Talk:Second Boer War/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: I removed it. - Johnbull 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tory defeat of 1906 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When did the Second Boer War break out ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringment 

message: * 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* Review the tagging of :Image:Boercamp1.jpg as the tag is obsolete.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)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: The Australia section is just terrible. The resource citations should be at the end of the article, not injected into the body of the article. To Tonyob I would suggest looking at WP:CITE. It would make the article much better.--Tainter 02:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pyrrhic victory 

message: 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)
thread_title: First Boer War

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional Information Re Ethnic Cleansing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Austalian name etc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The foreign volunteers 

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

text: The edit in question is --Palaeoviatalk 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed an obvious typo 

message: 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:
#"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.""
#"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!'."
#"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."
#"Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas."
#"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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I've given it the same caption as on the Afrikaner page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of a Lizzie van Zyl 

message: 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)
thread_title: Flag next to Lord Roberts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Casus Belli - Jameson Raid 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900_-_1902.29
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)
thread_title:  Copypasta 

message: Comon now, this is fairly absurd, someone get a different memorial picture up there at least. There are plenty in London.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulf6832 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three memorial pictures - All for Canadians? 

message: In my view the lead section of this article is to vast this should be very brief, espacially as there is already a background section, but the lead goes into detail about the gold uitlanders  and just about everything else.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: I stumbled on interesting information at http://www.archive.org/stream/768164_2#page/n61/mode/2up
This may be of interest to scholars of the era.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.197.8.183 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Consul in Pretoria Report on Concentration Camp Conditions 

message: Much of the section on Concentration Camps has the same text as this site. Obviously, one site has copied the other:
http://www.boer-war.com/Details2nd/Camps.html
Norvo (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: This web source Jews on Commando by by D.Y. Saks (2005), is not a reliable source, but it is well footnoted and some of the information if checked might make an interesting addition to this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews on Commando 

message: I have removed the segment of sentence giving the causes of Afrikaner migration "such as the abolition of slavery", since this was in fact a minor contribution to the dissatisfaction with British rule.  The wealthy slave-owers - mostly from the western Cape - mainly elected to remaining British colonial subjects.  Migration was mainly from the eastern districts of the Cape colony, and was mostly motivated by the constant state of war with the Xhosa - much of it precipitated by British commercial interests - and lack of protection afforded by the British adminsitration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.169.186.10 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: It says in the article that the Boers' tactics first appeared from the American Civil War. But from what I read about using rifles to hunt games and the "one shot, one kill" tenet described in the article, this was more in line with the American Revolutionary War. The saying goes in the beginning of the Patriots' campaign they didn't have many regularly trained militia. Instead they relied very much upon the local farmers who had acquired their marksmanship during hunting. Because these people initially used their firearms for hunting, the weapons were mainly rifles (accurate, but low rate of fire) instead of muskets (inaccurate, but more effective when you assemble the musketeers in a formation) that were usually used in the military at the times. This type of irregular warfare tactics almost exactly mirrored that of those used by the Boers. I've found a cross-reference: Minutemen#Equipment, training, and tactics. 222.153.247.202 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactics stemming from American Civil War? 

