Talk:Mau Mau rebellion/Archives/ 2

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7943:9457:231F:621F in topic More rubbish data!


Requested move 26 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Mau Mau rebellion Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


Mau Mau UprisingMau Mau uprising – No consistent capitalization in RS, non-capitalization is more common (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • NGRAMS (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, no justification for capitalisation. Cavalryman (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC).
  • Alternative: the article also mentions "rebellion" and "revolt". That gives six candidates: "U/uprising", "R/rebellion" and "R/revolt". In NGRAMS, "rebellion" comes out way ahead of any other. This is also consistent with the language of the article, which speaks of "rebellion" and of "rebel/s". So I counter-propose "rebellion". Errantios (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - "rebellion" per n-gram evidence and Errantios. This is the WP:COMMONNAME, lowercased per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support rebellion Per the evidence provided above and per COMMONNAME.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support downcasing or the alt "Mau Mau rebellion". Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to decolonize

It's time this article gets a thorough cleaning. Fortunately a good-faith IP editor removed this tripe a while ago, but there is more to be done. Right now I'm looking to see who put that extension in the infobox listing the "Civilian Victims of the Mau Mau"--as if that matters more than whatever the Brits did. How many did they stuff in concentration camps, and how many people were killed, and women raped? No, that section should go as essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sentiment has already made this article worthless as a source for Mau-Mau studies.
If an incident occurred (or a pattern of incidents occurred as an established strategy) then that ought to be recorded. It's called 'History'. If 'decolonisation' means whitewashing (excuse the inverted pun) and embellishing a particular point of view then that's something other than History. I (and many others) have noted that Wikipedia has become the sounding board for Pan-African propaganda (almost always sourcing from non-Africans) and you're well entitled to play that game if you want. The trouble with doing that however is that you are going to discredit yourself (and whatever virtues you assume you have) in the visage of future generations.
The initial game-plan of the Mau-Mau called for the genocide of white Kenyans which they failed to do (the Mau-Mau never had more than a modicum of support and many Kenyan tribes distrusted the motives of the Kikuyu (with good reason)). It is notable that some members of the Mau-Mau given over to Pan-African zeal would later take this game-plan to Zanzibar where they initiated the planned genocide of the Asian and Arab populace (killing by some estimates 20,000 of them in a couple of days).
Jomo Kenyatta and Julius Nyerere were extremely wary of Pan-Africans, arresting (and in some cases murdering them) at various stages during their respective rules. This only changed when Kibaki started to pander to them for two reasons: 1) The children of the elites had been infected by this disease during 'education' in the USA and brought it back and 2) surprise, surprise ... there was money (and easy virtue) to be made in it.
If you are going to do History then you have to take what the participants did at face value and evaluate them in that light. Anything else is ... well, I guess whatever it is that African Studies Departments in the USA/UK do! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:9AC:3EE5:DA86:8D07 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to decolonize

It's time this article gets a thorough cleaning. Fortunately a good-faith IP editor removed this tripe a while ago, but there is more to be done. Right now I'm looking to see who put that extension in the infobox listing the "Civilian Victims of the Mau Mau"--as if that matters more than whatever the Brits did. How many did they stuff in concentration camps, and how many people were killed, and women raped? No, that section should go as essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sentiment has already made this article worthless as a source for Mau-Mau studies.
If an incident occurred (or a pattern of incidents occurred as an established strategy) then that ought to be recorded. It's called 'History'. If 'decolonisation' means whitewashing (excuse the inverted pun) and embellishing a particular point of view then that's something other than History. I (and many others) have noted that Wikipedia has become the sounding board for Pan-African propaganda (almost always sourcing from non-Africans) and you're well entitled to play that game if you want. The trouble with doing that however is that you are going to discredit yourself (and whatever virtues you assume you have) in the visage of future generations.
The initial game-plan of the Mau-Mau called for the genocide of white Kenyans which they failed to do (the Mau-Mau never had more than a modicum of support and many Kenyan tribes distrusted the motives of the Kikuyu (with good reason)). It is notable that some members of the Mau-Mau given over to Pan-African zeal would later take this game-plan to Zanzibar where they initiated the planned genocide of the Asian and Arab populace (killing by some estimates 20,000 of them in a couple of days).
Jomo Kenyatta and Julius Nyerere were extremely wary of Pan-Africans, arresting (and in some cases murdering them) at various stages during their respective rules. This only changed when Kibaki started to pander to them for two reasons: 1) The children of the elites had been infected by this disease during 'education' in the USA and brought it back and 2) surprise, surprise ... there was money (and easy virtue) to be made in it.
If you are going to do History then you have to take what the participants did at face value and evaluate them in that light. Anything else is ... well, I guess whatever it is that African Studies Departments in the USA/UK do! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:9AC:3EE5:DA86:8D07 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

More rubbish data!

