This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anglo-Zanzibar War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Anglo-Zanzibar War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there an anti-British statement at the bottom of the page? Can it be removed or rephrased please.. User:81.157.249.121.
I agree. That's a pretty out of order thing to say. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and clearly that is not a neutral comment. While the British may have been ruthless in their colonisation of Africa, it doesn't warrant a comment such as that. And an administation resulting from a coup d'etat could never be described as a legitimate form of government just because the British may be perceived as an aggressor against it.
The article seems to give the detail sufficiently well as it stands but it seems to me it has no context. The German support, if not outright connivance with one candidate was a part of the power struggle between Britain and Germany both globally and in Africa. We ought to tie this into the larger 'scramble for Africa' as that gives a better explanation for why two powers were fighting indirectly over the place.
I think we also ought to make some mention of the consequences - Zanzibar was the centre of the trade and its abolition was a visible and practical change. Alci12
What did the Sultan do after 2001?
Can someone explain this issue in some more detail? Who was legitimate heir then? To seize power one should overthrow someone, isn't it right? Verdi1 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the use of the phrase "coup d'état" is a bit misleading. There really was no legitimate heir, as in the Omani/Zanzibari political system the succession went to whomever could seize power, generally due to the consensus support of the notables, which Khalid had, overwhelmingly, which is one of the primary reasons the British were against his succession, as this would make him less dependent upon their support and potentially troublesome, especially given the rivalry with Germany. - John
The discovery channel in the UK is running an advert that says that the war lasted only 38 minutes, along with the fact that is was the shortest war in history. I am unsure if this is good enough for the "citation needed" in the opening paragraph to be replaced however... RaGe 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he reached the German embassy 7 minutes before the shelling ended?
I love British policy. I wish it was still gunboatish... -- 172.202.9.213 ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When did Zanzibar surrender? Do we deem the war to be ended upon entry into the German Embassy? For that matter, when did the war actually commence? Isn't that normally considered when war is declared? Would the British commanders that were present have had the authority to declare war? Without clarifications to these points (not to mention the legal status of the nephew's government to even be legally entitled to declare war), then this reads more to me like an "incident" than a war? For "I'd also argue a war is continuing while either side is still shooting", I disagree, as battles are often continued after wars are ended, such as the Battle of New Orleans I suggest that the battle/(skirmish?)'s length is timed by the hostilities (shelling), but that the war(/incident)'s duration itself is ambiguous...presumably deemed ended upon the establishment of the successor government if there was no formal surrender/abdication. Vlouie01 ( talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Adding to the confusion the article sets the start of the war on 25 august and not with the end of the ultimatum: "The war started with the death of the pro-British Sultan Hamad on 25 August 1896 and the resulting succession of Sultan Khalid." ( Zadkin ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
Was the war ever declared? In the US declaring war is a constitutional perogative of the congress I think, how is the situation in the UK? ( Zadkin ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
So by whose watch or clock were the start/stop times established? The same clock or watch or different? How accurate was the clock or watch(es)? How long since they were synchronized? Were they synchronized accurately? Pointless to quibble over minutes if you can't answer these questions. TheDarkOneLives ( talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This is informatively useless, at least to me. Dumelow, please do not remove the {{specify}} tag again without discussing it here. Reverting to B-class. Ottre 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
500 would be a hell of a bloody conflict. 10 dead/minute, thats about the same rate as WW2, which lasted around 3 Mio. minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.197 ( talk) 07:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The introduction lists him as the commander of the Zanzibar forces, but the info box on the right hand side lists him on the British side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.15.230 ( talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely that is a typo for 9:00 am and I have corrected it. I have also changed any mm/dd/yy dates to dd/mm/yy dates for consistency. The latter form seems to be the prevailing one. 76.123.208.229 ( talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Swedish writer Sven Lindqvist, in his Exterminate All The Brutes, writes extensively about the Anglo-Zanzibar war and uses it as an important exemplification of the "invisible" power/domination of colonialism. I believe he mentions it in A History of Bombing as well. Maybe it's a potential source of contextualisation? -- Birdseed ( talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There appear to be some pics of the damage done at:
http://repository.library.northwestern.edu/winterton/browse.html#action\tnewItem%7Citem\tinu-wint-58
© Geni 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So what was the second-longest war in history? Is there a table/list with durations? 194.80.106.134 ( talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Anglo-Zanzibar War, 38-40 minutes 2. 6 Day War, 6 days 3. Indo-Pakistani War, 13 days 4. Serbo-Bulgarian War, 14 days 5. Georgian-Armenian War, 24 days 6. Sino-Vietnamese War, 27 days 7. Greco-Turkish War, 30 days 8. Second Balkan War, 32 days 9. Polish-Lithuanian War, 37 days 10. Falklands War, 42 days The Hundred Days War (aka Second Napoleonic War) also comes to mind, lasted 111 days. Theres a handful of other short wars which were either border skirmishs or civil wars.
