Talk:Boer Republics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boer Republics article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Copied from previous discussion at Boer states:

The information submitted herein is POV, and has been flagged for a complete re-write or similar. If you have a NPOV stance on this topic, please nominate yourself to re-write this article, or collaborate at my Talk page for further information

Ssteedman 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If article is in your opinion not NPOV, you should make it NPOV instead of just deleting large chunks of information. E.g. if you disagree with the portion about IQ, you can remove it or further neutralise it (although it is sourced). But such things as first and second Boer wars, the Great Trek which led into estabilishing Boer states, etc. are facts and facts should not be deleted. Alcatel 10:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite pending neutrality factor

Agreed, regarding deletion of text vs. rewriting of text re: comment posted in my User:Talk. Would it not help, perhaps, to (for the time being), substitute acknowledged defamatory remarks (for example, kaffir) with less incindiary ones (such as "black people")? This way your article is less caustic but still gets its message across. The other problem is that of racial stereotyping. By posting such messages about kaffirs and the like, only serves to fuel the stereotype that all white South Africans are racists and proponents in Apartheid, which is not always the case, but certainly harms our international reputation when international visitors (who are, by and large, biased in favour of black people) stumble across your text. In the spirit of Wiki, and indeed that of South African reconciliation, may I propose that I modify your text to be less caustic, or at best, for you to re-word it to a more neutral point-of-view? A good example would be the I.Q factor; whilst supplemented text you provided does indeed point to the theory that black people hold a lower I.Q, the book itself is heavily biased. It is important to consider the source of one's facts in order to maintain neutrality. (Similar examples would be the use of Hitler's Mein Kampf to back up Hitler's domestic policies against Jews and the ensuing Holocaust; whilst the text provided (Mein Kampf) does justify the means (Holocaust), the text itself is biased, and therefore any article based on this is, ipso facto, biased and non-neutral.)

Best regards,

Ssteedman 15:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC), Roodepoort

Word "kaffir" originally means just a black of South Africa, only later it became more derogatory, but ok, I will use it less. I don't think scientific studies and such can be compered to personal viewpoint works like Mein Kampf. But ok, I will try to do it somehow more neutrally. Alcatel 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have extensively rewritten the article, fixing a LOT of spelling and grammatical errors and broken redlinks. I've also removed the offensive language and POV points, and thus removed the NPOV notice. Also, please don't place the NPOV notice on talk pages, they are meant for the article space only in order to place them in Category:POV disputes for cleanup editors to take a look at. Zunaid 14:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I am moving the article to the more widely used term Boer republics. Elf-friend 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novel by Joe Buff & its erroneous assertion of a Boer Empire.

I have a significant problem with the assertion that the Boers ever had an empire since the history of the Boers notes that the republican outlook & clan based culture of the Boers prevented them from becoming an empire as they only wanted to govern themselves free from Colonialism & established numerous republics which are by their very definition not empires & were even just minimalist republics at that. Furthermore the trend towards establishing republics was a slow one as the various Boer Republics only came about after Colonial incursions against the Boer communities of the frontier. The novelist is perhaps confusing the pastoral Boers with the Cape Dutch -who later emerged as Afrikaners- who were neo Colonial in outlook (in sharp contrast to the anti- Colonial frontier Boers) & did have an empire of sorts during the 20th cent when this particular group inherited the macro state of South Africa the British created with the South Africa Act of 1909 which was transfered to other later emerging Constitutions.