Talk:Second Boer War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Boer War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Second Boer War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Africa
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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
  1. Nov 2003 – September 2005
  2. September 2005 – February 2007

Contents

[edit] Combatants

Undid material around combatants as being British Empire and which excluded Australia, Canada, New Zealand. These nations were combatants in their own right they were independent countries who got involved therfore they were part of the War.Kangaroojke 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No they didn't, they were involved as a result of British involvement - despite their, by that time, independent status. The war was fought on an imperial basis, not like WW2 where each nation participated as independent allies. I've also reverted your reversion of the Jameson Raid as casus belli. You must provide a citation in order to make this assertion—see my talk page for a recent discussion on this point.
Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While New Zealand and the states of Australia were colonies at the time (1899), they chose to send official Contingents and did not need to. Newfoundland a separate colony then did not. Nor did the Cape Colony (Packenham). Canada was a confederation not colonies by then. Offers from some non-white colonies were turned down as it was a “white mans’ war”. Re the Jamieson Raid; Packenham quotes Smuts in 1906, intro to Part 1 of "The Boer War": “The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war in the great Anglo-Boer conflict …” Hugo999 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed the issue of the Jameson Raid (and indeed that very quote) on my talk page not so long ago. If you take a look at User_Talk:Xdamr/Archive 5#Casus Belli of Anglo-Boer War you'll find an explanation of my rationale for arguing against this.
Xdamrtalk 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you say, or how hard you would like to argue, Canada, Australia..etc.. were combatants in the war. It doesn't matter whether or not they were under Royal command, the fact is they fought and were combatants. I don't know whether or not the fact that other nations are on the combatant list makes you feel like the British involvement is less important, but it isn't like that. Even if other nations are on the combatant list the British are still there, and still important. But what is also important, is respecting the lives lost of soldiers from all the nations contributing and fighting.

Concerns re. the addition of other countries diminishing British involvement etc are not ones which bother me. My concern is solely for an accurate representation of the conflict. This means that I object, on historical grounds, to attempts to write Aus/NZ/Can into the war as independent players. (note that the infobox reads 'British Empire' - not just UK)
There is a trend towards this in much post-Empire scholarship—motivated, benignly enough, by the wish to develop a national narrative in these countries. But this approach doesn't accord with the reality of the late 19th century. Bar Canada, the other two did not actually exist at the time—Australian federation took place in 1901, New Zealand in 1907. Secondly, the Statute of Westminster, recognising Dominion equality with the UK was in 1931, long after the war. From 1899-1901 the 'Empire' concept was in full swing; the Dominions/colonies did not participate as independent nations, but rather as a direct result of British involvement. It is important to restate that this is not a claim that Britain was the sole participant—the claim is that the British Empire was. Given the times and the circumstances in which these events took place, this is a correct characterisation.
Xdamrtalk 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll let you have the fact on the Australian and New Zealand situation, but Canada was still Canada. Even if taken into war because of the crown, Canada still fought as Canada. Would there still be this discussion had England only taken five hundred killed, and Canada had taken twelve thousand? No, it would be regarded as a war that Canada fought in. All casualties aside, the fact is that Canada fought as Canada, under the crown yes, but still as Canadians. Edited to add: I'll even play nice and use the Red Ensign Canadian Flag.
But that's the thing - when did Canada cease to be a member of the British Empire? Canada was a key part of the Empire and Canadians made notable contributions to the war, but this was an Imperial enterprise. Canada did not achieve 'equality' with the UK (as part of the Empire) until 1931 - it was not a sovereign, independent nation. At the turn of the 19th century Canadian policy was dictated by the Governor-General, as representative of the Crown. None of this points justifies adding Canada as a separate entry.
Xdamrtalk 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada became Canada (The Dominion of) in 1867. Canada has been Canada ever since. Fighting through the rebellions in the Northwest (now Manitoba) and the 2nd Boer War, two world wars, Korea, Medak Pocket(read up on it), Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Maybe it fought as part of the British Empire in South Africa, but that would mean the British would be a combatant in the Northwest Rebellion... but they aren't. Canada fought in the war... AS CANADA.

The War was fought as an Imperial enterprise. Canada did not achieve legal equality with the UK (ie 'independence') until the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Canada c1900 was inarguably a part (and an important one) of the British Empire. The British Empire is the entity listed in the infobox - not the UK alone. Therefore this addition is both strictly incorrect and is certainly redundant. Canada is covered by 'British Empire' in just the same way as England, Queensland, India, the Cape Colony, the West Indies, Singapore, Ceylon, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc are.
Xdamrtalk 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austalian name etc

Re spelling of Hancock: it is Handcock, Peter Joseph (1868-1902), cited in Ron Austin The Australian Illustrated Encyclopediap of the Zulu and Boer Wars, (1999), p.113. William (Bill) Woolmore, The Bushveldt Carbineers and Pietersburg Light Horse,(2002), p. 119, R.L Wallace, The Australians at the Boer War,(1976) and even in Craig Wicox, Australia's Boer War: The War in South Africa 1899-1902, (2002).