The longest wars; 1. Hundred Years War - France v England, 1338 - 1453 - 115 years 2. Wars of the Roses - Lancaster v York, 1455 - 1485 - 30 years 3. Thirty Years War - Catholic v Protestant, 1618 - 1648 - 30 years 4. Peloponnesian War - Peloponnesian League v Delian League, 431 - 404BC - 27 years 5. First Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 264 - 241BC - 23 years 6. Napoleonic Wars - France v other European countries, 1792 - 1815 - 23 years 7. Greco-Persian Wars - Greece v Persia, 499 - 478BC - 21 years 8. Second Great Northen War - Russia v Sweden and War Baltic states, 1700 - 1721 - 21 years 9. Vietnam War - South Vietnam (with US support) v North Vietnam, 1957 - 1975 - 18 years 10. Second Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 218 - 201BC - 17 years
WatcherZero ( talk) 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The "View History" tab says the article is approximately 38,000 bytes.
The war is generally accepted to have lasted 38 minutes.
The ratio is approximately 1000 bytes per minute of war.
Is that the highest of any Wikipedia war article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.144.14 ( talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Zanzibar War. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Does this thing really qualify as a "War"? It seems as if it's probably too small a conflict for that classification. Skirmish? Maybe this is a large societal conflict that resembles mob action? It's not, really. I just want to point out that terrorism and mass shootings are much more like a war then this. Yet, it's probably a war because there are organized forces and real assets: artillery, gunboats, battery, cruiser. Liberty5651 ( talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war in history. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk)
00:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Not eligible for DYK.
Created by Im really bad at this ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
Shdhduebeks 2601:345:8303:9DE0:2C5B:FFE5:2B0D:866C ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The shortest battle in history is the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas revolution! It was only 18 minutes long. 98.194.106.248 ( talk) 03:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Muji 103.181.226.218 ( talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone changed the British losses to 236 sailors killed, I'll change it back I hatetheantixchrist ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anglo-Zanzibar War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Anglo-Zanzibar War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 30, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there an anti-British statement at the bottom of the page? Can it be removed or rephrased please.. User:81.157.249.121.
I agree. That's a pretty out of order thing to say. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and clearly that is not a neutral comment. While the British may have been ruthless in their colonisation of Africa, it doesn't warrant a comment such as that. And an administation resulting from a coup d'etat could never be described as a legitimate form of government just because the British may be perceived as an aggressor against it.
The article seems to give the detail sufficiently well as it stands but it seems to me it has no context. The German support, if not outright connivance with one candidate was a part of the power struggle between Britain and Germany both globally and in Africa. We ought to tie this into the larger 'scramble for Africa' as that gives a better explanation for why two powers were fighting indirectly over the place.
I think we also ought to make some mention of the consequences - Zanzibar was the centre of the trade and its abolition was a visible and practical change. Alci12
What did the Sultan do after 2001?
Can someone explain this issue in some more detail? Who was legitimate heir then? To seize power one should overthrow someone, isn't it right? Verdi1 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the use of the phrase "coup d'état" is a bit misleading. There really was no legitimate heir, as in the Omani/Zanzibari political system the succession went to whomever could seize power, generally due to the consensus support of the notables, which Khalid had, overwhelmingly, which is one of the primary reasons the British were against his succession, as this would make him less dependent upon their support and potentially troublesome, especially given the rivalry with Germany. - John
The discovery channel in the UK is running an advert that says that the war lasted only 38 minutes, along with the fact that is was the shortest war in history. I am unsure if this is good enough for the "citation needed" in the opening paragraph to be replaced however... RaGe 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he reached the German embassy 7 minutes before the shelling ended?
