Talk:First Boer War

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

British Empire High‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / British / European C‑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

C

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

South Africa: Politics High‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the South African politics task force.

Comment

To do list-- 16:50, 12 October 2004 Tempshill (set up todo list)

Page split

The text in this article was copied from the Boer War article, before that article was moved to the Second Boer War where the text in this article was removed. So if you wish to see edits to this article before today please see the history of the Second Boer War Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much more to this war than that short little article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.101.245 (talk • contribs) 09:04, March 31, 2006 (UTC)

The comment concerning the Boers adoption of breech loading rifles as an advantage doesn't seem to make sense since the British were armed with breech loading rifles as well (the Martini-Henry)

Quick question. Why does it seem the article is trying to say as much as possible in as little as possible. It doesn't mention the various factors in both the British and the Boer side that led to the conflict, it only names what is considered the main one. Also, it seems that the article focuses on the British side, pointing out how they were beseiged, how they responded, and how they eventually lost, saying very little of the Boer side of the events that transpired. Maybe I just think so because I'm an Afrikaaner (Boer) and I learned the whole history with emphesis being placed only on the Boer side of the historical narrative. I think neither side should be more emphesised than teh other, and that a FULL and COMPLETE description of all teh events that transpired should be given. Just my two cents, but I know if I change it, Wikipedia's new "less is more" policy will come cracking down and remove all my writing. Anyway, please don't just ignore my post because I'm an anon. I have great pride (and shame) in my country and the events that shaped it. I ask that in the same way that you would all tell every detail of your own country or people group's war for independece, so also give my coutry the same attention and detail. - Ouboet 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Ouboet

The following appears: "The British also had three very important bases in Bombay, which drove them into Nepal." Given that the areas mentioned are in Asia (India/Nepal) not Africa and the discussion appears to be about Lesotho (Basotuland) this sentence is strange. Is there some cross reference intended or is it perhaps just an overlooked bit from a cut and paste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.236.249 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Dress?

In the article it says that the British soldiers wore red and blue. Is this correct? I thought that by this point the British were wearing khaki. TreeWithAChainsaw (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the First Boer War (1880-1881), the British wore either red or blue uniforms. Only in the Second Boer War (1899-1902) did the British start wearing the khaki uniform. Fidodog14 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Format

This page has some serious blocks of text. Break 'em up. Makes it hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.240.5 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Removed the reference to the Second Boer War as "an attempt to annex the Transvaal and Orange Free State Republics" (paraphrasing), as this is clearly disingenuous, due to the fact the Second Boer War was nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.163.132 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article slants heavily British POV and then heavily Boer POV, it is not NPOV, all around and is of very low quality.

The 1877 Annexation

The opening paragraph gives a general overview of the British intent, without balancing the POV with any discussion about the legitimacy of the ZAR state. Then it mentions the 1886 Gold rush in Transvaal. In an encyclopedic quality NEUTRAL point of view article one would not refer to future events to describe something that is or has happened in the past. Again, clear indication of a very unbalanced article. This page needs a lot of work. It has been requiring citations since 2009. Anyway, my edits were reversed by an editor with the same usual reverence and respectful explanation as received on other pages from the same editor: POV. Not nice, not WP:CIVIL and not explaining why, in his POV, my edits are POV. Certainly the page is not WP:NPOV and certainly this type of editing is not very productive.

I can go on, but seriously, this needs a complete re-write, so should probably start with the 1877 annexation. Please explain your POV User:Mean_as_custard in order for us to work together to improve the quality and neutrality of this page. Then, was this last edit vandalism? The words are not yet completed? Zarpboer (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boer War

The article title Boer War is a redirct. Yesterday I altered to redirect from Boer Wars (which is currently a very poor article) to redirect to Second Boer War (see hist) and added a hatnote to Second Boer War (see here.

I explain my reasoning on Talk:Boer War#Redirect. The changes have been reverted with an explanation in the same section. Clearly more editor input there would help decide whether or not the change is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article its in the crosshairs of Pro-British Empire nostalgics and some Extreme Pro Boer editors. Checking out neutrality. Also someone omited to include it on the Scramble for Afrika template. Fixed. Mr.User200 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu War section could be removed

The section about the Zulu War is a long digression from what should be the article's main focus, the 1881 Anglo-Boer war. Mention of the Zulu War and whatever effect it had on the Transvaal conflict could be simply folded into the "Background" section.TH1980 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no objections, I have removed the section about the Zulu War.TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"laagers"

This is the plural in the old spelling of Dutch, which hasn't been used in South Africa for a century. The Dutch singular was 'laager', and since 1948 it has been 'lager'. In Afrikaans it's 'laer'. I'd change this myself, but it's a link, and I'm afraid to damage it.213.127.210.95 (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Action at Bronkhorstspruit

The numbers of men involved in the action are different in this section vs. the main article ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Boer war

The article omits the real reason for the original annexation. The Boers requested that the ZAR be annexed by Britain in order to provide protection for the Boers against an imminent Zulu invasion. The Zulus would not invade a British protectorate. The annexation was read out by the author Rider Haggard who was accompanied by a small party. It was never a military conquest and could easily have been resisted by the Boers but it was not resisted because the Boers had requested the annexation. The subsequent “rebellion” and “war” needs to be seen against this background. The Boer attack on the British was a despicable betrayal of the protection which the British had provided to the Boers in their time of need. I refer you to the South African historian and author Chris Ash. His books Kruger, kommandos and Kak, and Kruger’s War. 120.18.69.163 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the part about Boer rifles

The weapons should not have such a place in an article about a war it feels like its forced in and does not feel natural space would be better spent on specific battles so we could see specifically how the Boers Commandos worked in real combat Boby123321 (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]