Talk:Boer republics

[Untitled]

Copied from previous discussion at Boer states:

The information submitted herein is POV, and has been flagged for a complete re-write or similar. If you have a NPOV stance on this topic, please nominate yourself to re-write this article, or collaborate at my Talk page for further information

Ssteedman 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If article is in your opinion not NPOV, you should make it NPOV instead of just deleting large chunks of information. E.g. if you disagree with the portion about IQ, you can remove it or further neutralise it (although it is sourced). But such things as first and second Boer wars, the Great Trek which led into estabilishing Boer states, etc. are facts and facts should not be deleted. Alcatel 10:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite pending neutrality factor

Agreed, regarding deletion of text vs. rewriting of text re: comment posted in my User:Talk. Would it not help, perhaps, to (for the time being), substitute acknowledged defamatory remarks (for example, kaffir) with less incindiary ones (such as "black people")? This way your article is less caustic but still gets its message across. The other problem is that of racial stereotyping. By posting such messages about kaffirs and the like, only serves to fuel the stereotype that all white South Africans are racists and proponents in Apartheid, which is not always the case, but certainly harms our international reputation when international visitors (who are, by and large, biased in favour of black people) stumble across your text. In the spirit of Wiki, and indeed that of South African reconciliation, may I propose that I modify your text to be less caustic, or at best, for you to re-word it to a more neutral point-of-view? A good example would be the I.Q factor; whilst supplemented text you provided does indeed point to the theory that black people hold a lower I.Q, the book itself is heavily biased. It is important to consider the source of one's facts in order to maintain neutrality. (Similar examples would be the use of Hitler's Mein Kampf to back up Hitler's domestic policies against Jews and the ensuing Holocaust; whilst the text provided (Mein Kampf) does justify the means (Holocaust), the text itself is biased, and therefore any article based on this is, ipso facto, biased and non-neutral.)

Best regards,

Ssteedman 15:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC), Roodepoort

Word "kaffir" originally means just a black of South Africa, only later it became more derogatory, but ok, I will use it less. I don't think scientific studies and such can be compered to personal viewpoint works like Mein Kampf. But ok, I will try to do it somehow more neutrally. Alcatel 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have extensively rewritten the article, fixing a LOT of spelling and grammatical errors and broken redlinks. I've also removed the offensive language and POV points, and thus removed the NPOV notice. Also, please don't place the NPOV notice on talk pages, they are meant for the article space only in order to place them in Category:POV disputes for cleanup editors to take a look at. Zunaid 14:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, as I understand it 'kaffir' was originally used by the Arabs towards all non-Arabs (or non-Muslim) to mean "Infidel" (or rather, as with the Jews, kaffir could be seen as a word like 'Gentiles' or, non-Jews) and so that is the history behind the word. Kaffir now has a bad connotation, but it really just means 'non-Muslim,' which most black South Africans would have no problem with, but that doesn't mean should use kaffir. Invmog (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move

I am moving the article to the more widely used term Boer republics. Elf-friend 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Novel by Joe Buff & its erroneous assertion of a Boer Empire.

I have a significant problem with the assertion that the Boers ever had an empire since the history of the Boers notes that the republican outlook & clan based culture of the Boers prevented them from becoming an empire as they only wanted to govern themselves free from Colonialism & established numerous republics which are by their very definition not empires & were even just minimalist republics at that. Furthermore the trend towards establishing republics was a slow one as the various Boer Republics only came about after Colonial incursions against the Boer communities of the frontier. The novelist is perhaps confusing the pastoral Boers with the Cape Dutch -who later emerged as Afrikaners- who were neo Colonial in outlook (in sharp contrast to the anti- Colonial frontier Boers) & did have an empire of sorts during the 20th cent when this particular group inherited the macro state of South Africa the British created with the South Africa Act of 1909 which was transfered to other later emerging Constitutions.

Ron7 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations and Further changes

Still adding citations from the academically accepted Canadian, Theale. Have already added Fairbridge and Eybers. I want to add an infobox can anyone help with that? Otherwise I will do it as I get time. Also still to come - adding media, maps and other information Zarpboer (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boer Republics. 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/20030210123723/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=CraBoer&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=CraBoer&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Attribution: Republic of Swellendam

Attribution: Part of Republic of Swellendam copied from Swellendam on the 29th of April 2019.Bhistory 07:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boershistory (talk • contribs)

Alright I changed it up a bit- but the entire original sentence bothers me. The words it used came across as bias to me so I would have changed it anyway. Flalf (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You made a proper improvement thanks! BHistory (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

The map used on this page is unprofessional, and to be blunt, ugly. I believe we should redo it. Flalf (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if the map could be improved. BHistory (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Attribution: Goshen and Stellaland

Attribution: Part of Goshen and newly added Stellaland copied from Stellaland on the 4th of February 2020. BHistory (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, they are a little shorter now but I fixed the problem. Flalf (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I also added some context BHistory (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks better! Thanks again. Flalf (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)