Talk:Xhosa Wars: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:08, 9 July 2009

Military history: African / Early Modern Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Africa: South Africa Start‑class

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	South Africa portal This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa.

Template:0.7 set nom

Hi, I created the article Xhosa Wars, but I didn't realise that their was already an article. Please Merge. Samuel 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I don't know who merged, but did he not lose the edit history of 'Cape Frontier Wars'? JMK 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the most biased anti-European article I have ever read anywhere. I shall check the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to see what it says, but I am prepared to lay a very large bet that the differences are huge. Just what academic book written befor the last 25 years of angst refers to the 'Xhosa Wars'. I mean, 60,000 cattle. Errr... just who did the count? Beyond belief. David Lauder 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa Wars vs. Kaffir Wars? …using wikEd

I am the last person around to advise revisionist history, but I believe that even to be historically correct in calling them the Kaffir Wars would set of a maelstrom of controversy. (For example, even the memorial plaques to British casualties in the Grahamstown cathedral have been covered to avoid insensitivity.) --Lmcelhiney 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

Could whoever put the POV dispute tage on the main page please tell me whats wrong with the article, the tag is pointless with out a dispute. Samuel 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Xhosa Wars" doesn't sound neutral to me. Xhosa is a language. If the original title was "Cape Frontier Wars", that is neutral. Why was it dropped? I've heard of "Kaffir Wars", but the usual term used by historians is "Frontier Wars", not merely because the term "Kaffir" is now derogatory, but also because it views the wars from one side only. One could equally well call them "Colonist Wars", viewing them from the other side.

So "Cape Frontier Wars" is a better neutral term. SteveH (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usage on the Internet is split even (Britannica Online uses Cape Frontier), but doesn't Cape Frontier have a British bias? The wars was fought in the Xhosa's (AmaXhosa in this case, a people, not just a language) land, or the land beyond the Cape Province (hence Cape Frontier) but since from the Xhosa's perspective their land is the battlefield, the term is equally neutral. We could call it the Anglo-Xhosa wars, but that would mean we are coming up with a new term. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa Wars is the term most commonly used by historians. Anglo-Xhosa Wars might be an alternative, but as Samuell points out we would be coining an entirely new term which goes against policy. Editors who dislike the term "Xhosa Wars" need to produce sources that show this is non-neutral and controversial. I am removing the tag for now, as the case for it hasn't been clearly made. It can be re-added if somebody produces evidence that there are nuetraily issues. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Smith

I pretty sure that Harry Smith did not lead the British troops in 1806 who were sent to help the Boers. At least, not **the** Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet Aliwal, to whom the link leads, and who in 1806 was an 18-year-old 2nd Lieutenant in the newly-formed 95th Rifles. I know nothing about the Xhosa wars, so haven't changed the article, but someone who knows should find out who did lead the expedition, and fix. KiwiBiggles 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Gregorydavid has restored the link I removed, to Harry Smith. The article here http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol031ah.html makes it pretty clear that, even if the commander of the British forces in 1806 was called Harry Smith, it was some other Harry Smith. Unless someone can provide references that Harry Smith Baronet Aliwal served part of his very early career in South Africa, I am going to re-remove the link. KiwiBiggles (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs correction

Somehow this article has become totally disjointed. I am in the process of obtaining relevant information pertaining to each of the wars..Gregorydavid 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple spellings of Xhosa names

There are a couple of likely errors in names here due to multiple European spellings of Xhosa names. Unfortunately, I do not have any good solid references for these changes, so I will leave this under discussion for now.

Makana's attack on Grahamstown seems to be listed twice here. The article states that Makana attacked Grahamstown on 22 April 1817, and also that Maqana attacked Grahamstown in 1819, promising that Settler bullets would turn to water. This is very likely the same event, and the same man. His name was Makana, and he was also known as Nxele. The bullets turning to water sounds correct, and he did end up on Robben Island.

Kreli, referred to under the heading 9th Xhosa war, is as far as I know actually Sarhili, chief of the Gcaleka.

Halfsnail 09:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, see the names of Xhosa prophets, and those sent to Robben Island. Also some references refer to the same wars by different numbers, ie maybe from the British perspective and others from the Dutch or South African perspective. There is some work to be done..Gregorydavid 10:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars

I do not agree with the reduction of the number of sections listing each specific war. Maybe the templates only should have been removed Samuel.Gregorydavid 10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Kei War?

Some books refer to the Transkei or Trans-Kei War, i.e. of the Transkei. But is this the same as the Xhosa/Kaffir/Cape Frontier wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work being done

I see user:JMK has been doing good work re-writing the sections.Gregorydavid (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map is incorrectly labeled and drawn

The map of the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope is both incorrectly labeled and drawn. The map is labeled "c.1835", but British Kaffraria was not officially declared by Governor Smith until December 1847, and East London was not founded until January 1848. The map appears to be a colorized reproduction of the map found on p. 262 in Smith's autobiography, which is labelled as being c.1850 in that book's list of illustrations.

More importantly, however, the shading of British Kaffraria, is incorrect. The western boundary of British Kaffraria extended to the Kei River, not beyond as currently indicated. See C.A. Bayly, Atlas of the British Empire, p. 83.

137.165.201.94 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 == Good work being done ==
 I see [[user:JMK]] has been doing good work re-writing the sections.[[User:Gregorydavid|Gregorydavid]] ([[User talk:Gregorydavid|talk]]) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
+== Map is incorrectly labeled and drawn ==
+The map of the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope is both incorrectly labeled and drawn.
+The map is labeled "c.1835", but British Kaffraria was not officially declared by Governor Smith until December 1847, and East London was not founded until January 1848.  The map appears to be a colorized reproduction of the map found on p. 262 in Smith's autobiography, which is labelled as being c.1850 in that book's list of illustrations.
+More importantly, however, the shading of British Kaffraria, is incorrect.  The western boundary of British Kaffraria extended to the Kei River, not beyond as currently indicated.  See C.A. Bayly, Atlas of the British Empire, p. 83.
+[[Special:Contributions/137.165.201.94|137.165.201.94]] ([[User talk:137.165.201.94|talk]]) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)