Talk:South African Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

CoA image

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

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)

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 Wikipedia talk pages correctly. Countries are listed in English wikipedia 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)

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/wiki/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)

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 Wikipedia'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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 talk & Dodger67 & Mean_as_custard & HelenOnline - 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.

4. Much of what I am adding is fact - like language laws etc. But it has been Politically Suppressed. - So, go and verify my sources PLEASE - Do not simply say POV or whatever, please spend the time and actually look - verify the facts?

You say you are editors? Are you reasonable editors, dictators or judges? - either way, you do all behave like a gang... - scary that. 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)

All of you talk & Dodger67 & Mean_as_custard & HelenOnline - I am still waiting for any of you to admit that the facts in my additions were all correct. Some of my additions may have been POV, but at least 90 percent of all of it is simple FACTS. Unlike the present page, which is full of content not about the country, speculation, propaganda and NPOV information. - If I am wrong and you are correct - please give me just two or three examples of where I am wrong. I did add over 40 citations of which 50% were links to the actual documentation. Or are you saying that the actual documentation to back up my additions is all fake? - I am actually noit sure what you are saying right now? Maybe you are simply biased and you cannot do research or you are misinformed? - Any response? Zarpboer (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolving Edit Dispute

I started editing this page over a week ago and I added over 300 edits to it. There are editors that are working together to prevent me from doing ANY edits to this page. These editors are simply reverting ALL my additions and over a weeks worth of work, reverting to an old version of this page that has been requiring citations for the fiction thereon since 2010. These editors are also not discussing there objections or there factual disputes or there precise or exact difficulties, except for claiming heavy WP:NPOV I do believe that these actions, by these editors, are tantamount to vandalism. I have declared a dispute, maybe the editors would then be willing to discuss their issues - as they do not want to do it on the talk page.

The current version of this page is not only WP:NPOV, but factually wrong. One of the citations are FAKE. Also, a child can see that this page is not about a country, but about the general history of an area. the story in the one section, is fiction, yet it is on the 2010 page, as fact. And, this is what is being reverting to each time. Clearly, vandalism.

Then, the editors claim: edit warring - Did they even read that page? There is no edit warring? They are simply hitting the undo button and just saying POV. Not constructive and not edit warring - simply vandalism.

I have re-added about 250 of my over 300 edits.

I have removed my editorial and opinions, so that we can get a fact base to work from, like correct dates, events, chronological order, etc. then we can build on that together? - If you do not agree with my base, please edit it.

I will not add any additional edits without discussing it here first

I am begging that anyone wishing to contribute to this page: As I have done, a few times before,...Please discuss it on the talk page. - What is the point of simply hitting undo, and saying POV. One editor removed the entire Second Boer War, section and simply said POV. - Does that mean the Second Boer War did not happen? Does that mean the title is wrong? What is the editor trying to say? Who knows, the edit simply says: POV. How does that help us to share or to work together? Please respect my edits, as much as you wish others to respect yours. This article needs citations, it needs major improvement, please contribute, help to build and improve it. If you have a problem with POV, simply talk about it. Let us work together and fix it, as I have asked before on this talk page, please? Zarpboer (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

SanamBhPlease contribute and do not just vandalise. Seems that this page is highly controversial and many people would not like to see it improved? -- What exactly on the page is POV, according to you? Are you willing to discuss your POV? Zarpboer (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Zarpboer please read WP:BRD. That was not vandalism. Accusing someone of vandalism when they have not done so is a bad idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck It is vandalism. Please allow me to explain: The restored version is a dormant page, which has been requiring citations since 2010... so - the version that SanamBh restored to ignores over 300 edits and improvements to this page. - This destroys a lot of work and is being done by more than one editor, without them giving any consideration to the talk page, or your kind reference to WP:BRD. Zarpboer (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thee version you have worked on may be better, I really don't know. I don't know much about this period in South African history, and I have not checked the refs you have added. That said, there is no consensus for the changes. I suggest that you move very slowly and propose to work on stuff a section or two at a time. As it says at WP:VANDAL "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." I don't think that is what is going on here, this is a content dispute. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck It is vandalism to simply throw away at least 50 hours of work that went into this page, without actually disputing any content. the only person to have disputed content on the talk page - is the name Transvaal, please look? Zarpboer (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: Have you looked at the 2010 version of this page and have you looked at the over 300 edits done to improve this page? The page is clearly not about a country - but about the general history of the southern african region. the facts in this 2010 version is also based on a work of fiction. You have taken it upon yourself to revert the page, back to the 2010 version, with a fake citation and fiction and wrong content. Ignoring 300+ edits, with over 20 respected citations that was done over time - just as you suggested I now start doing Again Please help me understand why you are doing this, as it makes no sense to me. From your page you are a Professor? - Please look at the edit history, all anyone has done to this page for many many years, is in the last week or two, to undo what work I have done. You say that I am blanketly changing a page? - that did not just happen overnight, it took me many many hours and many many edits to do. To remove the fiction, add citations, and improve the page. All everyone else has done on this page is simply to revert the page to 2010. Why? Zarpboer (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am a prof, though I don't see how that is relevant. The amount of time you have spent on this is, sadly, immaterial. We have a way of doing things here, and one of the key things is WP:CONSENSUS. It seems there is not a consensus to accept your edits. As I said, I really don't have an opinion at this point, but, I am trying to help you understand how this place works. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck Prof - generally can think - so I can appeal to your brain :) - I do realise that the amount of time spent is not material. The point of the time spent is to highlight that change was gradual. Furthermore, to simply revert all that work without discussing it on talk, is vandalism. Also, please, I do refer you to the citation notice, which you kindly also restored and which has been ignored for four years. There is no consensus to accept my edits, but there is also very little - or no, discussion on any of the reverts. Is this not strange? So, in a nutshell and to be perfectly clear: what you are saying is that someone can spend a lot of time improving a page and someone else can simply revert it to what it was and simply add: "POV, facts are fake" and that is not vandalism? Zarpboer (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I do my level best to use my brain.... Anyway, propose text, with refs, and then people can look. So propose text here first. Plus, propose small changes, not big ones. It can be frustrating, but things move incrementally on wp. The refs should be high quality academic sources, not original docs, we need to know what mainstream academic thinking is on various issues. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being so constructive :) with something so emotive, should we not try to get just the basic facts correct? my pov is biased, i have never said it was not, but i do need help to get the bias out and, until you stood up and spoke out, nobody is much interested in helping me... , so thank you! Dbrodbeck - Moving forward: Simple things, can we start with the name? for example, because the name is also apparently pov. in the constitution the country is called the south african republic, and the countries that recognized it as a country recognized it with the same name. but, it was also known by the name transvaal, i am still developing my encyclopedic skills, but from reading other pages of countries that are no more, the quality is quite high, so, one has to say x is the name, and if it was also called y, then say x and z referred to it as y etc.? can i start a heading for the heading on this talk? - in my edit i did also ask for expert assistance in the previous country, can we redo some of my edits? like ad an under construction? and again, request expert assistance? - are these small edits or am i being too pushy :) Zarpboer (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Okay, well 350 edits reverted to the 2010 version of this page - because there is no consensus. I would like the editors to please look at the results of my 350+ edits, look at my citations and please return my work to this page. I will give it a week or few weeks or longer, for editors that do not agree with the work I did to please add the FACTS of their dispute or non agreement here: To this talk page, so that we can start fixing this page, with consensus as clearly the 2010 version of this page is based on a book which is a work of fiction... one of the citations is fake and although all the editors disputing unknown facts, are just reverting my work, without providing any proper reasons and that the same editors have had 4 years to add citations and to remove the fiction from this page, I guess another few weeks or so is not an issue? -- If (or when) I do look at this page again though, even if it is a year or whatever from now, and it still contains the same fiction and these editors that feel so strongly about the content, has done nothing - Then that will be evidence that there are indeed opposition acting in concert to prevent the improvement of this page. Zarpboer (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for this entry. I lost my cool. At the end of the day, i am the same as you, a person and i am trying really hard to add something of value and not "my value" or my own point of view, but an encyclopedic entry that is both neutral and of high quality. It is frustrating when many people just say "You are wrong" and they do not tell you why. It is frustrating when everyone reverts hundreds of my edits and they do not even bother to say anything except: pov. Think how you would feel if many people did this to you? Zarpboer (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New Additions & Changes or Improvements

I have added the page to Category:Former_countries_articles_needing_expert_attention and I would like to add additional citations regarding language only to historically published books (no reference from the 1920+ only 1920-), any objections? Anyone else with changes they would like to do? Zarpboer (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we also discuss time frames? - Is it reasonable to give everyone 24 hours to respond? - So if nobody responds in a day, then whomever wants to add a citation or add content with citations, etc. can just go ahead? I also propose that we start a heading for any controversial POV items, like the second boer war, you know, with the concentration camps etc. - I have removed five paragraphs of what may be POV that I added, I obviously want to add some of it back, but as encyclopedic and as neutral as possible.. (in other words - i do not want to come off as pro or against anything - simply make the page very high quality. something as sensitive as this needs to be well developed, I am just human, so I may also be biased, so please: Lets talk about it, so we can do things openly and fairly, comments? Zarpboer (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Second Boer War Changes

I think maybe the part about Britain not apologizing must be removed? That may be POV as by saying that anyone should apologize, it implies that there is something to apologize for?

Proposed header change

I would like to remove the additional Dutch Language link, a previous editor has correctly said that it is POV pushing, by overusing the term, is it okay to remove it? The header also needs a re-write, can we do that in the talk page? or on the page? and will someone help me please? My grammar is not always that great :) Zarpboer (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to Name of the country

Remove this "This proclamation was issued during the second boer war and whilst the ZAR was still an independent country" It is already obvious from the date, 1900, that the war was still ongoing. Just spelling it out may not be required? - Is that an overkill on POV or not, I am not even sure myself what is neutral anymore or what is not. Anyone? Zarpboer (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support this ? --SanamBh (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, SanamBh I did add citation to Eybers, 1917 publication of the original signed proclamations, actually for all the edits you undid, i did add proper and academic citations or citations to the original documentation. See, this is history, so some things can be facts, as much is it is a fact that we are typing in English... Some things are a fact, like i am a male human and then some things are POV, like i am a rude male (which i hope i am not :) ) - which is why, if you only look at my edits, it is a good base to start from, as i spent 350 edits, getting the actual dates correct and the salient facts correct, with as little bias or pov as i could find... but i cannot see my own bias, i need you? thank you so much for becoming involved and actually helping and contributing! Zarpboer (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

SanamBh I know you just clicked on undo, on my last edits, but can I maybe impose on you to actually look at the edits, look at the references, look at the dates and look at the content? - Then, can I please propose this: revert my edits and remove everything that even smells like POV, the same for all the other editors, ruthlessly remove all POV that you think is POV, then lets build this page together? This is what Wikipedia is all about, Collaboration? Let us build a really good page together that has value and that is neutral and great quality? - In my over 300 edits, there is a cat request for expert assistance, there is under construction, etc. etc. all done already? - plus, there are over 20 odd quality citations to either historic documents, historic books and published academic research - is that a workable plan? - with an expert editor helping us and everyone discussing, helping and watching for pov, this is the easiest way forward as there is actually a lot of work to be done and if there is some sort of solid base to start from that all agree upon, then it is simply the easiest way forward? Zarpboer (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zarpboer thank you for your reply. I clicked undo because you removed paragraphs of information, from the lead section, the early history section and creation section without giving proper substantiation as to why that info is irrelevant in this article. You then proceeded to replace objective text with blatant POV, such as calling the ZAR constitution one of the "leading and most interesting documents". The Wikipedia is to constitute encyclopaedic facts, not a certain party's personal point of view. The way to go forward is if we can explain to each other what we want to change in the article and reach a consensus, instead of edit warring. --SanamBh (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaning, SanamBh :) -- Okay, I understand that you have a problem with a single sentence, so easy - we remove that sentence as you are correct! The sentence seems like POV, in fact it needs to be written better... it was interesting and important "for it's time" in that period, (and you have to look at the citation) it is of LEGAL interest and extremely progressive in terms of its Juristic structures of Courts, Higher, Lower, Appeals and the method of how the JURY system functioned, and many other aspects... See, this is my complaint about the present page - it is not about the Former country at all, not about the culture, not about the publications, books, newspapers, poems, songs (of the dutch country - not the entire boers (2 countries) or the cape dutch afrikaners) - The history is researched quite a bit, and there are many academic papers, old books, etc. but it is not really of much interest to anyone, (except those that have some sort of political or other agenda with strong views about what is true and ral and what is not) - Now my problem is that I am not a writer, and I have poor encyclopedic skills, which I am working on, real hard, to improve. So, where you may think there is bias or no NPOV, we need to talk about it and examine the context and then discuss it and look at academic research and then write my sentence much better, because all that will happen, if my sentence is written poorly, is that the next person will come along and shout POV :) - So, that sentence must be completely removed and re-written: Maybe something like this: The ZAR Constitution was of legal interest because it was one of the first constitutions to... etc. etc. - but this is the thing - we can remove any or all sentences that anyone considers POV, as they need to be either redone or removed anyway? Zarpboer (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

SanamBh - Just to add: You clicked undo on another undo etc. which was the result of 350 edits, I removed sections, like the early history, because, this non NPOV has, since 2010 (four years) it has been requiring citations (imho it is fiction mixed with fact - more work to fix it than to redo and early history section, WITH proper citations once the article topic is set out, dates fixed, etc. So, in four years, the fiction has just been left on this page and as per the citation required notice from 2010, "it may be removed" - imho, four years is enough time, no? So, please look at the "base" that you undid, revert it and remove what you think is pov? and allow me to contribute to the page. As it stands now, I have 10 days of work invested, with 350 edits, and not one single edit is on this page. Also, now, I am repeating this process, and then in six weeks from now the next editor or sets of editors comes along and again reverts to the 2010 NPOV and fictional version, saying: POV *sigh* I do not think that I can invest all this time and effort again and I do not believe that this is Full Collaboration as whatever I add is ALL simply removed with three little letters: POV. Not cool. bias is as bias does (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

sorry, i setup my preferences for the first time (10 days on wikipedia *yay*) - does anyone object to me using "bias is as bias does" as a name, or is it offensive in any way to anyone else? bias is as bias does (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC) - removed my sig, soz Zarpboer (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Name

OK, let's start here. There is a naming policy WP:COMMONNAME that helps us out here. In English language sources, what is the usual name? And, if there is an alternate name, we can always say 'aka x' or 'x in y language' Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We also have to keep in mind that there is a DRN going on. It might be best to hold on until that is resolved. I find DRNs can be instructive about what sources are good ones etc. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There are three names that are used commonly in that time, South African Republic, Transvaal and simply ZAR. In the British press of the time: Transvaal is most prominent. In books and academic research, it is: south african republic and in both zar, which carries more weight, the news or the academic research and books? Probably the newspapers? as that is more common? Then it would be Transvaal, I guess. Although and in fact, the factual and actual name was South African Republic. You have also mentioned an important point about the DRN, maybe we should wait to see which of the the sources that I quoted are acceptable or reliable? Zarpboer (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the DRN will go anywhere as it is not nearly specific enough. Zarpboer it seems as though you want to do things properly, and I don't want you to be discouraged. I would ask you to please be patient as SA editing resources are very limited. The best way to move forward is to discuss specifics here like this. Thank you Dbrodbeck for getting involved. September is Wiki Loves Monuments month so, along with tying up other loose ends, that is where I am focussing my limited attention at the moment. HelenOnline 06:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Helen - If the DRN as mentioned by Professor Dbrodbeck is not going to provide much input then I have to request that anyone that objects to my last version, where I stripped out the POV and created a base, with under construction and with Former Countries Request Wiki for special expert assistance, as well as the 20 odd citations, be reverted - Then anyone objecting must say specifically to what they object, ie specific citation, etc. as the base version is specific to the country, which this article is about (and not southern african history, which you are already working on) and not the pro boer history non NPOV, and fiction with fake reference, that exists on this version that has been requiring citations since 2010... It is only fair, please? I did spend a lot of time and on the base version there should not be any major challenges? (If there are then we can simply remove those and build it further here?) - Just on an additional note, the average user, with little or no specific knowledge of this period or this country would surely be able to comment on any single perceived POV? There are a few POV, the pro boer pov, with the "left" side of the british press, the pro british pov and the right side of the british press, the pro afrikaner or cape duch pov and the neutral pov... Zarpboer (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck - Proposed header change from: "The South African Republic (Dutch: Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, or ZAR), often informally known as the Transvaal Republic, was an independent Boer-ruled country in Southern Africa during the second half of the 19th century. Not to be confused with the present-day Republic of South Africa, it occupied the area later known as the South African province of Transvaal. The ZAR was established in 1852, and was independent from 1856 to 1877, then again from the end of the First Boer War in 1881, in which the Boers regained their independence from the British Empire, until 1900. In 1900 the ZAR was annexed by the United Kingdom during the Second Boer War although the official surrender of the territory only took place at the end of the war, on 31 May 1902. In 1910 it became the Transvaal Province of the Union of South Africa."

To: "The South African Republic (Dutch: Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, or ZAR), also known as the Transvaal Republic, was an independent and Internationally recognized country (by the USA, UK, Germany and others) in Southern Africa from 1852 to 1902. Not to be confused with the present-day Republic of South Africa, it occupied the area around the modern day South African province of Gauteng."

reasons: 1) It was also known as Transvaal - Academic research, Common Name, etc. yes, it was only the British and the Cape Dutch Afrikaners that called it Transvaal - BUT, WP:COMMONNAME = also Transvaal - I am not pushing British POV or any other POV...

2) It was Internationally recognized - obvious to all? - It is obviously a former country and not a tribe etc. ?

3) There is no more Transvaal, so to refer to it in the present tense is...

4) The country (encyclopedic) did not cease being a country, then start being a country and then cease being a country etc. - It remained a country until it was no longer, In the sections below we can deal with the annex and constitutional implications of annex, etc. but historically, legally and per published academic research there was no factual dissolution, in fact there were proc issued after and during... - again, i have/will add(ed) eybers as citation in the constitutional section for clarity (with page no's etc. for ease of reference)

5) This is a specialized article - about a former country - so does not deal with events even after the Transvaal Colony (the Union of SA) that is still in the future and beyond the reach of this article

Improvements Anyone? Zarpboer (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake :( -- Common name : Transvaal and not Transvaal Republic, please accept this as an honest mistake - look at my previous edits... I did not mean to push any POV, simple error... Zarpboer (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit was mine... I was not logged in Zarpboer (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Army, Police, Civil Service, Economy, etc

Some of the other former countries pages have divided these into separate sections, am proposing to do the same and follow the same recipes as the a pages. Any objections?,
I am not getting much feedback from any other editors... so... I have added this page to former countries - review request, for review but on the new sections... - should I WP:BRD or discuss here first? Zarpboer (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Review Request

Dbrodbeck and/or SanamBh if at all possible, can you please scan the page for anything that seems weird, even a user that knows little or nothing about something can detect if there is an obvious and immediate pov issue. I have added page for review request in former countries and I have asked all the other editors that objected / reverted edits before, for feedback as well on their talk pages, SA Wiki chat threads etc. - I have also asked two third party non wiki editors to check the article as well. As I want to now add the army, economy, police and other sections, I would like some/any review asap, so i can build this to an A and aim for featured page :) - thanking you in advance for any spare time you may have and I do understand if you do not Zarpboer (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I will when I get a chance, It is the start of term and I am pretty busy..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why it was necessary to remove the early history concerning the indigenous inhabitants and status of the land before the establishment of the ZAR. --Sanam (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Early history of an area usually starts from either general history of a country (History of South Africa) or continent (History of Africa). If there's a general principle, it's to use contemporary political and geographical divisions as starting points for history, with articles on historical divisions as specialized items restricting themselves to the period of their existence. there is a general history of south africa etc. etc. this country page - the country did not start in 1800 or in paleo times, etc. etc. - encyclopedic quality Sanam, no? Zarpboer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

just to add, the period of the mfecane, and even before that is also similarly, in other articles relating to that time, those countries or regions and there cultures, customs, etc. the specific land where the zar was located on, beloned to the San, so did all of southern africa... this is a former country though, not just a regional article or a general article? Zarpboer (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that we ditch the POV claiming that the ZAR constitution was "legally leading" and just leave at "legally interesting for its time". It seems more NPOV that way. --Sanam (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, Sanam do you want me to remove it or will you? Zarpboer (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks Zarpboer :) --Sanam (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sanam, would you mind terribly much giving the language section a quick once over? there was a editor that had a pov problem with it? Zarpboer (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, rather question the editor that has made that particular claim. I don't see a problem with the statements in the language section if they are supported by reliable sources. --Sanam (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The British Annexation of 1877

As I find myself having to undo the same edit, from different, well meaning, editors on multiple occasions - I find the need to discuss this on the talk page. There is no break in the existence of the former country in 1877. When the British annexed the country, they did not disolve the constitution, they dissolved the "parliament" (volksraad), so worst case scenario, their was no break in the existence. Historically, the source documentation reflects that PRIOR to the actual annexation, the Volksraad had actually issued a proclamation declaring the annexation invalid (See Eybers and the actual ZAR proclamations) and therefore the country did not accept the British annexation. The country did not immediately declare war, instead sent delegations to Britain to negotiate a peaceful solution. The delegation returned from the UK and USA late in 1879 only to find that the UK had taken over 'administration' of the country. There was a singular meeting, where it was decided to prepare for war and in Dec of 1880, war broke out and in 1881 Britain lost the war. - Bottom line: Best case scenario - their was no break. Worst case scenario there still was no break. The country kept on existing 1877 through 1881. This is not a POV, it is simply international law and if the existence of the country in in dispute in 1877, someone would be changing the generally accepted history and therefore claiming that the source documents - the actual British annexation document and the ZAR parliament proclamations, etc. are all fake. So, then and in that case, please supply academical generally accepted citations and of course other source documents so that we may all benefit from your version of history Zarpboer (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality

Please review neutrality? (Both for content and cited references) Zarpboer (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Observation. This doesn't seem to be an RFC, but a request for some combination of WP:Peer review and WP:Dispute resolution. Perhaps you want to make a request at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where you'll also need to be more specific as to what you feel the problems are?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! removed RfC tag as per very valid Observation of SMcCandlish ☺ Zarpboer (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Maritz Rebellion

The Maritz Rebellion was that, a rebellion, 13 years after the country ceased existing. The Maritz Rebellion was not a country. The Maritz Rebellion was similarly never the South African Republic, it was a rebellion that tried to establish a republic, but failed. The South African Republic, what this article is about, ceased existing in 1902. To place the≤ Maritz Rebellion here is the same as placing information about Gauteng here, it is in the future and has nothing to do with the actual country of the ZAR and the period in time when the ZAR existed constitutionally. Toolen I did not undo your edits, to give you the opportunity of looking at your own cited reference: Strachan on page 500. Please also note that constitutionally, the ZAR did not surrender to the illegal British Annexation in 1877. So, the country did not cease existing or suspend its constitution. You have added an incorrect break in the country existence date. Please see other former countries and please revert those edits as well. Zarpboer (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what you believe the Marist Rebellion was, the fact of the matter is that it was an attempt to reestablish the ZAR by former military leaders who served ZAR. It included a provisional government composed of the rebel leaders, a military force composed of Guerrillas, and a claimed territory. It was in a way the final chapter of the story of the Boers and the ZAR, a last Harrah, if you will. It may have failed, but for few months, the ZAR was a state recognized only by the Central Powers. I have studied World War I extensively, and I'm currently working on an exhibit displaying artifacts from this conflict. My source is accurate, and I pride myself on factual accuracy. Furthermore, your views appear to be clouded by bias, perhaps due to a connection to this historical entity, or sympathy for the Boer cause. Such things must not be allowed to cloud one's judgement. Chronicles of history must be written from a neutral standpoint, free of judgement. Your opinions are duely noted, but I will not revert the edits. They are based on fact, and relate to the topic at hand. Nonetheless, I respect your opinion and thank you for not starting a pointless edit war. Toolen (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not about my belief or my Point of view, it is about yours Toolen... Your edit is simply inaccurate when compared with the average accepted academic view, your own citation does not claim that the South African Republic (Transvaal Republic / ZAR) existed in 1915, as it is simply just not true. #The South African Republic did not exist in 1915. #The page you are editing is about a former country, not a general history of people or a region. Unlike you, I do not have to accuse you of bias as all anyone has to do is read what you have written above. #Please read your own citation: It does not say that the South African Republic existed in 1915. #That then follows that the events you are adding to this page, is in the future, similarly the Union of South Africa is not mentioned on the page of the South African Republic - #The unionUnion of South Africa and the South African Republic did not exist together, after the South African Republic came the Colony of the Transvaal. #If you read what you are saying yourself above: it was an attempt to reestablish the ZAR - so, the ZAR was not established and was not a country after 1902. this is also what your citation, Strachan says on page 500-501 etc. The country was the Union of South AcfricaAfrica and this was a rebellion against that country, to try to reestablish the ZAR. Anyway, if you cannot see this yourself, we can ask for another editor to arbitrate for us? If that is not acceptable to you I can file a formal dispute? Please let me know which of the options are acceptable to you. - #This also goes for the constitutionality dates, you changed the dates to break at the 1877 British annexation, again claiming that the ZAR ceased being a country or suspended its constituionconstitution, whereas there is no historical evidence of that... So, either add acceptable academic citations that the constitution of the ZAR was suspended by the government of the ZAR and that the ZAR capitulated or surrendered to the British occupation, or undo your edits please? Zarpboer (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Toolen I should maybe simply have said this: The Maritz Rebellion was a rebellion against the Union of South Africa. The people involved in the rebellion wanted to re-establish the former country (which this page is about) of the ZAR. -- Does that help you understand your own citation? Zarpboer (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Toolen I have also changed the Maritz Rebellion page to accurately reflect that it was a rebellion against the Union of South Africa, in 1914. - to try to restore a former country. ( a country, which in 1914, did not exist) Please undo your edits on this page or let me know which form of arbitration you will accept. Zarpboer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe better to say would be: What you are trying to add to this former country page, Toolen on an encyclopedia, is this -> After the second boer war, the country stopped existing, it became the Transvaal Colony, then later the Transvaal Colony was converted from military to self rule and then later the Transvaal Colony became part of the Union of South Africa and then later, some people rebelled against the Union of South Africa...and even though they setup their own government, they were not recognised as an independent country or even as a country by anyone. They had no elections and simply appointed themselves... then they were still imprisoned, by the actual country whom they betrayed, or did not recognise, the Union of South Africa...- this is not encyclopedic - you are trying to turn this former country page into a history of the Union of South Africa page... and linking it to "the story of some Boers" - if it should go anywhere, the maritz rebellion should be under the Union of South Africa. This country, where you are editing now, simply just did not exist and neither did even the Union of South Africa and ALL that the maritz rebellion possibly has in common with this former country is your POV that, and I quote you: "It was in a way the final chapter of the story of the Boers" - so where this non WP:NPOV of yours should go is not on this former country page. If you are correct and I am wrong, consider that you are trying to bring in this final chapter of 'the story' - in one sentence. If you want to bring this in you need to first bring in the transvaal colony, and then why stop at the maritz rebellion? why not bring in all the events right up to 1994? - because this is not encyclopedic...Please undo your edits on this page or let me know which form of arbitration you will accept. Zarpboer (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they failed or not. The South failed to form a separate state during the American Civil War, but that doesn't mean the Confederacy didn't exist. Many attempts to establish nations end in failure. The new entity simply isn't strong enough to defeat the nation it breaks away from. This was one of those cases. As for the reason I mention 1915 as the end date, that is because that is the day the last of the Boer leaders surrendered. He was the last of the members of the provisional government that was still fighting. His surrender marked the end of rebellion and the rebel state.

As for the accusations of bias, you're one to talk. Now that I've taken the time to read your username, I have no doubt you feel a connection to the Boers of old. It is only natural for you to be biased towards this subject. That is something a historian can't afford.

I see that you took what I said and used it against me in the argument, just as I knew you would. I I knew that the moment I used words like "story" and "last Harrah" that you would use my wording to accuse me of hypocrisy. Rest assured, it was a deliberate move on my part. I used those words simply because they are common expressions. Is it not often said that history is a story? I'm also glad that you mentioned recognition of the state. The state was recognized by Germany. The Germans had been sympathetic to the Boer cause during the Second Boer War, and the rebellion gave them an ally in their struggle with the British Empire. It meant that Britain's colonial forces couldn't focus their full attention on Germany's colonies. Regardless, even if no one recognized it, that simply means that it was an unrecognized state. Furthermore, since the rebels believed that they were simply restoring the independence of the ZAR and the Boer people, this info belongs here. Other reasons for the inclusion here include the fact that the rebels were some of the very people who fought for the ZAR during the Boer Wars, as well as the fact that many of the Boxers were still resentful of the British. Naturally, many people believed that Britain had no right to annex their nation, and they didn't consider themselves British citizens. The rebels were simply trying to restore the sovereignty they believed was rightfully theirs, and the provisional government they had set up was just temporary, and would be replaced by a restored republic rule once the war was won.

My edits have nothing to do with personal opinion, and are not POVs. Unlike you, I have no connection, family or otherwise, to the Boers. I am a neutral party, and base my opinions on analysis of facts. I don't base my edits on opinion. I researched the facts, analyzed them, then added what I found to the article. If the source I added isn't sufficient, then I will add another when I find the time. I have plenty of sources I can use. In the meantime, I have work to do, and I would appreciate it if you showed some patience. I'm not looking for a fight, and I'm not trying to offend you. As I said before, I respect your opinion, and I hope that I haven't insulted you in some way. I simply can't ignore the evidence and the facts which I have found. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a lot of work to do, both here on wikipedia and elsewhere. Toolen (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Maritz and friends were trying to re-establish the old ZAR? That they wanted the old flag is not enough. Nor is it enough that they used the term "South African Republic". Did they not have support from Boers in the Cape and the Orange Free State? Were these ones also trying to re-establish the defunct ZAR? All that aside, no Boer state was created. Some military units rebelled, with German support. They did not create a state, despite their declared intention to do so. Even had they, it is not necessarily a reincarnation of the old state, as you seem to assume. What sources do you have that they were trying to recreate the Transvaal Republic? Even if you present such sources, it's merely worth a mention because, unlike the Confederacy, it simply didn't exist except in hearts and minds. Srnec (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer is wrong. One of theme main reasons for his edit was the fact that he disagreed with the breaks in the dates in the infobox, despite the fact that the same technique is used on numerous other articles. Furthermore, the rebels did in fact create a provisional government. It was led by Christian Frederick Beyers, Christiaan de Wet, Manie Maritz, General Bezuidenhout and Jan Kemp. Marist issued a declaration of the restoration of the old South African Republic, and of its independence from the Union of South Africa. A declaration of war was issued on October 9, 1914. The argument that it was just a group of rebellious guerillas, as they successfully managed to g as in control of several towns in their claimed territory. More importantly, though, the very same strategy of guerilla warfare was used by the Boxers during the Boer Wars. During that conflict, the leaders of the nations joined the guerillas in their campaigns even after the capital fell. If you wish to argue on those grounds Matthias was just a simple rebellion, then you might as well say that the ZAR ceased to exist when the capital fell on June 9, 1900. Furthermore, the rebellion did have the support of many of the Afrikaners. The y were able to.raise a force of 12,000 men, and many more aided the rebellion. They may not have gotten everyone's support, but they did get the support of part of the population. Finally, the argument that it was "just a rebellion" could also be applied to the United States from 1776-1783. The patriots didn't have the support of the the entire colonial population either. Even failed rebellions like the Confederate States of America are mentioned on Wikipedia as unrecognized states. We can't just ignore this rebellion because it failed. If you still aren't entirely satisfied with my edits, however, I am willing to compromise. You could just leave the dates as they are in the Informix, or a separate page could be created for the ZAR of the Maritz Rebellion. In fact, these additions to the article aren't even my additions. They were added by another user some time ago. I merely started editing the article because I noticed that certain parties had been deleting large chunks of the article. I wish to apologize for not reporting the perpetrators. The reason I did not do so is because the policy of the site states that I must warn the user before reporting them, and the last person I warned simply reported me before I could report them. Since then, I've tried to avoid confrontational situations, though sometimes I end up in them anyway. I also wish to apologize to Dodger67, as my response to his edit was unnecessarily harsh. The frustration of the issue with zarpboer was getting to me, and I may have unintentionally take out my frustrations on you. Please forgive me for that. I only have so much patience when dealing with frustrating arguments before I snap. I hope there are no hard feelings. Toolen (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Maritz Rebellion was a rebellion against the Union of South Africa. there was no ZAR in 1915. There has not been any citation that says otherwise. In fact, the illegal government that was created from the Maritz rebellion, did NOT wish to re-instate the ZAR constitution, but had its own created (not elected) "volksraad" among many of the chief differences. This reballion was not a country, was not recognised as such by anyone and it is generally accepted historically that the ZAR ceased existing in 1902. So, the Maritz rebellion has nothing to do with this South African Republic... - If you do not agree, please submit a citation that says otherwise, here on the talk page please. Zarpboer (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The point that you are not conceding Toolen is the difference between the USA and here is this: There are different internationally recognised COUNTRIES involved here, not just one. Historically the ZAR CEASED existing after 1902. This is not my POV, this is constitutionally so, generally accepted so there was no country ZAR, after 1902. Even you agree with that? Then, there were two other countries after the ZAR, The Transvaal Colony (British) and The Union Of SA (Self governing and British). The rebellion was in 1915, when the Union was constitutionally recognised internationally, as a COUNTRY. The rebellion rebelled against this and wanted to re-establish a Boer republic. This is the same as you (and even 200 000) people rebelling against the USA Government in 2014 and taking up arms to form a Southern Confederacy. Even if this Southern Confederacy sets up a government, has a constitution and starts killing American Soldiers, they are NOT a country, they are not legit, they are rebelling, even if these rebels are backed by a Muslim country somewhere, it is still all not constitutional, these 200 000 people will be captured and sent to prison. The fact that they rebelled, now in 2014, can possibly be reflected on the USA page, not in the nineteenth century Southern Confederacy page! The 2014 rebellion has nothing to do with the Southern Confederacy, except that 200 000 people wanted to re-establish it. To understand what all these editors are trying to explain to you, you need to place yourself outside of your non neutral views and start looking at your problem from a different perspective. Or, you need to accept that many other editors cannot all be wrong, so there must be something that you are not getting...Zarpboer (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Toolen. Your complaints over the interval between dates are irrelevant. Look at articles like the Duchy of Milan and the Papal States, among others, and you will see the same intervals. As for your example, that wouldn't apply here. A theoretical rebellion in 2014 would be different, because it would involve different people. The rebels from the days of the Civil War have been dead for quite a while. The Maritz Rebellion involved many of the same Boers who had fought in the Second Boer War. The Boers who joined the rebellion were from a faction known as the "bitter enders". These Boers had not signed the pledge to abide by the peace terms and took advantage of World War I to declare their secession from the Union of South Africa. They declared the independence of the South African Republic and established a provisional government, as described here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zLtEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=maritz+rebellion+%22independence%22+%22South+African+Republic%22&source=bl&ots=cA0sWesffh&sig=1_mrw-oCDGOyjO7aizyDt3xayXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ASQjVNzEC9GiyATCpYHgBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=maritz%20rebellion%20%22independence%22%20%22South%20African%20Republic%22&f=false I would also like to point out that your argument over the "legitimacy" of a rebellion is ridiculous. It's pretty stupid to say one rebellion is "legit" and another isn't. Who decides which rebellion is legitimate? You? If the rebel state is not recognized by any political entity, then it is an unrecognized state. Somaliland is not recognized by any other nation, yet it still operates independently of Somalia. The Islamic State isn't recognized by any government, but it still operates on its own. A rebellion is a rebellion. This isn't politics. We don't declare whether a state is legitimate or not based on recognition. The Maritz rebellion was led by some of the same people who led the old Boer republics in the previous conflict, declared their intention to reestablish the South African Republic, and set up a provisional government composed of the leaders of the rebellion. They took control of several towns and areas in South Africa during the course of the rebellion, and operated within said territories until the rebellion was suppressed. You can continue your little war of insults with toolen all you want, but we shouldn't delete entire sections of an article just because of a POV. This isn't your personal article, and it isn't toolen's. I suggest we either leave at least part of the edits within the article, or we create a separate page for the ZAR of 1914-1915. In fact, I seem to recall their being a separate article for said republic before it was merged with this article. I'm sure whoever did so had legitimate reasons for the merger, so I'm personally in favor of the former rather than the latter. I will continue to dig up sources if further evidence is required, since this article is one of personal interest to me. Mitsukurina (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You did not address the fact that this rebellion is against the Union of South Africa? Similarly, you neglected to mention that the rebellion seeked to replace the Union of South Africa and not to re-establish the ZAR. Please discuss that? Zarpboer (talk)

I now understand where all this is coming from.. it is WP:SYN. Your confusion is that the rebellion was against the Union of SA. That the rebellion actually and in truth declared that the Cape, Natal, Free State and Transvaal are all relesed from the Union and they declared a SINGULAR new government. Not a Free State or a ZAR government, but a singular NEW government for the entire collective. look at the constituion of the rebellion, the actual document. This means - They are replacing the Union of South Africa, what they tried doing, actually happened later in the 1960's, peacefully... anyway - this has nothing to do with THIS former country page (or with the former country of the orange free state, of the former cape colony page or the natalia republic page, etc. etc. etc. - This belongs on the Union of South Africa page... (aalso not on the Transvaal Colony page either...) If you disagree - then please stick to the core of the issue - Whether the rebellion seeked to re-create ONLY the ZAR or whether it declared to free ALL of the Southern African region... The Core of the editor dispute: Did the rebellion declare to re-establish the ZAR OR Did the rebellion declare to disband the country of the Union of South Africa. - If the rebellion ONLY declared to re-establsih the ZAR, then it did not interfere with the other countries in Southern Africa. - If the rebellion declared to disestablish the country of the Union of South Africa - then the rebellion was against the Union of South Africa - Also, please check Transvaal Colony - the borders of the ZAR and the borders of the Transvaal in the Union of South Africa - were not the same. So, there are multiple issues here. Primarily though, the issue of what the rebellion declared. Only the ZAR or freeing the entire Southern Africa. from there we can move to the other issues, like the constitution of the new rebel country, borders and in which country the towns were that the rebellion occupied, etc. Zarpboer (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Maritz rebellion: men who supported independence from Britain for the Union of South Africa took up arms against the government of the Union of South Africa please see page 87 and 88 of https://archive.org/stream/captureofdewetso00sampuoft#page/86/mode/2up - for the treaty as signed with the German government by Maritz. @ Mitsukurina I have improved the Maritz rebellion page, so that it should no longer confuse you. It is challenging to confront opinions when those opinions are influenced by movies and fictional stories, unfortunately the accepted history differs from the Movie and books of fiction, and this being an encyclopedia, we have to represent the generally accepted NEUTRAL academic view of history. Please let me know if somehting is still not clear to you? Or similarly, if I have neglected to add anything? Thank you so much, and thank you for your link to one of Maritz speeches (at Bokzijn-puts) about the ZAR independence Zarpboer (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No original Research? What kind of idiot do you take me for? I am both offended and outraged by these claims. It seems you've mistaken me for some moron who blindly believes anything that movies and literature tells me to believe. Don't talk to me like you would an uneducated dunce. I am NOT confused by the article, and I do not believe what movies and fictional accounts tell me to believe. But enough about me. Let's talk about your argument. Once again you go prattling on about the Constitution like some politician. There is more to a nation then just a constitution. I could go on and on about what makes up a nation, but I won't. You have offended me, and judging by your comments, you think of me as beneath you, a pathetic amateur you needs to be taught how to do things as if I were a child. I am not so ignorant as you would have others believe. I have done extensive research on the rebellion and World War I in general. It is clear that their intention was the reestablishment of the South African Republic as a free and independent nation. Below is the proclamation made by Maritz himself in 1914.

To the People op South Africa.

Whereas the peace concluded at Vereeniging in 1902 was in conflict with the real wishes of the South African people, and we were compelled to submission against onr desire because our women and children were being systematically done to death by the enemy in the concentration camps, through which the nation incurred the danger of being completely destroyed ;

4563 I 2

68

Whereas the ideal of a free South Africa under their own tlag is still cherished by our people, and we firmly believe and cherish the holy conviction that Providence, which controls the destinies of peoples as well as persons, planted our pious and brave forefathers in this sunny land to make of us, their descendants, a free and independent people ;

Whereas the Imperial Government has, on more than one occasion since the last war, again broken faith with the South African people, by, for example, paying out the three million pounds, which was intended for bnrghers who had not placed themselves under protection of the enemy, to persons who had no right to it, and further (because) both the English Government and the jingo section in England have continually brought pressure to bear on the Union Government, conlrary to promises made, to extinguish and suppress the national aspirations of our people and to place the interests of the Empire above those of South Africa ;

Whereas the Imperial Government finally went so far as to induce the Union Government to attempt, against the will and desire of the vast majority of our people, to conquer German South- West Africa, and the Union Government by means of false and deceitful representations persuaded Parliament to approve of the said war ;

Whereas the people have protested against the said war, at first by passive resistance and later arms in hand, and the Union Government, instead of giving ear to this, set one section of the people in arms against the other, by means of untrue and misleading assertions, through which many sons of our land have already lost their lives ;

Whereas the people has exhausted all constitutional means of inducing the Union Government to refrain from the aforesaid war, and therefore no other way remains open to the people than to shake off the British yoke ;

Now, therefore, I, Solomon Gerhardus Maritz, Coramandaut-General of the Republican forces in the Cape Province, by consent of the Provisional Government, proclaim and determine as follows : —

That the former South African Republic and Orange Free State, as well as the Cape Province and Natal, are declared free of British authority and independent, and every white inhabitant of the aforesaid territories, of whatever nationality, is hereby called upon to aid, arms in hand, in the establishment of the long-cherished ideal of a free and independent South Africa.

If the people obey this call unanimously the object can be attained without bloodshed ; on the other hand, if there is disunion the struggle may possibly be long and bloody. Hence it is necessary for every one to take up arms in order to attain what God has foreordained for our people and what He now places within our reach.

The property and goods of those who stand on our side will be respected and protected in every possible way, and all commandeered property and animals will he paid for as soon as possible after the war.

All financial liabilities, of whatsoever character, are suspended until three months after the war, and acknowledgments of indebtedness of this kind, etc., will bear no interest durihg the war.

The payment of repatriation debts is iikewise suspended, and as soon as possible after the war the whole question will be reopened, with the object of finding a more just and fair solution.

Several cases are known where the enemy has armed natives and coloured people to fight against us, and as this tends-to arouse contempt among the black nations for the white, an emphatic warning is issued that all coloured people and natives who are captured with arms, as well as their officers, will be mad.? to pay the penalty with their lives.

I proclaim and make known further that prisoners of war taken from the enemy who, when captured, are not wearing proper uniforms which can be distinguished from civilian dress will be dealt with according to the usages of war.

That we shall take revenge if it appears that our burghers or officers who may fall into the hands of the enemy are not treated in accordance with the laws of civilised warfare.

On several occasions of late it appears that the enemy has made use of explosive bullets, and I wish to protest emphatically against so barbarous a manner of carrying on war. Any of the enemy found in possession of such cartridges will be treated according to the laws of war.

Of late the enemy has on more than one occasion abused the white flag; against this also a warning is issued.

As the enemy threatens to confiscate the property of burghers fighting on the Republican side, it is hereby notified that such confiscation is unlawful and will not be recognized.

Finally it is notified for general information that the following persons have been chosen as a Provisional Government to act in the name of the people, until other arrangements can be made : —

C. F. Beyers,. Commandant-General for the Transvaal.

C. R. de Wet, Commandant-General for the Orange Free State.

S. G. Maritz, Commandant-General for the Cape Province.

J. C. J. Kemp, Assistant Commandant-General for the Transvaal.

A. P. J. Bezuidenhout, " Vegt-generaal " ; and Commandant Kampher.

This Proclamation must be considered as applying to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State as well as to the Cape Province and Natal, in so far as the contents are not in conflict with proclamations and notices already issued by the Provisional Government or Republican Generals.

God Save Country and People.

Given under my haud in the field, this 16th day of December, in the year of our Lord One thousand Nine hundred and Fourteen.

S. G. MARITZ.

This was taken from archive.org, the same place that your source came from. Should further evidence of the intentions of the rebels be required, I will happily provide it. I have plenty of other primary sources that can be provided. Mitsukurina (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What you and the other editors have to heed is WP:V as well as WP:CIVIL. Diatribes and posting quotes from one person, who is historically regarded as a traitor and nazi racial supremacist, on a talk page is not proof of anything. It only serves to illuminate the lack of neutrality and underlines ignorance of WP:V. 105.237.198.224 (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I know about WP:V - look at it and see neutrality this is all I am saying and I have been nothing but CIVIL! Zarpboer (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Civil my foot! You just choose to ignore my sources and do as you please. Then, when I try to correct you, you accuse me of bias and, although you have since deleted the comment, relying on NAZI sources! In case you weren't aware, the Nazi's didn't exist in 1914. I find these accusations hurtful and ridiculous. Furthermore, the presence of anti-Semitic comments within these sources merely reflects the prejudice of the individual who wrote it, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Such views were common in certain areas during the early 20th century. I sincerely hope that you are not trying to insinuating that I have such views, though I detected no such accusations in your dialogue. Regardless, if anyone is biased, it would be you. Toolen (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The South African Republic was actually under British suzerainty - as was the Orange Free State.

The South African Republic was actually under British suzerainty - as was the Orange Free State.

In other words, it was part of the British Empire. - (203.211.76.43 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:South African Republic/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Quality== The quality of this article is more than stub, but less than B-class. I therefore downgraded it in the former countries template as well. The main problem is with references and footnotes, of which there are neither. Thus B-class is not an option. Also the article lacks balance and needs to be brought in line with the article on Transvaal as well as with a new article on Transvaal Colony (1900-1910). Michel Doortmont (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Have fixed the multitude of factual errors, added Emily Hobhouse, Eybers, Us Congress original scanned convention docs, etc. Is historic article so pov is more fact based although there are disputes about certain numbers, the static facts are what they are. Please Michel Doortmont can you crit and tell me where to add more citations, etc? would like to really help make this into a high quality page :) thx Zarpboer (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Facing a lot of vandalism, apparently this page is controversial. I have started over from a base which imho is neutral (i may be wrong), at least the page is now about the country. There are at least 20 odd respected citations and footnotes, if the vandals give me a break, this page will hopefully increase in quality a lot. have also caused a redo on Transvaal Colony, as mentioned above by Michel Doortmont above. Anyway, the page still needs some work when compared with some of the others in this Category! - but hopefully over time we can get to the same high standard and level as the other pages. Have added the page to expert required cat as well... Zarpboer (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 06:34, 30 April 2016 (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)

It appears that 1914/1915 Maritz rebellion did not create a state recognized as independent, nor did they really create a de facto or de jure state. Also, that rebellion is not mentioned in this text, thus the date should not be mentioned in the infobox to this article. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It was recognized by the colonial german government in south west africa, and is mentioned in the lead of this article. A separate article once existed, but it was merged into this one. Recognition is irrelevant, there are many unrecognized countries that have their own pages, for example Somaliland.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland has de facto control over a swath of territory, number one. Also, the Maritz rebellion, there is a page on Wikipedia, was put down quickly and there was no real de facto control of any territory, much less the territory of the South African Republic. It appears too the rebels declared the Orange Free State independent to. But saying doesn't make it so. And the editors at the Orange Free State page have not seen fit to put "1914-1915" on their infobox. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Maritz rebels specifically claimed to the a reconstituted ZAR, they used ZAR symbols and the ZAR flag. They occupied several villages and towns in the Northern part of the country for several months. The rebels never proclaimed an independent Orange Free State, they claimed all persons and territory under their provisional government to be part of the ZAR and conducting relations with the Germans in South West Africa on that basis.XavierGreen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

From the Maritz rebellion article, emphasis added: "General Maritz, who was head of a commando of Union forces on the border of German South-West Africa, allied himself with the Germans. He then issued a proclamation on behalf of a provisional government. It stated that 'the former South African Republic and Orange Free State as well as the Cape Province and Natal are proclaimed free from British control and independent, and every White inhabitant of the mentioned areas, of whatever nationality, are hereby called upon to take their weapons in their hands and realize the long-cherished ideal of a Free and Independent South Africa.'" And just because you claim independence and use the symbols doesn't mean the territory is reconstituted. Just because the "Republic of Texas (group)" declares independence doesn't make it so. But, if it doesn't bother anyone else on this page, fine, leave it up. But I don't think every penny ante rebel group that declares independence makes that country legally de facto and de jure reconstituted enough to call it a separate country on the infobox. But, in the absence of other editors, I'll leave it to you. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The rebels claimed all of the areas of South Africa to be part of the same independent state, the Republic of South Africa, they had one unified provisional government that governed all the areas and persons under its control.XavierGreen (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did feel compelled to undo an edit which added the Maritz Rebellion to the info box as a continuation of the ZAR. That said, I don't see the harm in adding the information under an appropriately titled section with a label like 'revival attempts' for example which makes no claims that the rebellion constitutes a full-fledged nation state. This would be a meaningful contribution to the article is at would demonstrate that the idea of the ZAR was politically important long after the actual state had ceased to exist without making any disputed claims as to whether the rebellion itself constituted a continuation of the ZAR. Francoisdjvr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed the following:

Discrimination on the basis of race was prevalent in the ZAR and black British subjects were forced to reside in ghettos outside cities with Asians and blacks, while whites were free to live anywhere. One of the justifications often used by the ZAR Government for its institutional racism was that sanitation and regard to public health necessitated that measure of segregation. (Origin of the Anglo-Boer War Revealed – C. H. Thomas (originally published in 1899 by Hodder & Stoughton)|url = http://boere.co.za/origin-of-the-anglo-boer-war-revealed-c-h-thomas/)

The citation refers to, I think the following text, which was not published in 1899, but 1900 at the earliest - the book itself is not dated in either edition.

Treatment of Coloured British Subjects

...

It will be remembered that some years before already the English Government had felt it incumbent to advocate the cause of coloured British subjects and to remonstrate against their ill-usage. The matter was ultimately submitted to arbitration at Bloemfontein, under the umpireship of Sir Henry de Villiers, whose award, contrary to expectation, was adverse to the coloured people. Here was indeed a unique occasion for the Transvaal Government to exercise geniality upon a point sorely felt by the British Government; but the very contrary course was adopted under the ægis of that notorious award, and upon the untenable plea that sanitation and regard to public health necessitated that measure of segregation.

Assuming that Sir Henry de Villiers is Sir John Henry de Villiers he was the Attorney General and later Chief Justice of Cape Colony, a different state from ZAR at the time.

So it seems that this may well refer to a different judgement, though it is of course possible that Villiers had been asked to adjudicate as an outside party.

It's also not clear that the source is reliable on its own, especially reading the preface.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

Additional research suggests that the arbitrator was actually af:Melius de Villiers, throughing more doubt on the reliability of the source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

An awkward sentence

Although slavery was illegal in the constitution and foreigners were discriminated against, black foreigners had fewer rights than their white counterparts.
How does the former part relate to the latter? Does it mean "black foreigners were more discriminated than white foreigners"? But what black foreigners were there? Was there black migration inbetween the states? Weren't all blacks considered foreigners - and whites natives? I'm confused as I know little, less so - about the cultural mores of South African pioneers and of the author[s] of this article (who are probably modern anti-racists (i.e., anti-white racists) anyway).--Adûnâi (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Claim as to Cape Colony policy towards Dutch

The British similarly had declared English to be the only language spoken in the Cape Colony some decades earlier to outlaw the Dutch language.
The statement is referenced, but appears to take some liberties with the source as well as (more importantly) being contradicted by a number of other sources. See, for instance, V.V. Palmer, Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family, Cambridge University Press, 2001, at pages 160-161: "In the Cape, English was proclaimed the official language on July 5, 1822, at which time Lord Charles Somerset laid down a time-table for the adoption of English as the sole language of the courts and public record. Legislation (which was issued in English) was in fact gazetted in Dutch in the Cape, at least in the rural areas, throughout the century. But legislation was not required to be in any language other than English. [...] It was only in 1882, as a result of the Constitution Ordinance Amendment Act I of 1882, that Members of the Cape Parliament were permitted to conduct debate and discussions in English or Dutch. Bills of this Parliament were not normally published in Dutch, although, as mentioned, proclamations, ordinances and acts of Parliament were, as it "was in the interests of the government to see that the law was understood by all"". Preview to this source is available on Google Books. The statement therefore seems to be quite misleading to the extent that it tries to draw an equivalency between illegalizing the speaking of foreign languages in the ZAR with the British policy in the Cape. Homagetocatalonia (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Civil War 1861-1864 -- issues with citation

Why are there no citations in this section? It has a reference to a main article, but even the main article is poorly cited. Matenstelo (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)