Talk:Boer Wars

message: I have changed the name from 'United Kingdom' to 'British Empire' because the UK did not exist at that time. Great Britain did and so did the B ritish Empire (the one I chose to use), these are correct for this time period. The UK is not. The name 'The UK of GB and Ireland' was created after this event. Also many of the statements are assertions and I have gone through where citations need to be made. These assertions should be removed after a certain time if not cited.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.197 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All completely and utterly wrong, well done. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1801 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 onwards, and since the UKGBI was still in existance, I don't see what the problem is.
Also the 'British Empire' is just a term applied to regions controlled by Kingdom of Great Britain, or the United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of Page

message: I have removed the , I believe this is an article discussing the usage of "Boer War", discuss before you reinstate the disambigaution notice.--Commander Keane 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig removed

message: Why don't we just immediately redirect from this page to Boer Wars?  dewet|™ 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immediate redirect? 

message: because their are two wars to choose from, some people may not be aware of that.  Plus it gives a synopsis which is useful for ppl who want a quick idea.
Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you. IntinnTalk! 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  awnser to why not re-direct 

message: Hello my name is Willem Havenga. I am seeking out possible link partners that
our visitors would be interesting in visiting. I've found your website to be a
very good fit for our visitors. I have already gone ahead and added your link
to our website at:
I am contacting you to see if it is ok to have done so. Also, I would like to ask
if you mind linking back to us? If so, please use the linking details below and
send me the location of our link on your website.
Here is our linking details: Title: Boer  the boer war was also a very terrible war during the 1899through the 2001
r War URL: http://www.gunnersecrets.co.za
We've got several PR6 and 7 websites, so we expect this site to become
at least a PR5 within 1 month and will eventually become a 6 or 7 in 2-3
months.
I hope this can be a way for us to benefit our visitors with excellent content.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Willem Havenga
www.gunnersecrets.co.za
--Willieh 09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't do link partnership at all. See WP:NPOV, and there are other concerns. A good website might show up in our external links or references regardless though. -- Sverdrup (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boer War Link Requested 

message: Changed the summary line at the end of the disambiguation page. 
Not only was it a gross oversimplification and the claim debateable, but the manner in which it was put was slanted and not academically-phrased at all.  
Whilst it is true that the Boer war was partly won through the use of superior numbers, the brutal tactics adopted by Kitchener made a far more significant contribution - The guerilla-warfare tactics used by the Boer farmers neutralised the benefits of greater manpower for the British. To claim that "Superior numbers" was the sole reason for the British victory is not only an over-simplification, but quite wrong. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.175.13 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary changed. 

message: In the section First Boer War we get this:
The First Boer War (1880–1881), also known as the "Transvaal War," was a relatively brief and small-scale conflict in which Boer settlers successfully revolted against a British attempt to annex the Transvaal, and re-established an independent republic. They also came from India.
Who came from India?
There seems to be a fair amount of Indian related content is the boer war articles in general, eg, cf article on first boer war that has a seemingly meaningless line about nepal/india tucked between sentences covering bechuanaland and basutoland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.228.2 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  India? 

message: "The Second Boer War was an inevitable solution to the question of who was to control Southern Africa - the British or the Boers?" -- This is POV/OR. Please rephrase and/or cite before restoring to article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV/OR

message: According to the Wikipedia page List of concentration and internment camps, "a report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boer (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the camps. "
Should this not be briefly inserted into the article? I'd go ahead and do it without question but I'd rather be safe and post it here first to hear any comments on the subject before I change anything. Invmog (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd look for the source of this data, as currently it's unsourced and as such in doubt. feydey (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case, what useful purpose would be served by quoting such statistics?  This is Wikipedia not a sunday tabloid newspaperMiletus (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well if those numbers are true then they are historical records that have an important and real connection to this historical event; therefore there is every reason for them to be here. OzoneO (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Concentration Camps: Should We Add Death Totals?

message: The bullet about Arthur Conan Doyle in the Biographical articles section says that he became a fiction writer after the (presumably second) war, which is incorrect. He had written fiction long before, including the first Sherlock Holmes story in 1887. I'm going to modify that bullet to correct the misinformation.--Jim10701 (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation about Arthur Conan Doyle 

message: Many of the sentences in this article are needless or, at the very least, should be added on to other sentences as they cannot stand alone. Many sentences also are not informative, merely generalizations.
For example: The Boer War lasted three years and it was very bloody. 
This article sounds like a high schooler wrote it. I recommend a complete rewrite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.32.185 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that I propose that the first step is to remove any sentence that is not backed up with a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly written. 

message: Were all of the supposed dutch who were rounded up in concentration camps actually jews?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No.
ChrisPer (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch jews in boer war concentration camps? 

message: They're from the PBS documentary of the British Empire
The last episode of the miniseries. I'm not sure how to cite from TV. Does anyone have to get a transcript?
http://www.pbs.org/empires/victoria/empire/rhodes.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.71.220 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About some of the Citations 

message: I stand by my points:
the Great Trek was by Boers leaving the Cape Colony to avoid British rule, with inequities such as the abolition of slavery, the imposition of the English language, the granting of jury rights to Coloureds, and allowing Coloureds to arrest white men. Read Piet Retief's Manifesto.
To deny that the majority of population of the Boer states was black African sounds like an apartheid argument: they were not citizens so therefore they did not exist.
With regard to international recognition of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, just because a self-governing state received a 
representative of another state, that does not amount to recognition of independence. For example, to take a 20th century example Rhodesia had a number of foreign consuls, at least up to 1970. this does not mean that any country official recognized Rhodesia as an independent state. Rhodesia also had a limited number of overseas representative as a self-governing colony in South Africa, Mozambique and Portugal
While the meaning of "suzerainty" in the 1852 Sand River Convention and 1884 London Convention was debated and never clearly defined, Britain restricted the right of the Transvaal's relations with European powers. 
10:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled

message: It is deprecated, indeed bad manners, to refer to a war with reference to only one side.  Any historian worth tuppence would say "Anglo-Boer" or "British-Boer" or "Boer-British" war (the first and last examples being in alphabetical order). 
The implication of "the Boer war" is "the war we made against the Boers."  We?  It pre-supposes a nationalistic point of view that has no place in any encyclopaedia, not even this one. 
To put my point into perspective: what could "the French war" possibly mean, and who could blame any Frenchman for being annoyed by such a label?  Who waged "the Russian war?"  So why is this form acceptable when used in reference to a small nation?
~~Percy William Jr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.0.218 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A matter of protocol

message: For how this became a redirect see the discussion at Talk:Boer War#Redirect. -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect