Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:15, 5 September 2014

	Former countries (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Strange sequence of events

"In 1877, after the 1886 Witwatersrand_Gold_Rush, Britain annexed the Transvaal." This seems very unlogical, unless a time machine was involved. However I do not know what was meant or whether the Witwatersrand Gold Rush should be mentioned elsewhere, and I do not wish to delete it altogether, as it may be important. I am not sufficiently familiar with this episode of history, so I hope someone else can look at it. Tom 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: The article needs to clarify that there were two mineral rushes to the Trans-Orange interior -- the first was the diamond rush to the Kimberley area in the mid 1860s; the second was the gold rush to the Witwatersrand. Arguably, the first annexation of the Transvaal was related to a broader effort by the British to get control of the diamond producing areas and their hinterland, which effort also involved displacing the mixed race chiefdom of the Griqua/Bastaards. This needs a little more elaboration.

Fixed the facts - added citations, links and sources Zarpboer (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

172.132.7.14 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)HamdenRice

Afrikaner/Boer to Boer

I changed "Afrikaner/Boer ruled" to delete "Afrikaner" as this was inaccurate or at least anachronistic. The people were not known as Afrikaners at the time, and neither did they describe themselves as such. Booshank (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Afrikaners and Boers are two different things - Please see my citations and references - In history the Afrikaner rewrote this - But it does not change the documentation, books and sources of which there are many... Zarpboer (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

CoA image

Probably better coat of arms image: File:Ströhl-HA-LI-Fig. 16.png -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Transvaal

Surely this should be used as the more common name in line with WP:NC? I've not yet read a book that describes it as anything other than the Transvaal. The first thing I think of with the current title is the Republic of South Africa. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is referred to in most history books as Zuid-Afrikaansche Republic which, according to myself, would be better translated to the English equivalence of the name in an English encyclopaedia. — Adriaan (T★C) 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts are that it is not. - Please read my citations and check my sources, thank you kindly :) Zarpboer (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a check on appearances in Australian newspapers printed between 1860 and 1902. The exact phrase "South African Republic" appears 7716 times and the exact phrase "Transvaal Republic" appears 4584 times. So, as between those two specific phrases, "South African Republic" is a majority, but not overwhelmingly so. Variations of Zuid Afrika appear about six times.

However, the word "Transvaal" appears 172,522 times. This word refers to nothing else and nowhere else in the world, other than the region of south africa. It is hard to come to any other conclusion that the contemporaneous common English name of this country was "Transvaal" or "the Transvaal".Lathamibird (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the actual constitution and links to the actual docs Lathamibird the country was South African Republic - this period of my countries history has been re-written and there is much confusion... You can please check my citations and US library of congress sources and let me know where we need more? Zarpboer (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the actual constitution say "South African Republic" ? I would think it says that in Dutch.... In any case, not particularly relevant to what the English name of the country was. The Russian constitution can spell the name of Russia in Cyrillic however they like, it is still going to be called Russia in English.Lathamibird (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - Lathamibird neglected to add - the transvaal republic existed for many decades.... your searches are picking up that transvaal... and has nothing to do with the actual facts :) Zarpboer (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent your comments on Misplaced Pages talk pages correctly. Countries are listed in English[REDACTED] under the English common name. So, for example, the country Uruguay is listed under Uruguay, and not "The Oriental Republic of Uruguay" and not "República Oriental del Uruguay".

The Constitution of the "South African Republic" was written in Dutch, was it not, and I would not dispute that the official name of the country in the Dutch language was Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek. The issue here though, is what this historical country was and/or is called, in English. It is refered to in English sources, almost nowhere, as the Zuik-Afrikaanse Republiek. Certainly not in any English language sources originating outside of South Africa.

The english-language newspapers in Australia mention "Transvaal" 172 thousand times between 1860 and 1902, they mention the exact phrase "Transvaal Republic" 4584 times and "South African Republic" 7716 and any variation starting with "Zuid.." about 6 times. This is more useful and relevant than the Google searches often used, because the search can be limited to specific ranges of newspaper publication dates, in this case between 1860 and 1902 (more than 4 decades), which is the period contemporary to the existence of this republic.

The english-language common name of this country during the period of its existence, and subsequently, was "Transvaal" or, very often, "the Transvaal".Lathamibird (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lathamibird The simple facts are that the english version of this country was the South African Republic. All treaties signed, constitution, documentation etc. all say the dutch version of South African Republic. the English did call it Transvaal and in fact the British government changed their position in this regard and accepted South African Republic, please see my citations as well as look at the signed documentation. If the English language newspapers misreported the truth, that hardly now makes it the truth or a fact? Merely that is was incorrectly reported in newspapers - that happens all the time. If your name is reported as Sam, but in fact your name is John, just by reporting it in the paper as Sam does not mean your name has now changed :) Zarpboer (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Languages

The languages in the info box were incorrect (1 wrong and 10 missing). I'm correcting that and adding a languages section.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

reverted. Wrong article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is correct! Teach me to edit at this early of a morning! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Boer ethymology .

In Swedish words: Bo and Bor means: to live, to inhabit. I think the word boer originated from some of Netherlands dialects and could be ethymologically connected. Originally Frisia spoke on the language ,related to Anlo-Saxon and Low Saxon . After Frankish conquest the language was changed to Middle-German or Frankonian. Edelward (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Boer - it is the Dutch word for "farmer". (I edited you post slightly to improve readability; never start a a line with a space.) Roger (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Facts and topics in this Article not related to South African Republic 1852 - 1902

Fixed this article. It was not about the South African Republic but about lots of other things and contained lots of fiction and confusion... Added multiple citations and references, I will add more as directed - Please add citation required where you think it is needed? :) Added links to the US Library of Congress as well as printed books from 1899 to 1972 This was a lot of work... - please discuss before just reverting - as this article is now improved and about what it is supposed to be about... :) thank you :) Zarpboer (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally and for the record: The WikiSource https://en.wikisource.org/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Transvaal is also wrong about the content of the London Convention signed in 1884. All you have to do to verify is to simply look and read the convention. I can only believe that the scholars or academics that produced this encyclopedia Britannica entry, in 1911, would have had to know that what they were writing was the truth, with some fiction mixed in as the terms of the 1881 convention was added to that of the later 1884 london convention, with regards the rights of foreign policy control (held by the queen in 1881) and the rights of foreigners to freely settle in ZAR (1881) - these rights in fact changed in 1884 and the Queen had no longer any say over the foreign policy or immigration policy of the ZAR. History may be written by the victor, but the victor had better remember to destroy the documentation and all records... :) Zarpboer (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

South African Republic (1914–1915)

User:Dl2000 There was no Internationally recognised country called the South African Republic between 1914 and 1915. There were people who claimed such a country, but it was not recognised by any other country, This means that factually it was not a country. This article is the wrong place for a link anyway - this country existed between 1852 and 1902 -- this is before 1914 anyway. Zarpboer (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable point - I'll remove the Maritz rebellion link from the hatnote for now, but will at least replace it with a hatnote to South Africa (disambiguation) to cover the various possibilities for someone searching for one of the possibilities covered by the phrase "South African Republic". Dl2000 (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not place a link under See Also? Dl2000- that would be a great place and if I was reading up about it I would most definately click there? :) Zarpboer (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Work Done on this page

Please Lightlowemon I have put many hours into improving this page. Please if you consider any contribution as an opinion, please either check my sources or edit that which you do not agree with. Please do not simply revert his page back to the old version, with no citations, no references and very wrong facts. Zarpboer (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at South African Republic, you may be blocked from editing. Please back away from this article - your edits are very one-sided. Don't spoil the good work you've done at Transvaal Colony by skewing this article towards your personal opinion of "true history". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) I am adding facts and I am adding sources and citations. The facts that I am adding is neutral? These are things that have happened and are recorded. There exists documents and references for my additions? - If you do not agree - do not simply delete entire paragraphs that took hours to produce, rather add your own citations and edit where it is wrong and discuss what you consider neutral and what not?

or ask for an acceptable citation or reference? This is the right thing to do? Zarpboer (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spaced out the above for readability, why am I tagged in this? All I did was fix some lagging spaces and expanded a citation tag with AutoWikiBrowser? --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightlowemon and Roger (Dodger67) I do understand neutrality, but this is history. All that I have added, I have added citations for. All these things have already happened, they cannot be changed, one can maybe write from a different perspective - but you still have to deal with the event itself. For example - The Boer War happened. It started on a certain date and ended on a certain date. Where people do not agree about the dates or any other facts, one can look to sources. There is no neutrality or compromise, etc. required. Only facts? Where the facts are in dispute - please correct those facts, add your sources, add your citations? - Deleting entire sections is simply not nice and definately not the way to build something accurate (and neutral) ? Zarpboer (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) When you removed the Anglo Boer war you said: remove political rant - this is not relevant to this article --- Political rant would have not been what there is written now, but the further truth: Britain could not win the Anglo Boer War. Only by capturing the boer women and children and keeping them in concentration camps where they were dying like flies, did the British get the Boers to give up and did they "win" the war... This is the truth of it - not speculation, opinion or political rant? Political rant against whom? Everyone involved is dead, it is over a hundred years ago... Are you British? or an Afrikaner? do you feel guilty about what your forefathers did? Don't worry about it so much. there were worse things in history, like Hitler and lots more examples. Never be scared of the truth and the facts - it is what it is... - Does this help you? Zarpboer (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Tried checking if my additions are NPOV, thing is that this is a historic article - so facts could be in dispute? - For example the amount and number of babies, children and women that died in the british concentration camps. But not the fact that there even were concentration camps. Checked my sources again, seems the number of women and children is in dispute... I did use the lower number, the previous edit though removed the entire Second Boer War... and as politcal diatribe... Hmm, okay - Please please let us discuss any POV here before simply removing large chunks and multiple paragraphs, for no reason other than, you can so you did? :) Zarpboer (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I did my research regarding the ZAR from family diaries, publications from that time (pre 1905) and from neutral sources, like example the Canadian George_McCall_Theal and from listening to stories told from father to father to father to father. We have been in the ZAR area since 1819 and I guess I have a POV that may differ from that of many others and I may have additional facts, not only opinion :) -- Where relevant my POV is backed up by documentation, solid references, proper dates, copies of conventions, constitutions etc. I am very open minded and love learning about new facts, even considering extremely different point of views, like currently on the[REDACTED] Second Boer War page: that it is "the fault of the boers that women and children died in concentration camps because the boers attacked the supply trains" The nice thing about POV and history is that one can look at the event or events more clearly and in much more detail to form a more (or less) informed view. So, if you change or edit something which may be controversial (pro British, Pro Afrikaner, Pro Boer or Pro Other Tribe), please add a citation so we can all learn from you :) At the end of it all this is a collective effort :) Zarpboer (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

cleaned up talk page Zarpboer (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zarpboer: It looks to me like you have removed conversations with other editors which contravenes WP:TPG. Please provide a better explanation in line with the guideline or restore the deleted edits, or someone else will revert your "clean up". HelenOnline 08:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: Please help me by checking what i removed - for example discussion around the name transvaal - (i have actually added a section transvaal in the article that explains all the confusion - with citations) if any of the discussion that i removed, in your opinion, is relevant or required, important or adds to knowledge and not simply space and confusion, please will you undo my edit? - my intentions are pure, not subversive, i simply want to make it easy for other editors to also use the talk page - is there another way of archiving topics on chat? please help me :) Zarpboer (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You may not remove conversations with other editors period. I will undo your edits but shouldn't have to clean up after you. Archiving is possible but I don't think it is necessary or appropriate given the radical recent changes. HelenOnline 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:TPG before making any further talk page edits. You will not be able to claim ignorance of the rules again. HelenOnline 08:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have left in edits to your own comments where there has not been a reply yet. If you wish to retract or amend something after there has been a reply, please strikethrough your comments using the <s></s> markup code. HelenOnline 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline:regarding the radical changes - this article had 0 citations. Zero references, nada, nothing and contained fiction. I simply added content with citations, removed fiction. This is an historic article and POV is only relevant where facts are interpreted (of which there are - also with citations), not where facts are stated with citations, like dates, agreements, constitutions, laws, agreements, etc. I have added links to the original documentation and where relevant added names of the officials that signed on behalf of the Queen of Britain, etc. - Thank you very much for cleaning up my mess on the talk page - If I realised it was not allowed, I would have undone it myself and cleaned my own mess. (and thanks for the strikethrough tip) Zarpboer (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at your edits because my editing capacity is limited unfortunately, but if and when I or anyone else wants to read or edit the article they should be able to easily see recent discussions relating to radical changes. Whatever you write on Misplaced Pages is public and kept forever whether it is archived or not so think carefully before you write. HelenOnline 08:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, I've reverted quite many of your edits. I'd really recommend you to read Misplaced Pages's guidelines for articles before making drastic edits. In at least ten places, you wrote about "the Dutch language republic.". First of all, we don't repeat wikilinks. Once the Dutch language has been linked to once, we don't link to it again in the same article. Second, your edit seems to want to make a WP:POINT. The language of the republic was Dutch. That's said in the infobox. Repeating it over and over again only serves to make the article tedious for readers. If you read the article about the Netherlands, it's not called a "Dutch language country" in ever section. Not even once, nor are any other countries labelled in that way.Jeppiz (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You cannot simply revert the article and enforce your NPOV. The article you are restoring to has 0 sources and 0 citations. If you continue I will have to declare a dispute.

@Jeppiz: You have undid my language edits and the 1885 dates now precede the legislation dates of 1888. Are you now going to fix this? Or what are you trying to do? -- your edit makes no sense now, can you please explain it in terms of the dates of the citations?

Contrary to what you say, I both can and must enforce WP:NPOV as well as I can. That goes for all users. There is no such thing as my version of this article. I merely restored the article to how it looked before you started your extensive WP:POV campaign a few days ago.Jeppiz (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:

this is an historic article Jeppiz- The events already occurred. The events have a date, place dome have documentation, signed agreements, or laws. You removed or edited out my references and citations and you reverted to an incorrect version, where I was still editing. In effect, the sections you edited, now makes no sense. The date of 1885 is before 1888 and the date 1896 is after 1888. This is not my opinion, it simply is the way time works... Please fix it? - and if you think I have overused the term "dutch language" then, please remove just "dutch language" and not everything? Zarpboer (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Language and Culture Section

JeppizEdited this section and the dates now make no sense...I did fix this and I did add citations for what I added. Please will can explain your edits @Jeppiz: I do understand that I overused the language links, it is just that the history is confusing, so understanding that the language was Dutch and not english or afrikaans makes some stuff easier to understand... I have no problem with you removing some of the dutch language references, I only added them to illuminate some of the events. As most of this section of history was about language and laws pohibiting the one language or the other, the languages at various stages do well become relevant. What is your point of view? Zarpboer (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the order changed by Jeppiz - I have removed the additional link to Dutch Language - that was apparently the problem with my contribution. Please do not just revert to any of my earlier versions (I am the one that created this heading in the article) Just change the word or words or sentence or whatever you do not agree with... Simply reverting to old versions blindly does not help to improve the article? Zarpboer (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Faced with massive policy violations of this scale, restoring the last version before the POV-drive started is the least bad option.Jeppiz (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the actual content? You and some other editors are simply hitting the undo button, without giving any consideration to the actual content. We all have POV. Whether that POV is NPOV or not, that is the question Jeppiz and your edits sofar has been NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarpboer (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert to old version

So, Dodger67 you are also not concerned about quality or the truth of something and you believe that by reverting to this version, you have improved the quality of wikipedia? Zarpboer (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As several other editors have reverted your edits, I would suggest you discuss any further changes here. The only place edit warring will get you is blocked regardless of the content of your edits. HelenOnline 12:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz & Dodger67 & Mean_as_custard & HelenOnline - You are teaching me that Misplaced Pages works like a gang, You all do not care much to discuss anything, and you simply continue to revert whatever I add or contribute. Maybe your interests are more devious, either way nothing that all of you are doing is NPOV. At all. heck, you do not even discuss anything, simply revert or delete and complain that whatever I add is my own point of view.

it is clear to any objective person that the page is completely not about the "South African Republic" in fact it is a NPOV view about settlers, and many events that occured long before the South African Republic even existed. Furthermore, it is a NPOV view of the Afrikaner Nationalists, that continues to refer to the country as Transvaal, with no explanation of how that is or how it happened to be like that. The additions I did, was about the South African Republic and contained proper citations, to the actual constitution and proclamations. You are all acting like a gang and you should be ashamed of how you are behaving. The truth is that you probably do not care, maybe you are still kids, maybe you are agents of Governments or maybe you have hidden agendas. Even when I ask or request citations, you are undoing my request for citations? At least when I improved the quality of the page, I did add a lot of good citations.

And none of you have the decency to discuss the content here in the talk page, you simply hit undo. Not Nice. Zarpboer (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Even Citation Required edits are undone? Really? and also my Under Construction is removed? A page with fake citation and so many factual errors that a 12 year old child with google can figure out that they can learn NOTHING from this page? And my edits, with 41 citations are simply destroyed? (or are you planning to simply copy my work sometime in the future and add it as your own? - Devious these Misplaced Pages editors are...- I better google if I am allowed to use colors in talk page? Yes, they will make it about something I do or did and not about their own gang behavior :( Zarpboer (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would stop the rhetoric and start to listen, we would avoid much of this. You yourself say you are new to Misplaced Pages. Four experienced users try to explain the rules to you, but you refuse to listen. Yes, we restore the old version. The old version, while not good, is still less bad than your heavily POV version, and we all agree on that. It would take a very long time to go through every single edit and decide what could actually be of some value and what is just POV-pushing. So faced with the option of restoring a stable version or going with a heavily unencyclopedic POV-version, all of us appear to prefer the former. Many users have tried to get you to work constructively, within the rules of Misplaced Pages, but you have refused to do so. I would also recommend you to read WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All of you keep on saying the same thing. That my work is heavily my POV and you are saying that the present page is better than my heavily POV version. Yet, NONE of you are telling me any specifics. I am giving you specifics - See my work. 1. The name of the country is not transvaal. not my POV - simple FACT.

2. The present article is not about the page name. It is about settlers, and a whole bunch of things that happened outside the dates and range of South African Republic 3. I have added citations for, what you are saying, is my POV - so, if anyone objects - spend the time, make the effort and look at the citations and material. You say you are editors? Are you editors, dictators, policemen or reasonable people?

Who you are now, and how it looks to me, is simply that you are all saying that irrespective of the facts, irrespective of whatever I add, it is all wrong, and for no specific reason, just becauase you say so. Zarpboer (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class South Africa articles
• Top-importance South Africa articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles