Talk:Second Boer War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tory defeat of 1906

It it really correct that the war cost the Conservatives the election of 1906? Most sources I've seen blame the defeat on the protectionist policies of the government, not events in South Africa --Mmartins 12:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. - Johnbull 00:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When did the Second Boer War break out ?

The article has Oct. 11th, 1899 as the start date in the intro, but Oct.12th in the section about the Second Boer War. Rather confusing.... -- PFHLai 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Infringment

The section on Australian involvement appears to have been lifted almost verbatim from the [Australian War Memorial] website. There is a link to the site but that still does not excuse this. Zarboki 06:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not really rewite in in 13 minutes, I had an edit clash with Thivierr! I hope the rewrite is sufficient. If not then please make any further changes which you think are needed. Philip Baird Shearer 10:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't recall doing the original copyvio, the edit history makes plain it was my fault, so I'm sorry (I'm sure I intended to make a reworded version, not a straight copy). Philip, you did a great job of the rewrite, thanks (and sorry about the edit conflict as well). --rob 10:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Two articles

I think that here is enough information on the two wars to justify two articles. I would like to move this page to the Second Boer War (SBW) and then copy information relevent to both wars into First Boer War(FBW) and move any FBW specific informaiton into the FBW page. This page (Boer War) could either stay a redirect to the larger war (SBW) or be edited to become a disambiguation page. The reason moving this article to SBW is preserve the history of the edits in the larger article to which most of the edits apply. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be done. I would support making this a disambig page, since there's no quick way to tell which of the backlinks refers to which war (although I assume the large majority do refer to SBW, it would be a slow process to veryify them). --rob 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Other langages still have one article for the boer wars. This article won't be splitted in all langages —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mistabob (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

infobox

I made it using the names/numbers from this page. I'm not sure if using South Africa as the location would be as accurate as possible, but that seems to be the precedent for most military articles. Ekrub-ntyh 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How about including in the combatants in the Infobox “South Africa”? Strictly speaking it should be Cape Colony & Natal, & they were half-hearted supporters of Milner, but where else would the “irregular regiments” eg the Bushveldt Carbineers, Natal Carbineers, Imperial Light Horse etc which are included under South Africa Military Units/Army be included? I have a list of them to include somewhere, from the Times History I think. Hugo999 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To be even more strict, it should be the British Empire vs the Transvaal and OFS. A detailed breakdown of forces composition is certainly necessary within the article, but not in the constricted space available within the infobox. Furthermore the addition of the Dutch navy seems to be not a little bizzare. They played no part in the conflict (although there were certainly Dutch citizens fighting with the Transvaal/OFS (in much the same way as Germans, Russians, etc did)), I suggest that they really don't belong with the combatants.

Xdamr^talk 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now the “British Empire” just links to a general page about the history of the Empire; whereas it needs a page about the forces in the war (including the irregular units I still have to fit in somewhere!). And there should be a Siege of Kimberley page (linked from the Infobox) to go with those for Ladysmith & Mafeking. Hugo999 06:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any problem with you putting in a 'Composition of forces' section within the article. I think that its pretty standard practice for the 'Combatants' infobox entry to link to the article for the countries involved, not specifically to a page about that country in the war.

Xdamr^talk 12:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The irregular forces need a separate page rather than filling up the main article with two or three pages of names! How about ‘’South African irregular forces’’ ? Largely from the Cape Colony, but some from Natal, Southern Rhodesia Otherwise could be called ‘’Boer War irregular forces’’

And the Concentration Camps could use a separate page for expansion of the material in both Second Boer War and Concentration camps pages? Say ‘’Boer War concentration camps’’? Hugo999 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review

• An expansion of the lead section would be fortunate.
• The inline external links should be formatted to the footnote format.
• Review the tagging of Image:Boercamp1.jpg as the tag is obsolete. Lincher 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia?

Australian's did fight in the Boer war, but as British Empire subjects within their respective colonies. There was no country of Australia until the state was proclaimed in 1901. The Second Boer war was already being fought before that and Australia was not a participating then, it wasn't a country to participate. It is my understanding that volunteers in each of the colonies went to Africa and fought against the Boer's. The combatants should be changed so that it doesn't imply Australia as a nation was a combatant. E.g. "British colonies in Australia"? Or "Volunteers from Colonies in Australia". I know it would be wordy, but saying 'Australia' in the table is a lie! At least to my understanding...124.177.32.94 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the above questions on the Austrlain participation in the Boer War. Those Australian colonial troops that fought in the Boer War prior to January 1901 served in units raised by the various self-governing colonies on the mainland of Australia. (these troops ought not be confused with the thousands of Australian volunteers who traveled to South Africa independently to join locally raised units such as the Natal Mounted Police or those Australians who were already working on the Rand and who joined local units, such as the "Imperial Light Horse"). Hence those Australian contingents were named by their colony jurisdiction; eg. 'First NSW Contingent' and the 'Australian Horse', that is to say both units were raised by and paid by the NSW colonial government. There were other contingents raised in the other independent and self-governing colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In 1901 on federation, all the forces of the independent self-governing colonies and their troops serving in South Africa, came under the total jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. From 1 January 1901 all those various Australian colonial forces became Australian units. Several recognised Australian units were raised in South Africa and even Rhodesia (before federation)including, 'The Australian Regiment' raised in Nov 1899 in Cape Town; 'Australian Mounted Infantry Brigade' raised in Nov 1900 in the Eastern Transvaal and the '4th Imperial Bushmen' raised on a ship in May 1900. Following federation, the newly formed Australian government raised three seperate contingents to go to South Africa , which included "1st Commonwealth Light Horse", thru to the '8th Commonwealth Light Horse'and the 'Australian Medical Team'.

I hope this sheds some light as to why Australia was correctly classified a combatant in the war.

Suggest you try to access two Australian sources: Craig Wilcox, Australia's Boer War,Oxford, 2002. P.L. Murray, Records of Australian Contingents to the War in South Africa 1899-1902, 1911. (This is not easy to locate) Comment by Tonyob on 9 Dec 06 Tonyob 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Australia section is just terrible. The resource citations should be at the end of the article, not injected into the body of the article. To Tonyob I would suggest looking at WP:CITE. It would make the article much better.--Tainter 02:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

Why is the Second Boer War categorised as a "pyrrhic victory"? The article lacks explanation of this despite it being mentioned in the box to the right.--Legalides 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First Boer War

I came to this article not knowing there were two Boer wars. As the title is the Second Boer War, I was therefore expecting some reference to the first one in the text, especially in the 'Background' section - a mention of simmering tensions being around long before 1899 - not just a 'see also' ref at the bottom of the article. Can anyone with the knowledge provide this background information please? 81.157.196.248 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional Information Re Ethnic Cleansing

I think this article needs to address various matters of ethnic cleansing that occurred during the Boer Wars. I am not enough of an expert on the period to add them myself. But I do remeber a book I came across a decade or so ago that addressed that issue; so the information is out there somewhere.

Edwardpiercy 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Austalian name etc

Re spelling of Hancock: it is Handcock, Peter Joseph (1868-1902), cited in Ron Austin The Australian Illustrated Encyclopediap of the Zulu and Boer Wars, (1999), p.113. William (Bill) Woolmore, The Bushveldt Carbineers and Pietersburg Light Horse,(2002), p. 119, R.L Wallace, The Australians at the Boer War,(1976) and even in Craig Wicox, Australia's Boer War: The War in South Africa 1899-1902, (2002).

Tonyob 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The foreign volunteers

The article should include some information about the Boer foreign volunteers. Even if they might not have had any major impact on the outcome of the war, it's interesting to note that foreigners, and not just those sponsored by enemies of Great Britain, were prepared fight for the Boer nationalist cause against the British.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed an obvious typo

The article said that the number of black dead in the concentration camps could have been as high as 620,000. The source said: ‘’As for the wretched concentration camp population, again, we have a reasonably settled picture. In this arena, it is generally accepted that the figures for the interned refugee population and their death-rates probably went a little beyond what imperial army authorities were capable of counting in 1902 and 1901. According to the latest published investigation, by May 1902 over 80 camps had been established, holding around 115,000-120,000 black people, three-quarters of them women and young children. Of these at least 14,000 and possibly as high as 620,000 inmates perished during the course of hostilities.’’ http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN071465101X&id=yPFeGjE2MH4C&pg=RA1-PA127&lpg=RA1-PA127&ots=0sHEx83OTS&dq=boer+war+black+deaths+concentration+camp&sig=EheLzmIskZZglSW0I20bPTpPETI#PRA1-PA127,M1

Given that the total population of the camps was 115,000-120,000 it seems to me highly unlikely that 620,000 people could die in them. This seems to be a typo (possibly it meant to say 62,000) so I have removed it from the article.--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.16.94 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 July 2007

87.112.16.94 has removed much more than the dubious figure of "620,000" from the article. I've reverted his edit. I checked the source in question, and found that "620,000" is most probably a typo in the source, and should be deleted. However, I am inviting comments.--Palaeovia^talk 23:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't remove "much more than the dubious figure of 620,000", I removed only that figure. Whoever removed anything else (whatever else was removed) was NOT me. I have removed that 620,000 figure again as it is an OBVIOUS typo. If 120,000 was the total camp population then it is NOT possible for 620,000 people to die in the camps.--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.22.204 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 July 2007

All edits are permanently archived, and can be readily checked. My previous comment can be confirmed easily.--Palaeovia^talk 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you "check" again. It wasn't me. I removed the link and anything connected to it, which was: "according to one estimate the number could have been as high as 620,000[link]"--user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.7.239 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 July 2007

The edit in question is [1]--Palaeovia^talk 00:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And it still was not done by me. Someone else has removed that. user:Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.89.66 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 July 2007

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. Unfortunately, as of October 27, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The article was awarded GA status back in 2006 and since then the GA criteria has changed significantly. Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources. The best way to improve the article is to go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. A few examples of the many statements that need sources include:

1. "Of this raid, Jan C. Smuts wrote in 1906, "The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war...And that is so in spite of the four years of truce that followed...[the] aggressors consolidated their alliance...the defenders on the other hand silently and grimly prepared for the inevitable.""
2. "Most editorials were similar to the Daily Telegraph, which declared: 'of course there can only be one answer to this grotesque challenge. Kruger has asked for war and war he must have!'."
3. "The vast distances of the Republics allowed the Boer commandos considerable freedom to move about and made it impossible for the 250,000 British troops to control the territory effectively using columns alone."
4. "Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas."
5. "In all, the war had cost around 75,000 lives; 22,000 British soldiers (7,792 battle casualties, the rest through disease), between 6,000 and 7,000 Boer soldiers, and, mainly in the concentration camps, between 20,000 to 28,000 Boer civilians (mainly women and children) and perhaps 20,000 black Africans (both on the battlefield and in the concentration camps)."

If necessary, include more online sources if you need to for finding citations for the information. There are also a lot of grammar problems throughout the article, including many sentences that do not have inline citations directly following the punctuation. I'd recommend that before nominating the article again that several outside editors who have not contributed to the article look it over and give it a good copyedit. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad and image requirements. I didn't see any NPOV statements that stand out at a quick glance, but make sure to go through the article again before nominating to make sure it isn't quick-failed over that. The article has a large number of images, and it's great that they're free. Again, if you address the issues above and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article either needs to be reverted or otherwise corrected. Example of the problem: "The Northeastern part of the Asian continent was pwned in the 9th century by a set of boring struggles to create within it a thousand unified states." pwned?? Smyslov (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment seems to belong somewhere else. Doortmont (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, my comment was in the right place. Someone edited out the garbage, though. Smyslov (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of a Lizzie van Zyl

What is that picture doing there? It's captioned Lizzie van Zyl, but there is no reference to any Lizzie van Zyl in the main text. My guess is it's meant to illustrate the conditions in the concentration camps, but the caption isn't very informative. --Mickel 08:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Google "Lizzie van Zyl" and there is a reference in the Emily Hobhouse entry to her being visited by EH with a story about her treatment and death - perhaps the caption should cross reference this

I've given it the same caption as on the Afrikaner page. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag next to Lord Roberts

The flag next to Lord Roberts is Australian. He wasn't. I have no idea how this could be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.243.172 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh* It's not the Australian flag, it's Indian. The Australian flag has the Southern Cross on it, not the single star that the Indian one has.The Bryce (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Casus Belli - Jameson Raid

In the preamble to the article the Jameson Raid of 1895 is named as casus belli. Obviously, the Jameson Raid was an important event that brought Boer distrust towards the British to a head. However, the relationship between the South African Republic (Transvaal) and the British at the Cape really deteriorated during 1899 over the British ultimatum to the Transvaal government with regard to voting rights for 'Uitlanders'. This was a much more direct casus belli, I think. Doortmont (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead to in line with WP:Lead. I am doing a major rewrite of the article over the coming weeks to make it more encylopedic and referenced. LordHarris 09:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, let's try to get this article back to GA status at least! I will assist where and when possible. Michel Doortmont (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Copypasta

The camps grew further as a result of an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign, in which Kitchener initiated plans to "flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organized like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children. . . . It was the clearance of civilians - uprooting a whole nation - that would come to dominate the last phase of the war."

The ellipsis and following quote adds nothing more to the original context and only serves as a means to finish the statement without leaving the quotations. Very sly indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.200.115 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Three memorial pictures - All for Canadians?

Comon now, this is fairly absurd, someone get a different memorial picture up there at least. There are plenty in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulf6832 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

In my view the lead section of this article is to vast this should be very brief, espacially as there is already a background section, but the lead goes into detail about the gold uitlanders and just about everything else.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

casualties

Could someone check the revision of casualties as amended by User 83.250.40.152 - looking at the logs I suspect there may be some inaccuracies creeping in. docboat 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the casualties section, refering to The Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902, A Pictorial History (1976, C. Struik Publishers, Cape Town and Johannesburg)DRAC250 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Really about gold mines? Who says?

"...lengthy negotiations to reach a compromise ostensibly over the issue of "uitlander rights" but ultimately over control of the gold mining industry and the British desire to incorporate the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in a federation under British control..." What are the references to back this up? I've been reading Winston Churchill's account of his time in S Africa as a correspondent and prisoner. He points out that the mines were privately owned, not state owned, and that this would be equally true whether or not the British ruled the territories. Incidentally, he also brings in the treatment of black people as a factor: according to a conversation he relates, the Boers were disgusted that the British were much softer towards black people than they were and felt themselves threatened, even then, by the threat of black rule. This is backed up by the peace settlement at the end of the war, when the question of black rights was stated as temporarily deferred. So for the Wikipedia article to fall into the easy "It was all about gold mines" theory is at least very simplistic and possibly totally wrong. APW (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am only briefly covering this in Uni however from what i have read so far it appears that things like this was used as an excuse post-war or at least following the starting of hositlites. At least one historian from what i have read so far appears to dismiss the notion that the war was fought for economic reasons and that these were just a conicdence. However i believe the mines were owned by the guy that essentially initated the war and they belonged to a empire sponsed company did they not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gold itself was probably not the cause, but the conditions relating to those that worked the gold mines definitely had a big role to play. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The war in South Africa, its cause & conduct (available in the Internet Archive at [2]) is a good read. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

JA Hobson in The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects (1900) advanced the economic argument, though his thesis seemed to be that the war was largely due to the machinations of the Rand 'Capitalists'. JS Marais' The Fall of Kruger's Republic (1961) is, to my mind, one of the very best political treatments of this subject. In it he largely centres on Lord Milner's desire to bring about a political South African Federation, now rather than later, as being the key impetus to eventual war - even to the extent of ignoring the Colonial Secretary, Chamberlain's, instructions to keep the peace. Certainly the mines played a part, but by my reading of his papers Milner was preoccupied by the fact that they were making the Transvaal the dominant economic player in SA and thus the dominant element in any future federation negotiations, rather than being driven by the simple desire to possess the mines for Britain.

Xdamr^talk 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

US Consul in Pretoria Report on Concentration Camp Conditions

I stumbled on interesting information at http://www.archive.org/stream/768164_2#page/n61/mode/2up

This may be of interest to scholars of the era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.197.8.183 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Much of the section on Concentration Camps has the same text as this site. Obviously, one site has copied the other:

http://www.boer-war.com/Details2nd/Camps.html

Norvo (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Jews on Commando

This web source Jews on Commando by by D.Y. Saks (2005), is not a reliable source, but it is well footnoted and some of the information if checked might make an interesting addition to this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Origins

I have removed the segment of sentence giving the causes of Afrikaner migration "such as the abolition of slavery", since this was in fact a minor contribution to the dissatisfaction with British rule. The wealthy slave-owers - mostly from the western Cape - mainly elected to remaining British colonial subjects. Migration was mainly from the eastern districts of the Cape colony, and was mostly motivated by the constant state of war with the Xhosa - much of it precipitated by British commercial interests - and lack of protection afforded by the British adminsitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.169.186.10 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your analysis is 100% accurate. I was under the impression that war with the Xhosa's was indeed part of the reason. However, the fact that most of the trek boers were poor subsitence farmers trying to eke out a living also helped to motivate them to look for better options in the northe of what is today SABrentErnestArcher (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Brent Archer

Tactics stemming from American Civil War?

It says in the article that the Boers' tactics first appeared from the American Civil War. But from what I read about using rifles to hunt games and the "one shot, one kill" tenet described in the article, this was more in line with the American Revolutionary War. The saying goes in the beginning of the Patriots' campaign they didn't have many regularly trained militia. Instead they relied very much upon the local farmers who had acquired their marksmanship during hunting. Because these people initially used their firearms for hunting, the weapons were mainly rifles (accurate, but low rate of fire) instead of muskets (inaccurate, but more effective when you assemble the musketeers in a formation) that were usually used in the military at the times. This type of irregular warfare tactics almost exactly mirrored that of those used by the Boers. I've found a cross-reference: Minutemen#Equipment, training, and tactics. 222.153.247.202 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous! Those 'tactics' are way older and always adopted by less trained forces with a superior knowledge of the region they've been fighting in! And the 'militia system' has been not created by some colonial patriots is the british overseas colony in America. Just read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidang to find out more and besides that other nations had militias too so there's no need to try to preach 'US superiority'! --89.50.29.137 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I have removed {{Refimprove|date=August 2009}} because an article with 78 in-line citations does not need it. Add the in-line {{citation needed}} for facts that need them.

I have started the process of creating inline short citations by taking three or four of the most common in-line citations and using {{harvnb}} template, there is more to do.

list of further reading and external links moved from the article page

>==Further reading== Primary sources Arthur Conan Doyle: The Great Boer War. London: Smith, Elder, 1900. Sol T. Plaatje: Mafeking diary: a black man's view of a white man's war. Cambridge: Meridor Books; Athens: Ohio University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-85255-064-2 (Meridor) ISBN 0-8214-0944-1 (Ohio UP). Originally published as The Boer War diary of Sol T. Plaatje; an African at Mafeking. Johannesburg: Macmillan, 1973 ISBN 0-86954-002-5. Alfred Milner: "The Milner Papers", vol. II South Africa 1899–1905, edited by Cecil Headlam, London: Cassell, 1933. J.H.M. Abbott, Tommy Cornstalk, Longmans London, 1902, (an autobiography of Abbott's service in the War). Droogleever, R.W.F. (ed.), From the Front: A. B. (Banjo) Patterson's Dispatches from the Boer War, MacMillan, Sydney, 2000. (A completed compilation of the reporter 'Banjo Patterson's (1864–1941) dispatches (75 letters and articles sent to Australia during the period November 1899 to July 1900. Patterson was present at numerous engagements including Paardeberg, Bloemfontein, Pretoria and finally the surrender of General Martinus Prinsloo at the Brandwater Basin. These writings give a military and literary insight into events, with comments on the medical crisis in Bloemfontein following its occupation and outbreak of enteric fever) ISBN 07329 1062 5 Lieut. George Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire, Melbourne, 1907; republished as George R. Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire, Angus & Robertson Melbourne, 1982., (Witton's autobiography of his trial and conviction along with "Breaker Morant"). ISBN 0 207 146667 Field, Kingslet (edt). Book "Soldier Boy" A young New Zealander writes home from the Boer War, compiled by Kingsley Field. Letters written by Harry Gilbert to his family in New Zealand from April 1901. First published in 2007 by New Holland Publishers (NZ) Ltd. ISBN 978 186966 177 9. Lt. Col. P.L. Murray, (ed.) Official Records of the Australian Military Contingents to the War in South Africa, Government Printer, Melbourne, 1911. (Rare, but this book lists all Colonial Forces, plus Commonwealth troops' names, number rank, including nurses rates of pay and promotions. Citations on each serviceman's /servicewoman's injuries, illnesses, wounds, killed in action etc. Details the ships on which contingents sailed and returned, the number of horses per contingent despatched to the war, unit establishments, active services and honours, unit patrols and engagements etc. Book comprises 607 pages) New South Wales Imperial Bushmen Contingent War Diary and letters written by the Adjutant, Major David Miller. They tell the day by day story of the deployment in 1900 of this unique unit raised by private subscription in New South Wales. Scholarly secondary sources Byron Farwell: The Great Anglo-Boer War. New York: Harper and Row, 1976. ISBN 0-06-011204-2 (published in the UK as The Great Boer War. London: Allen Lane, 1977. ISBN 0-7139-0820-3). April A. Gordon and Donald L. Gordon (eds.): Understanding contemporary Africa. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2001. ISBN 1-55587-850-4. David Harrison: The white tribe of Africa: South Africa in perspective. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1981. ISBN 0-520-04690-0. Denis Judd and Keith Surridge. The Boer War. London: John Murray, 2003. ISBN 0-7195-6169-8. W. Baring Pemberton. Battles of the Boer War. First published 1964 by B.T. Batsford - republished by Pan, 1969. Fransjohan Pretorius : Scorched Earth. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau, 2001; ISBN 0-7981-4192-1. Kit Denton, Australian at War: For Queen and Commonwealth, Time-Life Books, Australia, 1987, (pp. 76–163) ISBN 0949118 08 7 (many photos and maps) Laurie Field, The Forgotten War, Melbourne University Press, 1979. R.L. Wallace, Australians at the Boer War, AGPS, Canberra, 1976. ISBN 0 642 999391 2 (an important work in re-awaking Australian interest in the Boer War - but hard to locate) William (Bill) Woolmore, The Bushveldt Carbineers and the Pietersburg Light Horse, Slouch Hat Publications, Rosebud, 2002. ISBN 0 9579752 0 1 (solid work on the men who served in the ill-fated unit) Neil G. Speed, Born to Fight, Caps & Flints Press, Melbourne, 2002. (an Australian Maj. Charles Ross DSO who served with Canadian Scouts) ISBN 0 9581356 0 6 Craig Wilcox, Australia's Boer War, Oxford University Press, 2002. (important academic work) ISBN 0 19 551637 0 William (Bill) Woolmore,Steinaecker's Horsemen: South Africa 1899-1903, South African Country Life,Barberton, 2006. ISBN 0 9584782 4 4 (solid research by an Australian writer into the men who served in this unit) Max Chamberlain and Robert Droogleever, The War with Johnny Boer: Australians in the Boer War 1899-1902, Ligare, Riverwood, 2003. (sound research with maps, drawing and pictures of Australian participants) Dave C. George, Carvings from the Veldt: Rifle carvings from Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902, Northern Rivers N.S.W., 2004. (photographic and historical record of surviving Boer War rifles (in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and USA) and the variety of stock carvings) ISBN 0 646 44043 8 Richard Tomlinson, "Masonry blockhouses of the Anglo-Boer War 1900-1902", Fort (Fortress Study Group), 1998, (26), pp169–199 >==External links== Chronology South Africa Boer War The Australian War Memorial (hundreds of photos in the Boer War section) Canada and The South African War, 1899-1902 - Canadian War Museum Chronology Great Britain Boer War Colonial Units The New Zealand Contingents Field Gun photos and video British casualties - Officers: A to Z War Museum of the Boer Republics. Anglo Boer War Museum (accessed 24 December 2003) National UK Archives site Online Catalogue entry for The Women's Library: Millicent Fawcett's personal copy of the Fawcett Commission Report, search for RefNo=7mgf/e/1 Royal Engineers Museum Royal Engineers in the Anglo-Boer war (Ballooning, Blockhouses, Bridging, Railways, Searchlights, Signals, Steam Transport and Telegraph) A Handbook of the Boer War by Gale and Polden, Limited, from Project Gutenberg The Record of a Regiment of the Line, by M. Jacson, from Project Gutenberg Commando: A Boer Journal of the Boer War (now in the public domain and readable online), by Deneys Reitz, a participant and later deputy prime minister of South Africa The Boer War from a Boer Perspective British Soldiers who served, were wounded or died Soldiers of the Queen - Heritage Resources Saint John Australian Light Horse Studies Centre Resources relating to the Australian participation in the Boer War by their mounted troops. A Fading Memory: Canada’s First Military Action Article chronicling the Canadian involvement. Scottish Regiments Shipping Out to the Boer War 1899-1902 The Boer War 1899-1902

Wikipedia is not a link farm. I have put these links here so that if they are needed to improve the article the can be moved into inline citions. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidental Issues

A number of points the Boar highlighted. The Afrikaners noticed that there seemed to be 'something wrong with the British Troops'. Most of the British Soldiers were far smaller than the Boars and less robust. On looking into the problem, interested people in England found that the change over from Butter to margarine and from Wholemeal Bread to cheap white Bread had badly effected the long term health and development of working class people in England. Rossa Luxemberg also noted that the Boar War had transformed England from a Maritime Power into a Land Army power that was a force to be reckoned with. Before the Boar War England was a Naval Power only. Both English Business Interests in the South Africa Region and the Afrikaners were engaged in a war of Propaganda, but it has to be admitted, the Afrikaners won hands down with heart rending Photographs of mothers holding dead babies inside the concentration camps. Boar folklore still talks of the English 'mixing broken glass with the flour the Boar women used for cooking' (unlikely to say the least).Johnwrd (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the british mixed broken glass and other nasty stuff in flour and other food in the concentration camps is not "folklore" but a well established fact. Face it. Can't you spell "BOER?" 156.8.251.250 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

South Africa did not exist as a political entity until 1910, therefore I think this should be changed to Southern Africa or the Colonies of the Cape and Natal Scottykira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Philippine War

The Philippine–American War is listed as an example of prior use of concentration camps, but that war was contemporaneous with the Boer War, so while it's possible that the Americans used them first, it's highly unlikely that their tactics were the motivation for the British. 63.107.91.99 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete and immoral presentation of proven history

It is a shame that the proven facts of the genocide on Afrikaners during the "Scorched Earth" policy and concentration camps have not been formally described and recognised by private individuals and governments in both Britain and South Africa. Refer, amongst ohers, to the reports by Emily Hobhouse, the records of deaths in the concentration camps and graphs of the population growth of Afrikaners between 1880 and 2011.

It is similarly an anomaly that the long informal existence and eventual formalisation by Britain of "apartheid" policies are not correctly described by private individuals and governments.

This anomaly is one of the reasons for the partial failure of reconciliation and reconstruction in South Africa in this regard.

Further detail and related sources can be found at another language version of Wikipedia:

http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespreking:Tweede_Vryheidsoorlog#Onvolledige_hantering_van_feitelike_geskiedenis

196.2.126.176 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: The reference in the main article to the Afrikaans version is incorrect, it is "Tweede Vryheidsoorlog" .

Combatants

Undid material around combatants as being British Empire and which excluded Australia, Canada, New Zealand. These nations were combatants in their own right they were independent countries who got involved therfore they were part of the War.Kangaroojke 06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No they didn't, they were involved as a result of British involvement - despite their, by that time, independent status. The war was fought on an imperial basis, not like WW2 where each nation participated as independent allies. I've also reverted your reversion of the Jameson Raid as casus belli. You must provide a citation in order to make this assertion—see my talk page for a recent discussion on this point.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

While New Zealand and the states of Australia were colonies at the time (1899), they chose to send official Contingents and did not need to. Newfoundland a separate colony then did not. Nor did the Cape Colony (Packenham). Canada was a confederation not colonies by then. Offers from some non-white colonies were turned down as it was a “white mans’ war”. Re the Jamieson Raid; Packenham quotes Smuts in 1906, intro to Part 1 of "The Boer War": “The Jameson Raid was the real declaration of war in the great Anglo-Boer conflict …” Hugo999 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed the issue of the Jameson Raid (and indeed that very quote) on my talk page not so long ago. If you take a look at User_Talk:Xdamr/Archive 5#Casus Belli of Anglo-Boer War you'll find an explanation of my rationale for arguing against this.

Xdamr^talk 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you say, or how hard you would like to argue, Canada, Australia..etc.. were combatants in the war. It doesn't matter whether or not they were under Royal command, the fact is they fought and were combatants. I don't know whether or not the fact that other nations are on the combatant list makes you feel like the British involvement is less important, but it isn't like that. Even if other nations are on the combatant list the British are still there, and still important. But what is also important, is respecting the lives lost of soldiers from all the nations contributing and fighting.

Concerns re. the addition of other countries diminishing British involvement etc are not ones which bother me. My concern is solely for an accurate representation of the conflict. This means that I object, on historical grounds, to attempts to write Aus/NZ/Can into the war as independent players. (note that the infobox reads 'British Empire' - not just UK)

There is a trend towards this in much post-Empire scholarship—motivated, benignly enough, by the wish to develop a national narrative in these countries. But this approach doesn't accord with the reality of the late 19th century. Bar Canada, the other two did not actually exist at the time—Australian federation took place in 1901, New Zealand in 1907. Secondly, the Statute of Westminster, recognising Dominion equality with the UK was in 1931, long after the war. From 1899-1901 the 'Empire' concept was in full swing; the Dominions/colonies did not participate as independent nations, but rather as a direct result of British involvement. It is important to restate that this is not a claim that Britain was the sole participant—the claim is that the British Empire was. Given the times and the circumstances in which these events took place, this is a correct characterisation.

There was no "Australian" (national) government at all in 1899, the Australian states were separate colonies each with "responsible self-government" (elected parliaments and cabinets), and various militias which they sent to the War. However there was no "federation" event in New Zealand, which was already a single unitary state with "responsible self-government", its own Parliament and Prime Minister (King Dick). I don't know what the governmental change in New Zealand was in 1907, but "federation", it was not.Eregli bob (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Xdamr^talk 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll let you have the fact on the Australian and New Zealand situation, but Canada was still Canada. Even if taken into war because of the crown, Canada still fought as Canada. Would there still be this discussion had England only taken five hundred killed, and Canada had taken twelve thousand? No, it would be regarded as a war that Canada fought in. All casualties aside, the fact is that Canada fought as Canada, under the crown yes, but still as Canadians. Edited to add: I'll even play nice and use the Red Ensign Canadian Flag.

But that's the thing - when did Canada cease to be a member of the British Empire? Canada was a key part of the Empire and Canadians made notable contributions to the war, but this was an Imperial enterprise. Canada did not achieve 'equality' with the UK (as part of the Empire) until 1931 - it was not a sovereign, independent nation. At the turn of the 19th century Canadian policy was dictated by the Governor-General, as representative of the Crown. None of this points justifies adding Canada as a separate entry.

Xdamr^talk 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada became Canada (The Dominion of) in 1867. Canada has been Canada ever since. Fighting through the rebellions in the Northwest (now Manitoba) and the 2nd Boer War, two world wars, Korea, Medak Pocket(read up on it), Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Maybe it fought as part of the British Empire in South Africa, but that would mean the British would be a combatant in the Northwest Rebellion... but they aren't. Canada fought in the war... AS CANADA.

The War was fought as an Imperial enterprise. Canada did not achieve legal equality with the UK (ie 'independence') until the Statute of Westminster of 1931. Canada c1900 was inarguably a part (and an important one) of the British Empire. The British Empire is the entity listed in the infobox - not the UK alone. Therefore this addition is both strictly incorrect and is certainly redundant. Canada is covered by 'British Empire' in just the same way as England, Queensland, India, the Cape Colony, the West Indies, Singapore, Ceylon, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc are.

Xdamr^talk 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1: Canada, NZ and Australia never declared war agaisnt the republics, only the British Empire did. 2) The Jamson Raid was not the start of the war, it may have been supported by the British goverment but it was conducted by the British South African Company Police and some private citizens at no stage was war decleared and at no stage did the British military become involved. The Jamson Raid can be seen as private intervention in what the BSAC hoped would be an uprising. >Scottykira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottykira (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blockhouses of the Boer War

The link to the source:

• Maurig Jones (1996). "Blockhouses of the Boer War". Colonial Conquest, magweb. Retrieved 10 May 2008.

needs to be fixed as it no longer links to the correct place. A Wayback machine archive of it is available.

• Maurig Jones (1996). "Blockhouses of the Boer War". Colonial Conquest, magweb. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 10 May 2008.

However it was not a very reliable source in the first place. I would suggest replacing it with:

• Steffan, (Major) Grant D. (20 December 1993), Forts and Blockhouses: Field Fortification in the Rear Area, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, pp. 18–26 (PDF 24–33)

--PBS (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming

Why is it called the Boer War when it was the british who blatantly attacked the boers? Shouldn't it then be "The british war in South Africa"? I'm not disputing the name of the article, I am only wondering about who came up with it, and for what reason. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name 'Boer War' is a British one - it simply describes the enemy against whom the war was fought (a common practice, eg the Zulu War, the Indian Wars, etc). I don't think that the name places blame on one side or another, it is simply descriptive. Now, as I say, the 'Boer War' (or the 'Second Boer War' as it is also known - Britain fought against the Transvaal in 1879, this is commonly regarded as the 'First') is named from a British perspective. Hence other alternatives have sprung up such as the 'South African War' or 'Anglo-Boer War'.

Incidentally you are incorrect that the British attacked the Boers. It was the Transvaal's attack on Natal which finally caused the War, although you are correct that British policy had been gearing up for conflict for some time before.

Xdamr^talk 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just a note there: the Dutch first attacked after the British began placing their troops. I don't see this as an aggressive stance from the Dutch, but rather as an defensive one. — Adriaan (T★C) 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true enough, the move into Natal was a case of trying to forestall British attack by trying to take the ports and deny British reinforcements a landing place on the eastern coast. As things turned out this lightning strike quickly became bogged down into a conventional static war, in which the commandos lost their chief advantage of high mobility.

Ah, the good old pre-emptive strike; it's not really aggression just because someone attacks you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.145.89 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Xdamr^talk 21:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can disregard the who attacked who first I would claim that naming wars after what one of the sides called it seems POV or ethnocentric. The most common naming of wars are afaik A) object/area of dispute B) opponents of the side naming the war or C) country/area the war is staged in. While the term Second Boer war is firmly established in he parts of the world the Brittish have influenced since that time it seems that using the South african term (Anglo-Boer) seems less enthocentric, not because it's not Brittish but because it conveys the simple "who fought who". An obvious alternative would be The South African War -styled name since it simply states where it was fought. If both sides and an world opinion all agreed on calling it "Righteous Butchering of the inferrior Boers" we would have to use that even with the obvious biased connotaion such a name would have. But since there are several names available I would propose we rename it after something that reflects more than one side of the story. We aren't here to rename history, but when options are presented I would always go for the more neutral name. With redirects it's no risk that the user from Brittish sphere of influence would get lost if the article was renamed. Sorry for the soapboxing, being a rather uninitiated user with limited knowlegde of metawikiality and rules and practices for naming I might be in the err here. But as a user of an encyclopeadia I have to give my point of view. Thats what it's made for. --213.115.40.148 (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)'

Re. 'who fought who'and 'Anglo-Boer'. 'Anglo' means solely 'English', not 'British'; not all the 'British' the Boers were fighting were 'English'. Your suggestion, the South African usage 'Anglo-Boer War', is, therefore, no less ethnocentric but is even more inaccurate, and disrespectful to the thousands of Scots, Welsh and Irish soldiers who fought in the British army. 'British-Boer', if anything.

Not true. What about the many Anglo-Indians who have Scottish/Welsh/Irish ancesty?--Charles (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

9 months later, no further discussion or action regarding renaming into a name with less Brittish POV. I would "be bold" myself if I had the Wikiskills to rename this article and redirect "second boer war" to Second Anglo-Boer war. --195.84.66.130 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (same user as 213.115.40.148)

Its all a long time ago now. Lets just move on. That's the name it has always had, and I cannot see it is POV. No need to confuse people by changing it.--Charles (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of action on renaming might be because the origional poster clearly stated I'm not disputing the name of the article. The name has stood for 100 years, has been captured in more books that I care to count and is inscribed the minds of millions. Move on. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

British Prisoners

The article states in many places that the Boers took many British prisoners. What did they do with them? Put them in camps, or let them go back home without arms?

There must have been some British prisoners who died as a result of this, especially if they became prisoner during the scorched earth guerilla war part of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.156.170 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Prisoners were taken during the early part of the war - for example Winston Churchill. During the latter part of the war Reitz (autobiography - "On Commando") makes no mention of prisoners, but does relate how he assisted a wounded British soldier back to British lines under a white flag. Martinvl (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review on The Second Boer War (Section: British Involvement | Canada)

This section is very well written and well laid out. It is clear in its structure and focused. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish subheadings from the rest of the text, but I know that this is difficult as wikipedia does not distinguish text in the lower sub-categories. I found it very helpful how the text was broken into these smaller categories, as it makes the information easy to see and to access. You did a great job at finding relevant information regarding Canada’s involvement, and it really helped to cover various facets of their role in the war. It was also excellent to cover various Canadian people as well as places within the Boer Wars.

The information in the section is well articulated and insightful. It was very interesting to read on the effect of the war on broader combat styles and the depreciation of certain combat types such as the use of cavalry. Canadian support of the conflict was also an essential issue that was covered very well in the section. Perhaps it could be briefly covered again at the end of the section to go over the feeling in Canada after the war and whether public opinion had changed at all, especially in light of the controversial tactics that were used in the latter stages of the war, such as the concentration camps and the ‘Scorched Earth’ policy. The references in the section are extensive and the text is well supported. Overall the article is neutral, well written and thorough.

Halfpak (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Citations: There are plenty of credible citations used in this article. However, there are a few places in the article where an addition of citations would be helpful to researchers. For example, in the Background section, there are very few citations, and additional citations would be helpful for researchers. The First Phase section, the Second Phase section, the Third Phase section, the Public Opinion and Political Opposition section, the End of the War section, the Union of South Africa section, could also benefit from additional citations. In the section on Doornkop, citation 86 is used three times consecutively, which is unnecessary. Simply use the citation once at the end of all the information taken from that source.

Information Thoroughness: The information provided in this article is quite thorough in most areas. However, more information could be added in the surgery and medicine section during the war section, as the information consists of only one sentence, and this sentence has to do more with mortality due to disease rather than with that which the title of the section suggests. However, the link to the bigger article is useful for researchers. Also, the section on horses could contain more information on what the actual roles of horses were during the Second Boer War. In the section about notable Canadians in the war, there are two listed which are rather well researched, but were there any others, perhaps commanders or generals who performed major feats during the course of the war? The list is rather short and could use expansion.

Completeness of Information: This is a very thorough article that covers many aspects of the Second Boer War; however some of the events described feature a strong British viewpoint, or contain more information about the British than on the Boers. An example of this is in the escalation and war section, when British responses to the Transvaal ultimatum are described, but the Transvaal response to the British ultimatum is not mentioned. Adding more information about views of the Boers during this war will not only help to complete the article, but will also make the article appear more neutral. Also in the section titled Phases, there are no dates stating the beginning or end of the first phase, unlike the information in this section on the second and third phases.

Graphics: The graphics are a nice addition to the article, as they provide a bit of a break for the eyes in such a long article, and also give nice visual references to supplement the information presented in the article. The maps are great information for readers who do not know where in the world the locations mentions in the article can be found. The captions underneath all visuals are very well done and helpful in the identification of whom or what is being presented in the visual.

Layout: The Article is very well organized in terms of headings and subheadings. The paragraph breaks are strategically places in larger sections, which make the article easy to read. Maybe fix the last battle in the Canada section to fit the same format as the rest.

Neutrality: The article is written from a relatively neutral standpoint; the author’s opinion is not evident in their writing. Including the many different titles of the war is a good way to maintain neutrality. However, this article could benefit greatly from including more information about how the opposing side (The Boers) viewed or felt about certain events, as a lot of the information contains mainly British views on specific situations. An example is in the paragraph containing British reactions to the ultimatum sent out by the Transvaal side; there is no information about the Transvaal reaction to the ultimatum sent out by the British. Also, it is stated in the article that the main cause of war was over gold in the area. Does every party involved feel that this was the real cause of war? Were there other issues leading up to conflict that were not mentioned in the article?

Appropriateness of language and grammar: The information provided in this article is easy to understand and is written in professional, clear language. Few mistakes are in the article concerning grammar; however, a few sentences could be reworked, like putting a comma after “boastfulness” in Sam Hughes’ section and taking out the semicolon after the word “for” in the same section. Ddabell (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Poorly written

After 4 years this article is still poorly written, poorly sourced and just poor generally. Military history should be banned on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.108.87 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jameson Raid

The list of armaments that the raiders carried with them in this article conflicted with the list given in the main article on the Jameson Raid, and since that article gave references and this one gave none, I edited this article - I didn't change it to agree exactly with the other article, but just made it vague so there was no conflict. I have neither of the references cited available to me, but in the one book I do have that covers the subject (Heaven's Command, by James Morris), it gives a different count altogether which was closer to the one previously given in this article, but still not the same - that is why I opted for vagueness. Alexgriz (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course the British are the nice guys!

I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that the article attempts to justify every action of the British. Their invasion of the Transvaal was directly related to the discovery of gold, yet the article attempts to portray it as a humanitarian act. The situation of the concentration camps were known to the high ranking officials of the British contingent, yet teh article does its very best to portray them as blissfully unaware (sounds alot like Abu Ghraib) AND the article fails to mention the many women who were raped in these camps. I grew up in South Africa, and it doesn't get much more real when you great-grandmother was in them and can still tell you what happened there. My own great great grandmother kept a diary of her time in the camps and I am currently working on getting it verrified and printed. The things in there are horrible and to portray the British as being on a humanitarian mission of love makes me sick. Yes, I know my own point of view is deffinately coming through, but it is neccessary so you can understand why teh justification of every single british action is so repulsive to me. Now they may have originally have simply wanted to restore equality to their people, but I know that no nation is perfect and very rarely do they act perfectly. Therefore, protraying teh Birtish as saints throughout teh conflict, and minimizing the pain and sufffering of the Boers is not only inaccurate but wrong. I suggest someone fix, as I am obviously not objective enough on the point to do it. At the very least you can fix the Concentration Camp section as it plainly and purposefully portays the Birtish in the very best light, justifying their actions and the leaders, skiming over the actual conditions, and then quickly adding that not only were there good British like Hobhouse but that through their actions the conditions were quickly imporved. In reality, the death toll went down, the conditions did not. As for my sources, there are hundreds of diaries from that time already printed, and the very best source is always a first hand account. - Ouboet

Hmm- are we both reading the same section re concentration camps? The one that I'm reading is very, very negative towards the British policy- mentioning as it does tens of thousands of deaths, denial of rations to women and children, unsanitary conditions, a 50% child mortality rate, etc etc etc. I would agree that the floating quotes at the end are a bit random and should be put in context and balanced with other material. As always, if you're familiar with reliable sources then add the info, in a balanced and WP:NPOV way. I would probably say that to the wider world, the use of concentration camps is probably now the most notable aspect of this conflict. Badgerpatrol 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it British victory, not occupation. The page makes propaganda of colonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.195.148 (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 41.133.126.30 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC) G

Collapsible list in infobox

Would anyone mind if I used the collapsible list structure in the infobox for the minor belligerents (foreign volunteers & empire forces) that has been used in Russian Civil War? This is what it would look like:

Second Anglo-Boer War
Part of the Boer Wars
Boer Commandos at Spioenkop
Date 11 October 1899 – 31 May 1902 (2 years, 7 months, 2 weeks and 6 days) Location South Africa, Swaziland Result British Empire victory Territorial changes British sovereignty over The Orange Free State and the Transvaal in accordance with the Treaty of Vereeniging
Belligerents
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland British Empire List British India Australia Before federation: New South Wales Western Australia Tasmania South Australia Victoria Queensland Canada New Zealand British Ceylon British Cape Colony Natal Colony Rhodesia	Orange Free State South African Republic Foreign volunteers List Netherlands German Empire Belgium France United States Italy Russian Empire Russian Poland Sweden-Norway Denmark
Commanders and leaders
Lord Salisbury Lord Milner Lord Roberts Sir Redvers Buller Lord Kitchener	Paul Kruger Louis Botha Schalk W. Burger Koos de la Rey Martinus Steyn Christiaan de Wet Piet Cronjé (POW)
Strength
450,000–500,000 (347,000 British, remainder were colonial troops)	88,000 (25,000 Transvaal and 15,000 Free State Boers at the start of the war) (inclusive Foreign Volunteers and Cape Boers)
Casualties and losses
Military casualties 7,894 killed 13,250 died of disease 934 missing 22,828 wounded	Military casualties 9,098 died (4,000 in combat) (24,000 Boer prisoners sent overseas) Civilian casualties: 27,927 Boer civilians died in concentration camps , plus an unknown number of black Africans (107,000 were interned).

Hope this is useful and if anyone would like to change it then feel free, it makes the box look more structured. ChrisWet (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge section of History of Swaziland

Anglo-Boer War section of History of Swaziland article is entirely too long and out of scope. I propose merging that section into this article. Most of it can be incorporated under a Swaziland neutrality section right below the Cape Colony in the Third phase. The information in the first six paragraphs of the section could be split up and dispersed through out this article. Second Boer War article only mentions Swaziland in passing and this proposed merger would serve to better treat the subject of the attempted Swaziland neutrality. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you want to do then fine. Op47 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Contrariwise, No; I disagree.

There is no logical reason here for merging any of this. If the section at the History of Swaziland page is too long (which is debateable) then it should be addressed on the talk page there, with a view to trimming it down. If this article is lacking a section on Swazi neutrality (a possibility) then a summary paragraph would suffice, together with a mention of the status of other colonies/states in the region (Basutoland, Zululand etc).

What this article does not need is a dozen or so paragraphs on what is (in this context) a very peripheral issue. And anything less than a dozen paragraphs wouldn’t be a merger (more like a deletion-by-stealth: Is that what you really have in mind?) Xyl 54 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Civillian deaths

I have just read that in a 1901 report, a Emily Hobhouse - of some antiwar group, claimed that "28,000 whites" and "14,00 Africans" had died in the concentration camps. I note the lower figure stated in the infobox; as Miss Hobhouse's figures been discredited by modern research?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look in a couple of books: Vol 2 of the Oxford History of South Africa (1975), p328 gives a figure of 25,000. Davenport and Saunders' South Afica: A Modern History (2000), p228 gives a impressively precise figure of 27,927, further claiming that 22,000 of these were under 16. I can't seem to turn up a specific figure for African deaths - my guess is that few people were counting. Pakenham's The Boer War (1979), p573 gives an author's estimate of between 7000 and 12,000, but I think any greater precision is likely to be elusive.

Xdamr^talk 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the info and your time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, death records are available and the Encyclopaedia Britannica consequently states the figure at approximately 27 000, a significant figure given the total Afrikaner population at the time.

196.2.126.176 (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did the only civilian casualties happened in the concentration camps?Jochum (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)