message: I have removed  because an article with 78 in-line citations does not need it. Add the in-line  for facts that need them.
I have started the process of creating inline short citations by taking three or four of the most common in-line citations and using  template, there is more to do.
>==Further reading==
;Primary sources
*Arthur Conan Doyle: The Great Boer War. London: Smith, Elder, 1900.
*Sol T. Plaatje: Mafeking diary: a black man's view of a white man's war. Cambridge: Meridor Books; Athens: Ohio University Press, 1990.  (Meridor)  (Ohio UP). Originally published as The Boer War diary of Sol T. Plaatje; an African at Mafeking. Johannesburg: Macmillan, 1973 .
*Alfred Milner: "The Milner Papers", vol. II South Africa 1899–1905, edited by Cecil Headlam, London: Cassell, 1933.
*J.H.M. Abbott, Tommy Cornstalk, Longmans London, 1902, (an autobiography of Abbott's service in the War).
*Droogleever, R.W.F. (ed.), From the Front: A. B. (Banjo) Patterson's Dispatches from the Boer War, MacMillan, Sydney, 2000. (A completed compilation of the reporter 'Banjo Patterson's (1864–1941) dispatches (75 letters and articles sent to Australia during the period November 1899 to July 1900. Patterson was present at numerous engagements including Paardeberg, Bloemfontein, Pretoria and finally the surrender of General Martinus Prinsloo at the Brandwater Basin. These writings give a military and literary insight into events, with comments on the medical crisis in Bloemfontein following its occupation and outbreak of enteric fever) 
*Lieut. George Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire, Melbourne, 1907; republished as George R. Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire, Angus & Robertson Melbourne, 1982., (Witton's autobiography of his trial and conviction along with "Breaker Morant"). 
*Field, Kingslet (edt). Book "Soldier Boy" A young New Zealander writes home from the Boer War, compiled by Kingsley Field. Letters written by Harry Gilbert to his family in New Zealand from April 1901. First published in 2007 by New Holland Publishers (NZ) Ltd. .
*Lt. Col. P.L. Murray, (ed.) Official Records of the Australian Military Contingents to the War in South Africa, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1911. (Rare, but this book lists all Colonial Forces, plus Commonwealth troops' names, number rank, including nurses rates of pay and promotions. Citations on each serviceman's /servicewoman's injuries, illnesses, wounds, killed in action etc. Details the ships on which contingents sailed and returned, the number of horses per contingent despatched to the war, unit establishments, active services and honours, unit patrols and engagements etc. Book comprises 607 pages)
* New South Wales Imperial Bushmen Contingent War Diary and letters written by the Adjutant, Major David Miller. They tell the day by day story of the deployment in 1900 of this unique unit raised by private subscription in New South Wales.
;Scholarly secondary sources
*Byron Farwell: The Great Anglo-Boer War. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.  (published in the UK as The Great Boer War. London: Allen Lane, 1977. ).
*April A. Gordon and Donald L. Gordon (eds.): Understanding contemporary Africa. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2001. .
*David Harrison: The white tribe of Africa: South Africa in perspective. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981. .
*Denis Judd and Keith Surridge. The Boer War. London: John Murray, 2003. .
*W. Baring Pemberton. Battles of the Boer War. First published 1964 by B.T. Batsford - republished by Pan, 1969.
*Fransjohan Pretorius : Scorched Earth. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, 2001; .
*Kit Denton, Australian at War: For Queen and Commonwealth, Time-Life Books, Australia, 1987, (pp. 76–163)  (many photos and maps)
*Laurie Field, The Forgotten War, Melbourne University Press, 1979.
*R.L. Wallace, Australians at the Boer War, AGPS, Canberra, 1976.  2 (an important work in re-awaking Australian interest in the Boer War - but hard to locate)
*William (Bill) Woolmore, The Bushveldt Carbineers and the Pietersburg Light Horse, Slouch Hat Publications, Rosebud, 2002.  (solid work on the men who served in the ill-fated unit)
*Neil G. Speed, Born to Fight, Caps & Flints Press, Melbourne, 2002. (an Australian Maj. Charles Ross DSO who served with Canadian Scouts) 
*Craig Wilcox, Australia's Boer War, Oxford University Press, 2002. (important academic work) 
*William (Bill) Woolmore,Steinaecker's Horsemen: South Africa 1899-1903, South African Country Life,Barberton, 2006.  (solid research by an Australian writer into the men who served in this unit)
*Max Chamberlain and Robert Droogleever, The War with Johnny Boer: Australians in the Boer War 1899-1902, Ligare, Riverwood, 2003. (sound research with maps, drawing and pictures of Australian participants)
*Dave C. George, Carvings from the Veldt: Rifle carvings from Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902, Northern Rivers N.S.W., 2004. (photographic and historical record of surviving Boer War rifles (in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and USA) and the variety of stock carvings) 
*Richard Tomlinson, "Masonry blockhouses of the Anglo-Boer War 1900-1902", Fort (Fortress Study Group), 1998, (26), pp169–199
>==External links==
*Chronology South Africa Boer War
*The Australian War Memorial (hundreds of photos in the Boer War section)
*Canada and The South African War, 1899-1902 - Canadian War Museum
*Chronology Great Britain Boer War
*Colonial Units
*The New Zealand Contingents
*Field Gun photos and video
*British casualties - Officers: A to Z
*War Museum of the Boer Republics. Anglo Boer War Museum (accessed 24 December 2003)
*National UK Archives site
* Online Catalogue entry for The Women's Library: Millicent Fawcett's personal copy of the Fawcett Commission Report, search for RefNo=7mgf/e/1 
*Royal Engineers Museum Royal Engineers in the Anglo-Boer war (Ballooning, Blockhouses, Bridging, Railways, Searchlights, Signals, Steam Transport and Telegraph)
*A Handbook of the Boer War by Gale and Polden, Limited, from Project Gutenberg
*The Record of a Regiment of the Line, by M. Jacson, from Project Gutenberg
*Commando: A Boer Journal of the Boer War (now in the public domain and readable online), by Deneys Reitz, a participant and later deputy prime minister of South Africa
*The Boer War from a Boer Perspective
*British Soldiers who served, were wounded or died
*Soldiers of the Queen - Heritage Resources Saint John
*Australian Light Horse Studies Centre Resources relating to the Australian participation in the Boer War by their mounted troops.
*A Fading Memory: Canada’s First Military Action Article chronicling the Canadian involvement.
*Scottish Regiments Shipping Out to the Boer War 1899-1902
*The Boer War 1899-1902
Wikipedia is not a link farm. I have put these links here so that if they are needed to improve the article the can be moved into inline citions. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: A number of points the Boar highlighted. The Afrikaners noticed that there seemed to be 'something wrong with the British Troops'. Most of the British Soldiers were far smaller than the Boars and less robust. On looking into the problem, interested people in England found that the change over from Butter to margarine and from Wholemeal Bread to cheap white Bread had badly effected the long term health and development of working class people in England. Rossa Luxemberg also noted that the Boar War had transformed England from a Maritime Power into a Land Army power that was a force to be reckoned with. Before the Boar War England was a Naval Power only. Both English Business Interests in the South Africa Region and the Afrikaners were engaged in a war of Propaganda, but it has to be admitted, the Afrikaners won hands down with heart rending Photographs of mothers holding dead babies inside the concentration camps. Boar folklore still talks of the English 'mixing broken glass with the flour the Boar women used for cooking' (unlikely to say the least).Johnwrd (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidental Issues 

