Talk:First Boer War

message: The text in this article was copied from the Boer War article, before that article was moved to the Second Boer War where the text in this article was removed. So if you wish to see edits to this article before today please see the history of the Second Boer War Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: In the article it says that the British soldiers wore red and blue.  Is this correct?  I thought that by this point the British were wearing khaki.  TreeWithAChainsaw (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: During the First Boer War (1880-1881), the British wore either red or blue uniforms. Only in the Second Boer War (1899-1902) did the British start wearing the khaki uniform. Fidodog14 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Dress? 

message: This page has some serious blocks of text.  Break 'em up.  Makes it hard to read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.240.5 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Removed the reference to the Second Boer War as "an attempt to annex the Transvaal and Orange Free State Republics" (paraphrasing), as this is clearly disingenuous, due to the fact the Second Boer War was nothing of the sort.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.163.132 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: This article slants heavily British POV and then heavily Boer POV, it is not NPOV, all around and is of very low quality. 
===The 1877 Annexation===
The opening paragraph gives a general overview of the British intent, without balancing the POV with any discussion about the legitimacy of the ZAR state. Then it mentions the 1886 Gold rush in Transvaal. In an encyclopedic quality NEUTRAL point of view article one would not refer to future events to describe something that is or has happened in the past. Again, clear indication of a very unbalanced article. This page needs a lot of work. It has been requiring citations since 2009. Anyway, my edits were reversed by an editor with the same usual reverence and respectful explanation as received on other pages from the same editor: POV. Not nice, not WP:CIVIL and not explaining why, in his POV, my edits are POV. Certainly the page is not WP:NPOV and certainly this type of editing is not very productive.
I can go on, but seriously, this needs a complete re-write, so should probably start with the 1877 annexation. Please explain your POV User:Mean_as_custard in order for us to work together to improve the quality and neutrality of this page. Then, was this last edit vandalism? The words are not yet completed? Zarpboer (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The opening paragraph gives a general overview of the British intent, without balancing the POV with any discussion about the legitimacy of the ZAR state. Then it mentions the 1886 Gold rush in Transvaal. In an encyclopedic quality NEUTRAL point of view article one would not refer to future events to describe something that is or has happened in the past. Again, clear indication of a very unbalanced article. This page needs a lot of work. It has been requiring citations since 2009. Anyway, my edits were reversed by an editor with the same usual reverence and respectful explanation as received on other pages from the same editor: POV. Not nice, not WP:CIVIL and not explaining why, in his POV, my edits are POV. Certainly the page is not WP:NPOV and certainly this type of editing is not very productive.
I can go on, but seriously, this needs a complete re-write, so should probably start with the 1877 annexation. Please explain your POV User:Mean_as_custard in order for us to work together to improve the quality and neutrality of this page. Then, was this last edit vandalism? The words are not yet completed? Zarpboer (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1877 Annexation

message: The article title Boer War is a redirct. Yesterday I altered to redirect from Boer Wars (which is currently a very poor article) to redirect to Second Boer War (see  hist) and added a hatnote to  Second Boer War (see here. 
I explain my reasoning on Talk:Boer War#Redirect. The changes have been reverted with an explanation in the same section. Clearly more editor input there would help decide whether or not the change is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article its in the crosshairs of Pro-British Empire nostalgics and some Extreme Pro Boer editors. Checking out neutrality. Also someone omited to include it on the Scramble for Afrika template. Fixed.  Mr.User200 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boer War 

message: The section about the Zulu War is a long digression from what should be the article's main focus, the 1881 Anglo-Boer war. Mention of the Zulu War and whatever effect it had on the Transvaal conflict could be simply folded into the "Background" section.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there have been no objections, I have removed the section about the Zulu War.TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zulu War section could be removed 

message: This is the plural in the old spelling of Dutch, which hasn't been used in South Africa for a century. The Dutch singular was 'laager', and since 1948 it has been 'lager'. In Afrikaans it's 'laer'. I'd change this myself, but it's a link, and I'm afraid to damage it.213.127.210.95 (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "laagers" 

message: The numbers of men involved in the action are different in this section vs. the main article ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action at Bronkhorstspruit 

message: The article omits the real reason for the original annexation. The Boers requested that the ZAR be annexed by Britain in order to provide protection for the Boers against an imminent Zulu invasion. The Zulus would not invade a British protectorate. The annexation was read out by the author Rider Haggard who was accompanied by a small party. It was never a military  conquest and could easily have been resisted by the Boers but it was not resisted because the Boers had requested the annexation. The subsequent “rebellion” and “war” needs to be seen against this background. The Boer attack on the British was a despicable betrayal of the protection which the British had provided to the Boers in their time of need. I refer you to the South African historian and author Chris Ash. His books Kruger, kommandos and Kak, and Kruger’s War. 120.18.69.163 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Boer war 

message: The weapons should not have such a place in an article about a war it feels like its forced in and does not feel natural space would be better spent on specific battles so we could see specifically how the Boers Commandos worked in real combat Boby123321 (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the part about Boer rifles