Talk:Zanzibar/Archive 1

The article seems to suggest that the island was empty before persians came there. I also found no evidence to back this up. There was alot on arabs though

There is barely anything in the section marked "Culture." Perhaps someone could fix this problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.136.112 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

— Matt Crypto 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something about the social institutions beyond a nominal mention of the Sunni religion

There's a substantial medical literature about Zanzibar and particularly about HIV infection and the response (or reaction) of the more conservative Muslim community that frowned on the behavioral deviations associated with it, and how the public health moved ahead with treatment and education.

As health and healthcare research includes Zanzibar populations, a growing internationalism involving IRBs and ethical oversight to protect vulnerable researched populations (participants in the research and their family, friends, and other community members) will emerge.

Acording to prof. Mehrdad R. Izady the name Zanzibar is actualy derived from the name of the kurdish tribe Barzanji, he writes:

Colonies of Kurds, Persians and other Iranic peoples from southern Iran "founded everywhere on the [East African] coast and islands commercial settlements in pre-Islamic times, centuries before Muhammed?" (Richard Reusch, History of East Africa. New York: Ungar, 1961, 33, 49). Because of the dominance of the Barzangi of East Africa, soon it came to be known as Barzangibar ("Barzangi coast"), eventually shortened to Zangibar (whence Zanzibar). The black slaves they marketed in Asia, were thus known as the zangi/zinji, meaning a native of Zangibar - a name that continues to the present as a pejorative for an African black in the Middle Eastern languages.

- This is indeed true. In many semitic and turkic languages the word zanji/zenci/zangi means "negro" or "African American". 72.76.93.136 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something should be mentioned about the fact that Zanzibar had huge clove and other spice plantations. It didn't just export slaves it used them. I'm not an expert on the subject but I know that much. Jztinfinity 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some info about population and square Km-s -Ravedave 02:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found them at www.tanzania.go.tz and Encyclopædia Britannica. –Mysid^(t) 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit related to this comment (17:48, 26 July 2006, since removed) put the island at 1,651 km² (637 mi²). Encyclopædia Britannica says 600 square miles (1,554 square km). Current page says 1464 km2 (650 square miles). I tried visiting www.tanzania.go.tz, but get a Google malware warning. I sense a disturbance in the Force. What's Wikipedia policy for reconciling conflicting authorities? Jackrepenning (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My father tells a story of a history lecturer (1950s) who began a lecture on the British Empire in India with the words "When the British brought civilisation to India ... ". Pompous, racist, ignorant and untrue; but there is an element of what used to be called "colour" in those words. This article reminds of that style of writing, a sort of history by H. Rider Haggard or Edgar Rice Burroughs. Colourful or not, it has to be said that this kind of writing, however entertaining, is inappropriate for a reference work: even an amateur one like wikipedia. References to the 'Arabs' with their "resplendent turbans" while entertaining in a victorian novelette now appear shallow and mildly racist. More importantly the reference is misleading. The leader of a slaver caravan may have been ethnically 'Arab' but stating that the caravans were led by Omani's would be more accurate. Imagine a history of C18th europe in which there was no reference to English, Irish or Poles but rather Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Slavs. Similary, references to Europeans as a homogenous group as in "he lost the European's respect" is comically inaccurate. The article also describes the efforts of Stanley to get the "Arabs" to cede the Congo to Leopold of Belgium and to cease slave trading. Yet The Belgian Congo under Leopold was one enormous slave camp in which every method up to and including genocide was used to extract profits for Leopled the "European".

Colourful as this article is, rather than adding to the readers knowledge of history it subtracts.

Pmurnion 00:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't appropriate to have a very large section at the the bottom dedicated to the Portuguese Empire. I doubt that the USA entry has a big 'British Empire' section at the bottom.

When I first saw this page, I was shocked by the impression that Zanzibar was an independent republic. I was amazed that a whole country had somehow evaded me, until I took the considerable effort to find the small mention, several sections in, that Zanzibar is today a part of Tanzania. Someone should probably fix this; I would, but as should be painfully obvious, I don't know anything about Zanzibar (except that Babar, the cartoon elephant, was its king in my childhood...) --Xyzzyva 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: Zanzibar is not a republic. It enjoys a high degree of autonomy, but it is not sovereign. -- WGee 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section states "The first permanent residents of Zanzibar seem to have been the ancestors of the Hadimu and Tumbatu, who began arriving from the East African mainland around AD 1000." and then goes on to say "Ancient pottery demonstrates existing trade routes with Zanzibar as far back as the ancient Assyrians."

These two statements seem to be inconsistent, and that date seems very late, as Arab traders were . If the first inhabitants only arrived in AD 1000, who did the Assyrians trade with? Should that date be 1000 BCE? Rojomoke 16:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the external links at the bottom of the page and found them all to be legitimate. Is it safe to remove the spam template? --Vironex 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zanzibar archipelago is far more than two islands, even if you only count the populated ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.189.232 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

' We are as a zanzibarian we need changing in this islands couse we already see what the govement did but for  we ealise that this is not right for we must need changing as zanzibarian.if so i think there is no need for tanganika govment to be close with this. and they have to let us feel free to chose who we want to lead us. and they must remember that zanzibar is a country itself

I mentioned the massacres shown in this documentary but I'm not 100% sure if this is true since there's no information on what the film calls a "genocide" of the Arab population on Wikipedia.

It appears in this film around the 59:54 mark. The person who posted it on google video is extremely racist and appears to think it's racist propaganda. The fact that it can be used in this way makes me suspicious of it so if anyone can clarify if this is true or not I think it would be important. [1]

The reason I went ahead and mentioned it on here is because I don't see how they could've staged all of that but I know very little about the film. They also looked pretty calm when they were being shot at. I guess I'll remove it until all of this is clarified. Richard Cane 10:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up until England played Andorra on the 28th March 2007 in international football, Zanzibar had exactly the same football results as England for five games previously, even though the island is not officially recognised by Fifa and would be ranked 170 places below.

I have no idea (a) what this means and (b) why it belongs in an article about the region of Zanzibar. Certainly, Zanzibar's football team has not played the same nations England played in a five game period. More importantly, why would this matter? I move that this be stricken from the article. --Drewvkamp 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewvkamp (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it looked better with the pictures as part of the article and not in the gallery. Also the Urban blight picture imho is unnecessary. Any thoughts? Bakersville (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not enough space to add all the pictures as part of the article: trying to add the pictures on the right of each section of the article seems to cause problem in the visualization of the page. (Rcastino (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Should we get rid of the urban blight picture? I think that pictures should shown things that are particular to the article. A picture of dilapidated housing projects is nothing special. Then we can show some picture on the left and some on the right to make it more visually balanced. Bakersville (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history section refers to a main article, and so it should provide only a summary. Instead, it drags on, overloaded with facts without context, or over-lengthy explanations. I think it should be pruned and the excess moved to History of Zanzibar. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a substantial reworking, moved all the cut material to History of Zanzibar, written a lede for that article, and taken that largely as the intro for this section. Constructive comments welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The top photo doesn't add anything to the article. The bottom one might be acceptable. Can anyone separate them? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I am working on a rewrite of the Zanzibar Revolution article and will probably use the bottom one there myself.

It doesn't show where it is anywhere? Shouldn't there be a nice little map with a highlighted splodge showing where Zanzibar is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.160.44 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i agree Magnon86 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)magnon86 ... oh see next chapter)[reply]

The article exists in more than 20 languages, but not in French. If you want i can make an abstract in French and submit it to your community. once agreed and published, French would have access to Zanzibar information Magnon86 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)magnon86 ... oh after i search to localize it in the map, i see the article is already done http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar_(archipel) moreover we can see the island is in front of Tanzania, East African coast... the best would be to creat a link between english and french article... i am not a geek - who would be ready to create it it and learn it to others ? My ears are ready. Magnon86 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)magnon86[reply]

the religion part of the article states 95% muslim and the rest christian. it then ends with mentioning a small baha'i population and completely ignores the sizable zoroastrian community, even though the article itself mentions the fire temples in the introduction and freddie mercury (farrokh bulsara) under notable people from there. i'd edit it, except i don't know the statistics of zoroastrians there, or anything about the baha'i community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.50.71 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is personal here but, AfricaTanz, reverted twice my edit which classified the climate, justified by his claim that I have to add a source saying that Zanzibar's climate is tropical savanna (Aw). Tell me, where and how can you have a source thoroughly classifying the climate of each location on the surface of the earth? The climate chart already had a source with the climate data. Reading Köppen-Geiger climate classification system which is sourced and you can confirm it by reading through its sources, you can calculate the precipitation, the mean annual temperature, the result satisfies the tropical wet and dry climate, also known as tropical savanna climate. All months of the year have a mean average of 18 °C or more. The driest month has less precipitation than 60 millimeters and also less than, 100 minus "the total annual precipitation in millimeters divided by 25". In Zanzibar's case, the coolest month has an average mean temperature of more than 18 °C because July and August, which are the coolest, have an average maximum of 28 °C and an average minimum of 22 °C: ${\displaystyle 28+22=50}$ Then divide the result by 2 ${\displaystyle 50/2=25}$. The average annual precipitation (the sum of the average precipitation of all month) is 1409 mm. After doing the calculation and knowing the criteria: ${\displaystyle 1409/25=56.36}$ then subtract result from 100: ${\displaystyle 100-56.36=43.64}$ Therefore, Zanzibar's climate is tropical savanna, because all the months do not have 60 mm or more, of average precipitation, so it's not a tropical rain forest (Af). The driest month has 28 mm which is less than 60 mm and less than ${\displaystyle 100-(1409/25)=43.64}$ Therefore it does not fulfill the criteria of the tropical monsoon (Am).

Wikipedia has rules, but they don't annul common sense. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has rules that we all have to comply with. What you are doing is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia. I am not saying your mathematical calculation is wrong. What I am saying is that you have to source the information you are adding to the article. I haven't done the research for you, but I can tell you for a fact that other locations have reliable sources for their Koppen classifications. You need to look for the same thing for Zanzibar. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some do indeed say that Zanzibar has a tropical monsoon climate. Refer to this: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pdf/kottek_et_al_2006_A4.pdf This is an additional reason we cannot simply rely on your computations for the answer. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the climate data your map based its classifications on. If you have the climate data they have, which is apparently different from what is sourced in the article, it would give the map's result. It happens when a location has a climate bordering with another classification. Some sources have climate date for Alexandria, which classify it as hot semi-arid (BSh), while others have data that classify its climate as hot desert (BWh). Accordingly, we can definitely find another source claiming that Zanzibar's climate is tropical savanna, based on the data it has. The bulk of the articles in Wikipedia have their locations' climate classified without direct citation, it's by citing the climate data and doing the calculation. Are you ready to hunt them all? Original research is a finding that someone came up with that can't be independently confirmed and was not published anywhere else. By the way, the map you posted is difficult to see. In a few articles in Wikipedia, when there are different classifications for a location's climate, both are written, according to this and according to that. So, now the problem is with tropical savanna classification? Write that it's tropical savanna according to the climate data here and as tropical monsoon according to the map there. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one or more articles lack sourcing does not justify another article lacking sources. The fact that I raised the original research problem for this article in no way obligates me to "hunt them all". Your definition of "original research" here is not the one used in Wikipedia policy. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to find this out. I've seen two versions, Zanziban and Zanzibari. The latter seems more correct. Could we get a local to edit the article with the proper demonym? ForestAngel (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]