Tonyob 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removed an obvious typo

The article said that the number of black dead in the concentration camps could have been as high as 620,000. The source said: ‘’As for the wretched concentration camp population, again, we have a reasonably settled picture. In this arena, it is generally accepted that the figures for the interned refugee population and their death-rates probably went a little beyond what imperial army authorities were capable of counting in 1902 and 1901. According to the latest published investigation, by May 1902 over 80 camps had been established, holding around 115,000-120,000 black people, three-quarters of them women and young children. Of these at least 14,000 and possibly as high as 620,000 inmates perished during the course of hostilities.’’ http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN071465101X&id=yPFeGjE2MH4C&pg=RA1-PA127&lpg=RA1-PA127&ots=0sHEx83OTS&dq=boer+war+black+deaths+concentration+camp&sig=EheLzmIskZZglSW0I20bPTpPETI#PRA1-PA127,M1

Given that the total population of the camps was 115,000-120,000 it seems to me highly unlikely that 620,000 people could die in them. This seems to be a typo (possibly it meant to say 62,000) so I have removed it from the article.--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.16.94 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2007

87.112.16.94 has removed much more than the dubious figure of "620,000" from the article. I've reverted his edit. I checked the source in question, and found that "620,000" is most probably a typo in the source, and should be deleted. However, I am inviting comments.--Palaeoviatalk 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


No I didn't remove "much more than the dubious figure of 620,000", I removed only that figure. Whoever removed anything else (whatever else was removed) was NOT me. I have removed that 620,000 figure again as it is an OBVIOUS typo. If 120,000 was the total camp population then it is NOT possible for 620,000 people to die in the camps.--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.22.204 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 July 2007

All edits are permanently archived, and can be readily checked. My previous comment can be confirmed easily.--Palaeoviatalk 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you "check" again. It wasn't me. I removed the link and anything connected to it, which was: "according to one estimate the number could have been as high as 620,000[link]"--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.7.239 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 July 2007

The edit in question is [1]--Palaeoviatalk 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And it still was not done by me. Someone else has removed that. user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.89.66 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2007

[edit] The foreign volunteers

The article should include some information about the Boer foreign volunteers. Even if they might not have had any major impact on the outcome of the war, it's interesting to note that foreigners, and not just those sponsored by enemies of Great Britain, were prepared fight for the Boer nationalist cause against the British.

Peter Isotalo 06:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of course the Birtish are the nice guys!

I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that the article attempts to justify every action of the British. Their invasion of the Transvaal was directly related to the discovery of gold, yet the article attempts to portray it as a humanitarian act. The situation of the concentration camps were known to the high ranking officials of the British contingent, yet teh article does its very best to portray them as blissfully unaware (sounds alot like Abu Ghraib) AND the article fails to mention the many women who were raped in these camps. I grew up in South Africa, and it doesn't get much more real when you great-grandmother was in them and can still tell you what happened there. My own great great grandmother kept a diary of her time in the camps and I am currently working on getting it verrified and printed. The things in there are horrible and to portray the British as being on a humanitarian mission of love makes me sick. Yes, I know my own point of view is deffinately coming through, but it is neccessary so you can understand why teh justification of every single british action is so repulsive to me. Now they may have originally have simply wanted to restore equality to their people, but I know that no nation is perfect and very rarely do they act perfectly. Therefore, protraying teh Birtish as saints throughout teh conflict, and minimizing the pain and sufffering of the Boers is not only inaccurate but wrong. I suggest someone fix, as I am obviously not objective enough on the point to do it. At the very least you can fix the Concentration Camp section as it plainly and purposefully portays the Birtish in the very best light, justifying their actions and the leaders, skiming over the actual conditions, and then quickly adding that not only were there good British like Hobhouse but that through their actions the conditions were quickly imporved. In reality, the death toll went down, the conditions did not. As for my sources, there are hundreds of diaries from that time already printed, and teh very best source is always a first hand account. - Ouboet

Hmm- are we both reading the same section re concentration camps? The one that I'm reading is very, very negative towards the British policy- mentioning as it does tens of thousands of deaths, denial of rations to women and children, unsanitary conditions, a 50% child mortality rate, etc etc etc. I would agree that the floating quotes at the end are a bit random and should be put in context and balanced with other material. As always, if you're familiar with reliable sources then add the info, in a balanced and WP:NPOV way. I would probably say that to the wider world, the use of concentration camps is probably now the most notable aspect of this conflict. Badgerpatrol 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] casualties

