Talk:Maritz rebellion

message: I could not find the full names of  "JCG Kemp" and "Bezuidenhout", perhapse someone else with references can fill them in -- PBS 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kemp and Bezuidenhout

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Is the title of this article correct? It seems academic literature (Giliomee, The Afrikaners)and some newspaper articles refers to the 1914 Rebellion and not the Maritz rebelion. I stumbled on this when looking for the 1914 Rebellion and would not have thought to have looked for it here. Any opinions? ShiningWolf (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article: Maritz Rebellion or 1914 Rebellion? 

message: Currently the article has the old ZAR flag reflected as the rebel banner, but the rebellion had it's own banner, a combination of the flags, some literature describes it somewhat similar to the Union flag. The ZAR flag should thus be removed and replaced with the correct banner? Zarpboer (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rebel Banner

message: Should the name of this rebellion be "The South African Rebellion" or "The Maritz Rebellion" is this a German vs Britain war or the Union or what? Zarpboer (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy close. This is not an issue for an RFC. Page moves come under WP:RM and the policy page is WP:AT. The name of the article is based on WP:COMMONNAME. So, Zarpboer, I suggest that you close this RfC (by removing the template), read WP:AT and then if you think a title change is in order start a WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Close. This is too minor an issue to justify an RfC. Like Zarpboer said, just take it to WP:RM. --Writing Enthusiast ☎ 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Name of this page

message: @Zarpboer I notice you commented in the edit history of this article "removed south africa - there was no country called south africa in 1914" There is no such state as the "United States" or the "United Kingdom" but they are common coin to describe those states. In the same was "South Africa" is the common name of the Union of South Africa-- just as today the South Africa is the common name Republic of South Africa. There is no reason at all not use South Africa in this article to mean Union of South Africa, particularly when most general readers will not know what "The Union" means. Also in the specific edit which I have included here South Africa is being used as a geographic entity, and is similar in nature to Ireland (which can mean either the island of Ireland or the state). After the union of South Africa, South Africa was used both to describe the state and for the country/territory of the state. Ie if one visited South Africa -- just like today--it did not mean a trip to Pretoria and a meeting with a government official. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, talk, the intention was only to improve. The former country, The South African Republic, was also known as Transvaal and South Africa, the Union was known as South Africa and so was the Republic of South Africa as well, but clearly these were not all the same South Africa as not only were the borders different, but, well, everything.Zarpboer (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: The recent rewrite of this entire page by user:Zarpboer is extremely biases against the rebels and contains questionable remarks regarding them. Wikipedia is supposed to be of a neutral encyclopedic nature, the article in its current form does not reflect those principals.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just tagged it as  for this reason. The current version of the article is plainly not written from a neutral point of view, and goes out of its way to portray the rebels as traitors and villains. That might be how they're seen in modern South Africa, but statements like 'Ultimately the behaviour and actions of Maritz were those of a traitor to the South African nation' and 'nothing is quite equal to the betrayal of the boers under his command' are opinions rather than facts and don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Robofish (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it to the previous version.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maritz rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518201324/http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html to http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maritz rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924101456/http://www.anc.org.za/books/ to http://www.anc.org.za/books/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I dont know how it did  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.26.153.92 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How it impacted the war