The claim that 6 million bombs were dropped

From the article: As the campaign developed, Avro Lincoln heavy bombers were deployed, flying missions in Kenya from 18 November 1953 to 28 July 1955, dropping nearly 6 million bombs.

(below is data taken from the original source that the source for the above statement (Chappel.S) cites for this claim (which incidentally, says no such thing))

The Avro Lincoln had a payload(stick) of 14 bombs (5x1000lb and 9x500lb ; one stick = 9,500lb ). In total 8 Avro Lincolns dropped a total of 4,500 tons of bombs (1 ton = 2204.62 lb) in 900 sorties.

Assuming a full stick of bombs was dropped each time (and the payload was the same as the mix of 500lb and 1000lb bombs described above - it may have sometimes changed depending on the target/intent):

bombs dropped = (bomb tonnage(total) / stick weight) x bombs_per_stick

= ( (4,500 x 2204.62) / 9,500 ) x 14
= 14,620 bombs

I call rubbish on the claim that 6 million bombs were dropped and suggest tonnage is used instead (which is the norm).2001:8003:70F5:2400:7943:9457:231F:621F (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to decolonize

It's time this article gets a thorough cleaning. Fortunately a good-faith IP editor removed this tripe a while ago, but there is more to be done. Right now I'm looking to see who put that extension in the infobox listing the "Civilian Victims of the Mau Mau"--as if that matters more than whatever the Brits did. How many did they stuff in concentration camps, and how many people were killed, and women raped? No, that section should go as essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That sentiment has already made this article worthless as a source for Mau-Mau studies.
If an incident occurred (or a pattern of incidents occurred as an established strategy) then that ought to be recorded. It's called 'History'. If 'decolonisation' means whitewashing (excuse the inverted pun) and embellishing a particular point of view then that's something other than History. I (and many others) have noted that Wikipedia has become the sounding board for Pan-African propaganda (almost always sourcing from non-Africans) and you're well entitled to play that game if you want. The trouble with doing that however is that you are going to discredit yourself (and whatever virtues you assume you have) in the visage of future generations.
The initial game-plan of the Mau-Mau called for the genocide of white Kenyans which they failed to do (the Mau-Mau never had more than a modicum of support and many Kenyan tribes distrusted the motives of the Kikuyu (with good reason)). It is notable that some members of the Mau-Mau given over to Pan-African zeal would later take this game-plan to Zanzibar where they initiated the planned genocide of the Asian and Arab populace (killing by some estimates 20,000 of them in a couple of days).
Jomo Kenyatta and Julius Nyerere were extremely wary of Pan-Africans, arresting (and in some cases murdering them) at various stages during their respective rules. This only changed when Kibaki started to pander to them for two reasons: 1) The children of the elites had been infected by this disease during 'education' in the USA and brought it back and 2) surprise, surprise ... there was money (and easy virtue) to be made in it.
If you are going to do History then you have to take what the participants did at face value and evaluate them in that light. Anything else is ... well, I guess whatever it is that African Studies Departments in the USA/UK do! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:9AC:3EE5:DA86:8D07 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

More rubbish data!

The claim that 6 million bombs were dropped

From the article: As the campaign developed, Avro Lincoln heavy bombers were deployed, flying missions in Kenya from 18 November 1953 to 28 July 1955, dropping nearly 6 million bombs.

(below is data taken from the original source that the source for the above statement (Chappel.S) cites for this claim (which incidentally, says no such thing))

The Avro Lincoln had a payload(stick) of 14 bombs (5x1000lb and 9x500lb ; one stick = 9,500lb ). In total 8 Avro Lincolns dropped a total of 4,500 tons of bombs (1 ton = 2204.62 lb) in 900 sorties.

Assuming a full stick of bombs was dropped each time (and the payload was the same as the mix of 500lb and 1000lb bombs described above - it may have sometimes changed depending on the target/intent):

bombs dropped = (bomb tonnage(total) / stick weight) x bombs_per_stick

= ( (4,500 x 2204.62) / 9,500 ) x 14
= 14,620 bombs

I call rubbish on the claim that 6 million bombs were dropped and suggest tonnage is used instead (which is the norm).2001:8003:70F5:2400:7943:9457:231F:621F (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)