Could someone check the revision of casualties as amended by User 83.250.40.152 - looking at the logs I suspect there may be some inaccuracies creeping in. docboat 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Why is it called the Boer War when it was the british who blatantly attacked the boers? Shouldn't it then be "The british war in South Africa"? I'm not disputing the name of the article, I am only wondering about who came up with it, and for what reason. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name 'Boer War' is a British one - it simply describes the enemy against whom the war was fought (a common practice, eg the Zulu War, the Indian Wars, etc). I don't think that the name places blame on one side or another, it is simply descriptive. Now, as I say, the 'Boer War' (or the 'Second Boer War' as it is also known - Britain fought against the Transvaal in 1879, this is commonly regarded as the 'First') is named from a British perspective. Hence other alternatives have sprung up such as the 'South African War' or 'Anglo-Boer War'.
Incidentally you are incorrect that the British attacked the Boers. It was the Transvaal's attack on Natal which finally caused the War, although you are correct that British policy had been gearing up for conflict for some time before.
Xdamrtalk 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Just a note there: the Dutch first attacked after the British began placing their troops. I don't see this as an aggressive stance from the Dutch, but rather as an defensive one. — Adriaan (T★C) 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's true enough, the move into Natal was a case of trying to forestall British attack by trying to take the ports and deny British reinforcements a landing place on the eastern coast. As things turned out this lightning strike quickly became bogged down into a conventional static war, in which the commandos lost their chief advantage of high mobility.

Ah, the good old pre-emptive strike; it's not really aggression just because someone attacks you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.145.89 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Xdamrtalk 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of a Lizzie van Zyl

What is that picture doing there? It's captioned Lizzie van Zyl, but there is no reference to any Lizzie van Zyl in the main text. My guess is it's meant to illustrate the conditions in the concentration camps, but the caption isn't very informative. --Mickel 08:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google "Lizzie van Zyl" and there is a reference in the Emily Hobhouse entry to her being visited by EH with a story about her treatment and death - perhaps the caption should cross reference this

I've given it the same caption as on the Afrikaner page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. Unfortunately, as of October 27, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The article was awarded GA status back in 2006 and since then the GA criteria has changed significantly. Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources. The best way to improve the article is to go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. A few examples of the many statements that need sources include:

  1. "Of this raid, Jan C. Smuts wrote in 1906, "The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war...And that is so in spite of the four years of truce that followed...[the] aggressors consolidated their alliance...the defenders on the other hand silently and grimly prepared for the inevitable.""
  2. "Most editorials were similar to the Daily Telegraph, which declared: 'of course there can only be one answer to this grotesque challenge. Kruger has asked for war and war he must have!'."
  3. "The vast distances of the Republics allowed the Boer commandos considerable freedom to move about and made it impossible for the 250,000 British troops to control the territory effectively using columns alone."
  4. "Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas."
  5. "In all, the war had cost around 75,000 lives; 22,000 British soldiers (7,792 battle casualties, the rest through disease), between 6,000 and 7,000 Boer soldiers, and, mainly in the concentration camps, between 20,000 to 28,000 Boer civilians (mainly women and children) and perhaps 20,000 black Africans (both on the battlefield and in the concentration camps)."

If necessary, include more online sources if you need to for finding citations for the information. There are also a lot of grammar problems throughout the article, including many sentences that do not have inline citations directly following the punctuation. I'd recommend that before nominating the article again that several outside editors who have not contributed to the article look it over and give it a good copyedit. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad and image requirements. I didn't see any NPOV statements that stand out at a quick glance, but make sure to go through the article again before nominating to make sure it isn't quick-failed over that. The article has a large number of images, and it's great that they're free. Again, if you address the issues above and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag next to Lord Roberts

The flag next to Lord Roberts is Australian. He wasn't. I have no idea how this could be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.243.172 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh* It's not the Australian flag, it's Indian. The Australian flag has the Southern Cross on it, not the single star that the Indian one has.The Bryce (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The article either needs to be reverted or otherwise corrected. Example of the problem: "The Northeastern part of the Asian continent was pwned in the 9th century by a set of boring struggles to create within it a thousand unified states." pwned?? Smyslov (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment seems to belong somewhere else. Doortmont (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No, my comment was in the right place. Someone edited out the garbage, though. Smyslov (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casus Belli - Jameson Raid

In the preamble to the article the Jameson Raid of 1895 is named as casus belli. Obviously, the Jameson Raid was an important event that brought Boer distrust towards the British to a head. However, the relationship between the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the British at the Cape really deteriorated during 1899 over the British ultimatum to the Transvaal government with regard to voting rights for 'Uitlanders'. This was a much more direct casus belli, I think. Doortmont (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead to in line with WP:Lead. I am doing a major rewrite of the article over the coming weeks to make it more encylopedic and referenced. LordHarris 09:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Great, let's try to get this article back to GA status at least! I will assist where and when possible. Michel Doortmont (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copypasta

[1]

The camps grew further as a result of an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign, in which Kitchener initiated plans to "flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organized like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children. . . . It was the clearance of civilians - uprooting a whole nation - that would come to dominate the last phase of the war."

The ellipsis and following quote adds nothing more to the original context and only serves as a means to finish the statement without leaving the quotations. Very sly indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.200.115 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)