I love British policy. I wish it was still gunboatish... -- 172.202.9.213 ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When did Zanzibar surrender? Do we deem the war to be ended upon entry into the German Embassy? For that matter, when did the war actually commence? Isn't that normally considered when war is declared? Would the British commanders that were present have had the authority to declare war? Without clarifications to these points (not to mention the legal status of the nephew's government to even be legally entitled to declare war), then this reads more to me like an "incident" than a war? For "I'd also argue a war is continuing while either side is still shooting", I disagree, as battles are often continued after wars are ended, such as the Battle of New Orleans I suggest that the battle/(skirmish?)'s length is timed by the hostilities (shelling), but that the war(/incident)'s duration itself is ambiguous...presumably deemed ended upon the establishment of the successor government if there was no formal surrender/abdication. Vlouie01 ( talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Adding to the confusion the article sets the start of the war on 25 august and not with the end of the ultimatum: "The war started with the death of the pro-British Sultan Hamad on 25 August 1896 and the resulting succession of Sultan Khalid." ( Zadkin ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
Was the war ever declared? In the US declaring war is a constitutional perogative of the congress I think, how is the situation in the UK? ( Zadkin ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
So by whose watch or clock were the start/stop times established? The same clock or watch or different? How accurate was the clock or watch(es)? How long since they were synchronized? Were they synchronized accurately? Pointless to quibble over minutes if you can't answer these questions. TheDarkOneLives ( talk) 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This is informatively useless, at least to me. Dumelow, please do not remove the {{specify}} tag again without discussing it here. Reverting to B-class. Ottre 21:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
500 would be a hell of a bloody conflict. 10 dead/minute, thats about the same rate as WW2, which lasted around 3 Mio. minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.72.197 ( talk) 07:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The introduction lists him as the commander of the Zanzibar forces, but the info box on the right hand side lists him on the British side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.15.230 ( talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely that is a typo for 9:00 am and I have corrected it. I have also changed any mm/dd/yy dates to dd/mm/yy dates for consistency. The latter form seems to be the prevailing one. 76.123.208.229 ( talk) 10:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Swedish writer Sven Lindqvist, in his Exterminate All The Brutes, writes extensively about the Anglo-Zanzibar war and uses it as an important exemplification of the "invisible" power/domination of colonialism. I believe he mentions it in A History of Bombing as well. Maybe it's a potential source of contextualisation? -- Birdseed ( talk) 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There appear to be some pics of the damage done at:
http://repository.library.northwestern.edu/winterton/browse.html#action\tnewItem%7Citem\tinu-wint-58
© Geni 22:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
So what was the second-longest war in history? Is there a table/list with durations? 194.80.106.134 ( talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Anglo-Zanzibar War, 38-40 minutes 2. 6 Day War, 6 days 3. Indo-Pakistani War, 13 days 4. Serbo-Bulgarian War, 14 days 5. Georgian-Armenian War, 24 days 6. Sino-Vietnamese War, 27 days 7. Greco-Turkish War, 30 days 8. Second Balkan War, 32 days 9. Polish-Lithuanian War, 37 days 10. Falklands War, 42 days The Hundred Days War (aka Second Napoleonic War) also comes to mind, lasted 111 days. Theres a handful of other short wars which were either border skirmishs or civil wars.
The longest wars; 1. Hundred Years War - France v England, 1338 - 1453 - 115 years 2. Wars of the Roses - Lancaster v York, 1455 - 1485 - 30 years 3. Thirty Years War - Catholic v Protestant, 1618 - 1648 - 30 years 4. Peloponnesian War - Peloponnesian League v Delian League, 431 - 404BC - 27 years 5. First Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 264 - 241BC - 23 years 6. Napoleonic Wars - France v other European countries, 1792 - 1815 - 23 years 7. Greco-Persian Wars - Greece v Persia, 499 - 478BC - 21 years 8. Second Great Northen War - Russia v Sweden and War Baltic states, 1700 - 1721 - 21 years 9. Vietnam War - South Vietnam (with US support) v North Vietnam, 1957 - 1975 - 18 years 10. Second Punic War - Rome v Carthage, 218 - 201BC - 17 years
WatcherZero ( talk) 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The "View History" tab says the article is approximately 38,000 bytes.
The war is generally accepted to have lasted 38 minutes.
The ratio is approximately 1000 bytes per minute of war.
Is that the highest of any Wikipedia war article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.144.14 ( talk) 18:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Zanzibar War. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Does this thing really qualify as a "War"? It seems as if it's probably too small a conflict for that classification. Skirmish? Maybe this is a large societal conflict that resembles mob action? It's not, really. I just want to point out that terrorism and mass shootings are much more like a war then this. Yet, it's probably a war because there are organized forces and real assets: artillery, gunboats, battery, cruiser. Liberty5651 ( talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shortest war in history. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk)
00:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Not eligible for DYK.
Created by Im really bad at this ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
Shdhduebeks 2601:345:8303:9DE0:2C5B:FFE5:2B0D:866C ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The shortest battle in history is the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas revolution! It was only 18 minutes long. 98.194.106.248 ( talk) 03:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Muji 103.181.226.218 ( talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone changed the British losses to 236 sailors killed, I'll change it back I hatetheantixchrist ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)