Jump to content

Talk:Maritz rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kemp and Bezuidenhout

[edit]

I could not find the full names of "JCG Kemp" and "Bezuidenhout", perhapse someone else with references can fill them in -- PBS 18:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article: Maritz Rebellion or 1914 Rebellion?

[edit]

Is the title of this article correct? It seems academic literature (Giliomee, The Afrikaners)and some newspaper articles refers to the 1914 Rebellion and not the Maritz rebelion. I stumbled on this when looking for the 1914 Rebellion and would not have thought to have looked for it here. Any opinions? ShiningWolf (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rebel Banner

[edit]

Currently the article has the old ZAR flag reflected as the rebel banner, but the rebellion had it's own banner, a combination of the flags, some literature describes it somewhat similar to the Union flag. The ZAR flag should thus be removed and replaced with the correct banner? Zarpboer (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC) From the court record, of the rebellion trials (after the rebellion failed) : "Otherwise we will go to Pretoria and see the Government, and if they will not heed our protest, then we will hoist the Republican flag." He pointed to a cart standing near, where lay the colours of the defunct Orange Free State." Zarpboer (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the rebellion

[edit]

@Lathamibird dude, please could you do your magic with the appearances in newspapers, etc. - seeing as you did such a cool and stirling job with Transvaal? and then could you also do the edit, etc. Should this be The South African Rebellion, The Boer Revolt, Maritz Rebellion (for which I am finding far fewer citations), or any other names? Please :) Zarpboer (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the problem of names such as "Boer Revolt" and "South African Rebellion" is that initially they look as if they are popular name, but they have real problems in several ways. The first is that they appear to be accurate but are not for example "Boer Revolt" implies that it all Boers against the rest -- it was not. "South African Rebellion" leads to the question against whom were South Africans rebelling?
The second problem is one of scope using Google Book results [ "Maritz Rebellion" ] returns an estimated about 500 books, in fact only about 130 are returned. ["Boer Revolt" ] returns returns an estimated 1,200 books but when qualified by 1914 ["Boer Revolt" 1914] only an estimated 245 books are retuned (actually 82). Using ["South African Rebellion"] returns an estimated 20,700 when qualified with ["South African Rebellion" 1914] an estimated 9,610 but when checked only 58 books are returned. This means that not only are "Boer Revolt" and "South African Rebellion" are according to a google search less common terms for this revolt than "Maritz Rebellion" they are more likely to be false positives for the Boer Wars.
-- PBS (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Name of this page

[edit]

Should the name of this rebellion be "The South African Rebellion" or "The Maritz Rebellion" is this a German vs Britain war or the Union or what? Zarpboer (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. This is not an issue for an RFC. Page moves come under WP:RM and the policy page is WP:AT. The name of the article is based on WP:COMMONNAME. So, Zarpboer, I suggest that you close this RfC (by removing the template), read WP:AT and then if you think a title change is in order start a WP:RM. -- PBS (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This is too minor an issue to justify an RfC. Like Zarpboer said, just take it to WP:RM. --Writing Enthusiast ☎ 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as per above, I read WP:AT and even after lots of research I have no opinion or idea whether a title change is in order - So, gonna just leave it as it is until another more worthy editor decides or has an issue... it seems that this was indeed more commonly called "the 1914 rebellion" but is is also known by the other names.. so, it should be fine? - and Germany must still be added as a party to the infobox, sometime... anyway, thanks! :) Zarpboer (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa

[edit]

@Zarpboer I notice you commented in the edit history of this article "removed south africa - there was no country called south africa in 1914" There is no such state as the "United States" or the "United Kingdom" but they are common coin to describe those states. In the same was "South Africa" is the common name of the Union of South Africa-- just as today the South Africa is the common name Republic of South Africa. There is no reason at all not use South Africa in this article to mean Union of South Africa, particularly when most general readers will not know what "The Union" means. Also in the specific edit which I have included here South Africa is being used as a geographic entity, and is similar in nature to Ireland (which can mean either the island of Ireland or the state). After the union of South Africa, South Africa was used both to describe the state and for the country/territory of the state. Ie if one visited South Africa -- just like today--it did not mean a trip to Pretoria and a meeting with a government official. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, talk, the intention was only to improve. The former country, The South African Republic, was also known as Transvaal and South Africa, the Union was known as South Africa and so was the Republic of South Africa as well, but clearly these were not all the same South Africa as not only were the borders different, but, well, everything.Zarpboer (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Edits

[edit]

The recent rewrite of this entire page by user:Zarpboer is extremely biases against the rebels and contains questionable remarks regarding them. Wikipedia is supposed to be of a neutral encyclopedic nature, the article in its current form does not reflect those principals.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tagged it as {{POV}} for this reason. The current version of the article is plainly not written from a neutral point of view, and goes out of its way to portray the rebels as traitors and villains. That might be how they're seen in modern South Africa, but statements like 'Ultimately the behaviour and actions of Maritz were those of a traitor to the South African nation' and 'nothing is quite equal to the betrayal of the boers under his command' are opinions rather than facts and don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Robofish (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it to the previous version.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maritz rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maritz rebellion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How it impacted the war

[edit]

I dont know how it did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.26.153.92 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maritz_rebellion&oldid=1208812127"