception for statements ABOUTSELF is covered at Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves." HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That sort of detail would be more suited to Ethnicity of Mapungubwe and then summarised and condensed for here. I'll add the section to the new revision but I still think it is too long Kowal2701 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Tbh it's actually okay, fits the article quite well Kowal2701 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've run into the same issue with WP:Proportion on Human history regarding Africa, it's a painful exercise. Kowal2701 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

See, in my opinion, that article just needs more text. I've tried to recruit friends to contribute to these things, but most aren't interested. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you wanted to give a through and accurate account of the issue, I think it would be good to have a historiography section. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, we can agree there. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The revision you're reimposed has a litany of errors, really obvious ones. The new revision is a clear improvement. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Cite the specific errors in the section on population and ethnicity. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

First off it violates WP:Proportion and is not discussed in RSs enough to be WP:Due. And again WP:AGEMATTERS. Do we need to get a WP:3O here? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not violate Age Matters, because the older sources are being cited in the context of an academic development (ie: are not being shown to be up to date). I do agree the section is extremely long though, and would not disagree with it being moved if needed. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we revert back to the new revision and add one or two sentences summarising the Khoisan misconception to Ethnic affiliation. If you're issue was that I deleted your work I'd prefer you were blunt. Reverting back to an old revision and deleting unrelated sections is totally uncalled for. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe a few other things I liked were removed, but I admittedly did take that personally. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, that's completely natural, I'd react the same. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

are there any other parts of the old revision that you think were good? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello folks! I tend to agree that the genetics section can be tightened up to about a paragraph in length. I might suggest something along the lines of:

"20th century attempts to ascribe ethnicity to the people of Mapungubwe using craniometry produced mixed results, with Galloway's early analysis suggesting Khoisan ethnicity and later reanalyses indicating broadly Bantu ethnicity. Tooth analysis would support the latter hypothesis in 1997, but all studies were plagued by small sample sizes and the inherent flaws of craniometry, namely the subjective nature of data collection and interpretation and the basic assumption that skull shapes can reliably identify race or ethnicity, especially since both are social constructs and humans regularly form couples across racial/ethnic lines."

Going into detail on each of the studies takes a long time and involves throwing around a lot of cringe-inducing old racial terminology. It would be better, I think, to efficiently summarize the key points. This might indeed result in a less historiographical article, but in cases where the historiography of a given topic isn't in itself a topic of scholarly/journalistic study (as is the case with the historiography of the Mfecane) I think it's appropriate and encyclopedically preferable to prioritize key information delivery over a breakdown of every source (which is more suitable for an essay). Likewise, I'd recommend pruning out the last few sentences since the sources don't seem to be about Mapungubwe, but about broader genetic patterns. Taken together those sources can be used to present arguments related to the topic, but using sources that way is more the style of an essay than of an encyclopedia. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)