Talk:Second Boer War/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Tory defeat of 1906
It it really correct that the war cost the Conservatives the election of 1906? Most sources I've seen blame the defeat on the protectionist policies of the government, not events in South Africa --Mmartins 12:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it. - Johnbull 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] When did the Second Boer War break out ?
The article has Oct. 11th, 1899 as the start date in the intro, but Oct.12th in the section about the Second Boer War. Rather confusing.... -- PFHLai 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright Infringment
The section on Australian involvement appears to have been lifted almost verbatim from the [Australian War Memorial] website. There is a link to the site but that still does not excuse this. Zarboki 06:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not really rewite in in 13 minutes, I had an edit clash with Thivierr! I hope the rewrite is sufficient. If not then please make any further changes which you think are needed. Philip Baird Shearer 10:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Though I don't recall doing the original copyvio, the edit history makes plain it was my fault, so I'm sorry (I'm sure I intended to make a reworded version, not a straight copy). Philip, you did a great job of the rewrite, thanks (and sorry about the edit conflict as well). --rob 10:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two articles
I think that here is enough information on the two wars to justify two articles. I would like to move this page to the Second Boer War (SBW) and then copy information relevent to both wars into First Boer War(FBW) and move any FBW specific informaiton into the FBW page. This page (Boer War) could either stay a redirect to the larger war (SBW) or be edited to become a disambiguation page. The reason moving this article to SBW is preserve the history of the edits in the larger article to which most of the edits apply. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree it should be done. I would support making this a disambig page, since there's no quick way to tell which of the backlinks refers to which war (although I assume the large majority do refer to SBW, it would be a slow process to veryify them). --rob 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Other langages still have one article for the boer wars. This article won't be splitted in all langages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistabob (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] infobox
I made it using the names/numbers from this page. I'm not sure if using South Africa as the location would be as accurate as possible, but that seems to be the precedent for most military articles. Ekrub-ntyh 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
How about including in the combatants in the Infobox “South Africa”? Strictly speaking it should be Cape Colony & Natal, & they were half-hearted supporters of Milner, but where else would the “irregular regiments” eg the Bushveldt Carbineers, Natal Carbineers, Imperial Light Horse etc which are included under South Africa Military Units/Army be included? I have a list of them to include somewhere, from the Times History I think. Hugo999 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- To be even more strict, it should be the British Empire vs the Transvaal and OFS. A detailed breakdown of forces composition is certainly necessary within the article, but not in the constricted space available within the infobox. Furthermore the addition of the Dutch navy seems to be not a little bizzare. They played no part in the conflict (although there were certainly Dutch citizens fighting with the Transvaal/OFS (in much the same way as Germans, Russians, etc did)), I suggest that they really don't belong with the combatants.
Yes, but now the “British Empire” just links to a general page about the history of the Empire; whereas it needs a page about the forces in the war (including the irregular units I still have to fit in somewhere!). And there should be a Siege of Kimberley page (linked from the Infobox) to go with those for Ladysmith & Mafeking. Hugo999 06:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be any problem with you putting in a 'Composition of forces' section within the article. I think that its pretty standard practice for the 'Combatants' infobox entry to link to the article for the countries involved, not specifically to a page about that country in the war.
The irregular forces need a separate page rather than filling up the main article with two or three pages of names! How about ‘’South African irregular forces’’ ? Largely from the Cape Colony, but some from Natal, Southern Rhodesia Otherwise could be called ‘’Boer War irregular forces’’
And the Concentration Camps could use a separate page for expansion of the material in both Second Boer War and Concentration camps pages? Say ‘’Boer War concentration camps’’? Hugo999 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
- An expansion of the lead section would be fortunate.
- The inline external links should be formatted to the footnote format.
- Review the tagging of Image:Boercamp1.jpg as the tag is obsolete. Lincher 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Australia?
Australian's did fight in the Boer war, but as British Empire subjects within their respective colonies. There was no country of Australia until the state was proclaimed in 1901. The Second Boer war was already being fought before that and Australia was not a participating then, it wasn't a country to participate. It is my understanding that volunteers in each of the colonies went to Africa and fought against the Boer's. The combatants should be changed so that it doesn't imply Australia as a nation was a combatant. E.g. "British colonies in Australia"? Or "Volunteers from Colonies in Australia". I know it would be wordy, but saying 'Australia' in the table is a lie! At least to my understanding...124.177.32.94 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In answer to the above questions on the Austrlain participation in the Boer War. Those Australian colonial troops that fought in the Boer War prior to January 1901 served in units raised by the various self-governing colonies on the mainland of Australia. (these troops ought not be confused with the thousands of Australian volunteers who traveled to South Africa independently to join locally raised units such as the Natal Mounted Police or those Australians who were already working on the Rand and who joined local units, such as the "Imperial Light Horse"). Hence those Australian contingents were named by their colony jurisdiction; eg. 'First NSW Contingent' and the 'Australian Horse', that is to say both units were raised by and paid by the NSW colonial government. There were other contingents raised in the other independent and self-governing colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In 1901 on federation, all the forces of the independent self-governing colonies and their troops serving in South Africa, came under the total jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. From 1 January 1901 all those various Australian colonial forces became Australian units. Several recognised Australian units were raised in South Africa and even Rhodesia (before federation)including, 'The Australian Regiment' raised in Nov 1899 in Cape Town; 'Australian Mounted Infantry Brigade' raised in Nov 1900 in the Eastern Transvaal and the '4th Imperial Bushmen' raised on a ship in May 1900. Following federation, the newly formed Australian government raised three seperate contingents to go to South Africa , which included "1st Commonwealth Light Horse", thru to the '8th Commonwealth Light Horse'and the 'Australian Medical Team'.
I hope this sheds some light as to why Australia was correctly classified a combatant in the war.
Suggest you try to access two Australian sources: Craig Wilcox, Australia's Boer War,Oxford, 2002. P.L. Murray, Records of Australian Contingents to the War in South Africa 1899-1902, 1911. (This is not easy to locate) Comment by Tonyob on 9 Dec 06 Tonyob 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pyrrhic victory
Why is the Second Boer War categorised as a "pyrrhic victory"? The article lacks explanation of this despite it being mentioned in the box to the right.--Legalides 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Boer War
I came to this article not knowing there were two Boer wars. As the title is the Second Boer War, I was therefore expecting some reference to the first one in the text, especially in the 'Background' section - a mention of simmering tensions being around long before 1899 - not just a 'see also' ref at the bottom of the article. Can anyone with the knowledge provide this background information please? 81.157.196.248 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Information Re Ethnic Cleansing
I think this article needs to address various matters of ethnic cleansing that occurred during the Boer Wars. I am not enough of an expert on the period to add them myself. But I do remeber a book I came across a decade or so ago that addressed that issue; so the information is out there somewhere.
Edwardpiercy 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