message: South Africa did not exist as a political entity until 1910, therefore I think this should be changed to Southern Africa or the Colonies of the Cape and Natal Scottykira  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: The Philippine–American War is listed as an example of prior use of concentration camps, but that war was contemporaneous with the Boer War, so while it's possible that the Americans used them first, it's highly unlikely that their tactics were the motivation for the British. 63.107.91.99 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippine War 

message: It is a shame that the proven facts of the genocide on Afrikaners during the "Scorched Earth" policy and concentration camps have not been formally described and recognised by private individuals and governments in both Britain and South Africa. Refer, amongst ohers, to the reports by Emily Hobhouse, the records of deaths in the concentration camps and graphs of the population growth of Afrikaners between 1880 and 2011.
It is similarly an anomaly that the long informal existence and eventual formalisation by Britain of "apartheid" policies are not correctly described by private individuals and governments.
This anomaly is one of the reasons for the partial failure of reconciliation and reconstruction in South Africa in this regard.
Further detail and related sources can be found at another language version of Wikipedia:
http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespreking:Tweede_Vryheidsoorlog#Onvolledige_hantering_van_feitelike_geskiedenis
196.2.126.176 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete and immoral presentation of proven history 

message: The link to the source:
*
needs to be fixed as it no longer links to the correct place. A Wayback machine archive of it is available.
*
However it was not a very reliable source in the first place. I would suggest replacing it with:
*
--PBS (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockhouses of the Boer War 

message: The article states in many places that the Boers took many British prisoners.  What did they do with them?  Put them in camps, or let them go back home without arms?
There must have been some British prisoners who died as a result of this, especially if they became prisoner during the scorched earth guerilla war part of the war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.156.170 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prisoners were taken during the early part of the war - for example Winston Churchill. During the latter part of the war Reitz (autobiography - "On Commando") makes no mention of prisoners, but does relate how he assisted a wounded British soldier back to British lines under a white flag. Martinvl (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Prisoners 

message: This section is very well written and well laid out. It is clear in its structure and focused. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish subheadings from the rest of the text, but I know that this is difficult as wikipedia does not distinguish text in the lower sub-categories. I found it very helpful how the text was broken into these smaller categories, as it makes the information easy to see and to access. You did a great job at finding relevant information regarding Canada’s involvement, and it really helped to cover various facets of their role in the war. It was also excellent to cover various Canadian people as well as places within the Boer Wars. 
The information in the section is well articulated and insightful. It was very interesting to read on the effect of the war on broader combat styles and the depreciation of certain combat types such as the use of cavalry. Canadian support of the conflict was also an essential issue that was covered very well in the section. Perhaps it could be briefly covered again at the end of the section to go over the feeling in Canada after the war and whether public opinion had changed at all, especially in light of the controversial tactics that were used in the latter stages of the war, such as the concentration camps and the ‘Scorched Earth’ policy. 
The references in the section are extensive and the text is well supported. Overall the article is neutral, well written and thorough. 
Halfpak (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review on The Second Boer War (Section: British Involvement | Canada)  

message: After 4 years this article is still poorly written, poorly sourced and just poor generally. Military history should be banned on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.108.87 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly written

message: The list of armaments that the raiders carried with them in this article conflicted with the list given in the main article on the Jameson Raid, and since that article gave references and this one gave none, I edited this article - I didn't change it to agree exactly with the other article, but just made it vague so there was no conflict.  I have neither of the references cited available to me, but in the one book I do have that covers the subject (Heaven's Command, by James Morris), it gives a different count altogether which was closer to the one previously given in this article, but still not the same - that is why I opted for vagueness.  Alexgriz (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jameson Raid 

message: 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 the 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)
thread_title:  Of course the British are the nice guys! 

message: Would anyone mind if I used the collapsible list structure in the infobox for the minor belligerents (foreign volunteers & empire forces) that has been used in Russian Civil War?
This is what it would look like:
 
Hope this is useful and if anyone would like to change it then feel free, it makes the box look more structured. ChrisWet (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapsible list in infobox