Talk:Boer Wars

Editing of Page

I have changed the name from 'United Kingdom' to 'British Empire' because the UK did not exist at that time. Great Britain did and so did the B ritish Empire (the one I chose to use), these are correct for this time period. The UK is not. The name 'The UK of GB and Ireland' was created after this event. Also many of the statements are assertions and I have gone through where citations need to be made. These assertions should be removed after a certain time if not cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All completely and utterly wrong, well done. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1801 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 onwards, and since the UKGBI was still in existance, I don't see what the problem is.

Also the 'British Empire' is just a term applied to regions controlled by Kingdom of Great Britain, or the United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambig removed

I have removed the {{disambig}}, I believe this is an article discussing the usage of "Boer War", discuss before you reinstate the disambigaution notice.--Commander Keane 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Immediate redirect?

Why don't we just immediately redirect from this page to Boer Wars? dewet|™ 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fabricated joke version

I have changed the obviously fabricated joke version of this page back to the last revision, which I assume is essentially accurate. I hope this is proper procedure. -Mondragora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.177.204 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 November 2006

awnser to why not re-direct

because their are two wars to choose from, some people may not be aware of that. Plus it gives a synopsis which is useful for ppl who want a quick idea.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you. Intinn^Talk! 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, now the page has lost all the context it used to have and is practically useless for anyone who doesn't already know which of the two wars they are looking for. In order to use this page, you have to know either which war you want, or at least know which year you are interested in. If you don't know one of those two things, there's nothing to tell you which page you should be looking at next. --Russ (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Boer War Link Requested

Hello my name is Willem Havenga. I am seeking out possible link partners that our visitors would be interesting in visiting. I've found your website to be a very good fit for our visitors. I have already gone ahead and added your link to our website at: I am contacting you to see if it is ok to have done so. Also, I would like to ask if you mind linking back to us? If so, please use the linking details below and send me the location of our link on your website.

Here is our linking details: Title: Boer the boer war was also a very terrible war during the 1899through the 2001 r War URL: http://www.gunnersecrets.co.za

We've got several PR6 and 7 websites, so we expect this site to become at least a PR5 within 1 month and will eventually become a 6 or 7 in 2-3 months.

I hope this can be a way for us to benefit our visitors with excellent content. Hope to hear from you soon.

Willem Havenga www.gunnersecrets.co.za --Willieh 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't do link partnership at all. See WP:NPOV, and there are other concerns. A good website might show up in our external links or references regardless though. -- Sverdrup (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary changed.

Changed the summary line at the end of the disambiguation page. Not only was it a gross oversimplification and the claim debateable, but the manner in which it was put was slanted and not academically-phrased at all. Whilst it is true that the Boer war was partly won through the use of superior numbers, the brutal tactics adopted by Kitchener made a far more significant contribution - The guerilla-warfare tactics used by the Boer farmers neutralised the benefits of greater manpower for the British. To claim that "Superior numbers" was the sole reason for the British victory is not only an over-simplification, but quite wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.175.13 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

India?

In the section First Boer War we get this:

The First Boer War (1880–1881), also known as the "Transvaal War," was a relatively brief and small-scale conflict in which Boer settlers successfully revolted against a British attempt to annex the Transvaal, and re-established an independent republic. They also came from India.

Who came from India?

There seems to be a fair amount of Indian related content is the boer war articles in general, eg, cf article on first boer war that has a seemingly meaningless line about nepal/india tucked between sentences covering bechuanaland and basutoland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.228.2 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

POV/OR

"The Second Boer War was an inevitable solution to the question of who was to control Southern Africa - the British or the Boers?" -- This is POV/OR. Please rephrase and/or cite before restoring to article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Concentration Camps: Should We Add Death Totals?

According to the Wikipedia page List of concentration and internment camps, "a report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boer (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the camps. " Should this not be briefly inserted into the article? I'd go ahead and do it without question but I'd rather be safe and post it here first to hear any comments on the subject before I change anything. Invmog (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd look for the source of this data, as currently it's unsourced and as such in doubt. feydey (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, what useful purpose would be served by quoting such statistics? This is Wikipedia not a sunday tabloid newspaperMiletus (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if those numbers are true then they are historical records that have an important and real connection to this historical event; therefore there is every reason for them to be here. OzoneO (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation about Arthur Conan Doyle

The bullet about Arthur Conan Doyle in the Biographical articles section says that he became a fiction writer after the (presumably second) war, which is incorrect. He had written fiction long before, including the first Sherlock Holmes story in 1887. I'm going to modify that bullet to correct the misinformation.--Jim10701 (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

poorly written.

Many of the sentences in this article are needless or, at the very least, should be added on to other sentences as they cannot stand alone. Many sentences also are not informative, merely generalizations.

For example: The Boer War lasted three years and it was very bloody.

This article sounds like a high schooler wrote it. I recommend a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.32.185 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that I propose that the first step is to remove any sentence that is not backed up with a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dutch jews in boer war concentration camps?

Were all of the supposed dutch who were rounded up in concentration camps actually jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No.

ChrisPer (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This Page seriously needs some citations. There is not one citation in the ENTIRE article. --184.100.154.17 (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blaming Boer raids for starvation in concentration camps

The article blames Boer raids on supply trains for the shortages of food and starvation in the concentration camps. This points needs more discussion or verification.

About some of the Citations

They're from the PBS documentary of the British Empire

The last episode of the miniseries. I'm not sure how to cite from TV. Does anyone have to get a transcript? http://www.pbs.org/empires/victoria/empire/rhodes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.71.220 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Independence of Boer States

I would like to challenge the independent status of the Boer States. They were in fact treaty states bound to the British Crown in terms of foreign affairs and defence. They did not (as far as I know) mint a freely convertable currency. The issue that led to the war was the status of new migrants to the Transvaal, the uitlanders. The Transvaal and Orange Free State were founded by British subjects, who denied citizenship to later arrivals. They certainly were not founded on the basis of a mandate from the masses: the black majority had no say. A lot of people get hung up on the idea that the Boers were "Dutch". they were of more mixed origins that many would care to admit, and more importantly the Cape Dutch came under British rule de facto from 1805(?), de jure 1815. T 09:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

The Boer Republics were in fact independent & were recognized by the governments of Britain / France / Holland / Germany / Belgium & the United States of America including recognition by neighbors such as the Swazis & Zulus. The London Convention of 1884 overturned the British control of foreign affairs & defense & fully restored the total independence of the ZAR / Transvaal Republic. The Orange Free State had never come under any British suzerainty whatsoever during the first Anglo-Boer War [ 1880 - 1881 ] as that war was only between Britain & the ZAR / Transvaal Republic.

The following is an excerpt from the book: The Story of the Boers. From C W van der Hoogt. Published in 1900. Page 96. Quote: [ The Republic was now in possession of a Convention, which from the nature of its provisions seemed to promise a peaceful future. In addition to Great Britain it was recognized in Holland, France, Germany, Belgium, and especially in the United States of America. The American Secretary of State at Washington, writing to President Pretorius on the 19th November, 1870, said: "That his Government, while heartily acknowledging the Sovereignty of the Transvaal Republic, would be ready to take any steps which might be deemed necessary for that purpose." ]

There was no so called "black majority" in the Boer Republics until the latter half of the 19th cent when more Bantu workers were imported from Xhosaland & Zululand by the Anglo businesses to work on the mines. On page 7 of the book: The Rise Fall and Legacy of Apartheid... it notes the following.

Quote: [ (Boer) colonization of the ZAR left tracts of land in black tribal hands. In such "black areas", the Pedi, Swazi, Venda, Tswana, and Ndebele continued to live in semi autonomous polities as premodern pastoralists. ... Some tribes such as the Swazi were treated as allies. ]

Thus your assumptions are incorrect as the various locally established Bantu groups were not incorporated or assimilated into the Boer Republics as they maintained & retained their own independent polities. Even the Zulus of Natal were independent from the Boers despite the battle at Ncome River which led to the short lived Natalia Republic. The Boers & Zulus exchanged rocks of peace in 1840 as a gesture of reconciliation. The Zulus of northern Natal even later awarded the Boers some land [ in exchange for Boers coming to the aid of a Zulu faction that was being threatened by the British ] in 1884 whereupon the Vryheid Republic was established before the southern section was annexed by Britain & the northern section becoming incorporated into the ZAR / Transvaal Republic.

The Boers who founded the various Boer Republics [ there were upwards of seventeen Boer Republics... many consolidated with other Boer Republics or were annexed by Britain ] were not British subjects as they had trekked right out of British jurisdiction during the era of the Great Trek. Those Boers also made sure to establish their various republics beyond the claims of the British. The Boers of the republics north of the Vaal River were formally recognized as independent with the Sand River Convention of 1852. The Boers north of the Orange River were formally recognized as independent with the Orange River Convention of 1854. Those conventions were not overturned until by force during the conclusion of the second Anglo-Boer War.

The one thing you were right about is that the Boers are not of Dutch descent as they are mainly of German / Frisian / Danish / French Huguenot descent including smaller numbers Indian / Malay & Koi dating back mostly to the 17th cent. The Boers are not Cape Dutch nor have they ever truly been part of the Cape Dutch population. The Cape Dutch were the folks who coalesced in & around Cape Town at a time when the Boers were emerging on the Cape frontier from the nomadic Trekboers who were living in a manner similar to the Khoisan. The Cape Dutch were more urbane & were pro Colonial while the Boers were rough / rustic & anti-colonial. While you could argue that the Boers of the northern & eastern frontier [ where they germinated ] also became British subjects when the British arrived & exerted control over the Cape - the fact of the matter is that once they trekked out of the Cape colony entirely during the Great Trek & into the depopulated lands north of the Orange River they were certainly no longer British subjects. The Boers had cut all ties to Europe by circa 1700 [ Oliver Ransford. The Great Trek. ] & the Great Trek had similarly made the Boers cut all ties [ as tenuous as they were ] to Britain. The Boers of the republics were citizens of their various republics which was overturned only when the Boer Republics were conquered under British occupation [ & later under Afrikaner occupation of the 20th cent. ] during the second Anglo-Boer War. The British were able to achieve this only after killing off at least twenty five thousand Boer children in the concentration camps. This represented the death of at least 50% of the total Boer child population.

Ron7 (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

untitled

I stand by my points: the Great Trek was by Boers leaving the Cape Colony to avoid British rule, with inequities such as the abolition of slavery, the imposition of the English language, the granting of jury rights to Coloureds, and allowing Coloureds to arrest white men. Read Piet Retief's Manifesto. To deny that the majority of population of the Boer states was black African sounds like an apartheid argument: they were not citizens so therefore they did not exist. With regard to international recognition of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, just because a self-governing state received a representative of another state, that does not amount to recognition of independence. For example, to take a 20th century example Rhodesia had a number of foreign consuls, at least up to 1970. this does not mean that any country official recognized Rhodesia as an independent state. Rhodesia also had a limited number of overseas representative as a self-governing colony in South Africa, Mozambique and Portugal While the meaning of "suzerainty" in the 1852 Sand River Convention and 1884 London Convention was debated and never clearly defined, Britain restricted the right of the Transvaal's relations with European powers. 10:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

A matter of protocol

It is deprecated, indeed bad manners, to refer to a war with reference to only one side. Any historian worth tuppence would say "Anglo-Boer" or "British-Boer" or "Boer-British" war (the first and last examples being in alphabetical order).

The implication of "the Boer war" is "the war we made against the Boers." We? It pre-supposes a nationalistic point of view that has no place in any encyclopaedia, not even this one.

To put my point into perspective: what could "the French war" possibly mean, and who could blame any Frenchman for being annoyed by such a label? Who waged "the Russian war?" So why is this form acceptable when used in reference to a small nation?

~~Percy William Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.0.218 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

For how this became a redirect see the discussion at Talk:Boer War#Redirect. -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)