Talk:Boer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boer article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1,
/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Internationally recognized nation

I have removed this paragraph, because none of the sources supported this claim. In fact, several contradict it, by stating that the term Afrikaner and Boer are synonyms or using the terms as such. One sources states that the British government at one point recognized the Boer Republics, but this is clearly not the same as "recognition of a nation for two centuries". Please find reliable sources (not commercial websites for game lodges) clearly supporting this claim. See Wikipedia:Attribution or Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Deon Steyn 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem Deon? Are you a Boerophobe? Christianophobe?

86.27.114.248 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have often wondered the same thing myself since there is a long running Afrikaner antipathy towards the Boer people which appears to go right back to the Trekboer era of the 1700s.

Ron7 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The personal attack of "Boerophobe? Christianophobe?" comes from a blocked neo-nazi user (JBAK) and should have been removed (I did not see it until now). Please refrain from making personal attacks (WP:NPA) and keep the exchanges civil (Wikipedia:Civil) and kindly limit discussions to the article contents. --Deon Steyn 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the references which note the indigenous or homegrown nature of the Boers.

The following line has been removed.

The Boer Nation (Boerevolk) of Southern Africa were a White indigenous nation in Africa [1] [2] [3] [4]

While I did not write this line I do however concur that they are in fact an indigenous nation. I happened to post four sources which note this fact. The reason I did this was because someone once erroneously put the word " not" before the word "indigenous" which prompted me to demonstrated this fact with references. While I also did not write "which were internationally recognized as a nation in its own right for approximately two centuries." but also concur that the Boer people have indeed been recognized for about this length of time. The references I posted where specifically aimed at showing the indigenous or homegrown nature of the Boers & not for the line stating their international recognition as a nation for two centuries. Therefore the removal of the entire paragraph is unwarranted. Now: only one link (the fourth) was to a commercial game lodge while the first two were from authors who wrote about the subject in books & the third source demonstrates that a number of Bantus viewed the Boers as a tribe in the past.

Ron7 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the paragraph. None of the sources support the statement that the Boers are an "indigenous nation". Yes, the one – very sloppy and un-academic – source just mentions that some (?) African tribes think of them as another tribe, but this isn't what the wiki article statement claimed either. --Deon Steyn 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

It would be nice to have another photo that gives a more balanced portrayal, rather than being purely militant in nature.--Lionelbrits (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV Violation.

The following line is a violation of the NPOV rule.

A small minority of Afrikaners have tried to build a new identity based on the past traditions and cultures and again adopted names such as "Boervolk" (or "Boerevolk").

Furthermore it is a complete contradiction to assert that the Boers "have tried to build a new identity based on the past" since if they were indeed doing that then it would not be a new identity! It would simply be a reassertion of their historic designation. Furthermore the Boer portion of the Afrikaners (which is an artificial political label which lumped a wide variety of Afrikaans speakers into one loose camp) have only ever been a minority within the Afrikaner designation as they have always been numerically smaller than the Cape based Afrikaners. The so called Afrikaners who you accuse of "trying to build a new identity" are simply reclaiming their heritage (which they never renounced) & the right to call themselves by their original name before the Cape based Afrikaners came & subjugated them after the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War when many Boers were too poor & politically weak to prevent themselves from becoming dominated[1] by the ascending Afrikaners. The Boers never went away as a people although their culture was changed somewhat due the urbanization of many but they have retained most of their traditions & their dialect.

Note.

1. < The “Boer worker" was the focus of the culture-brokers’ attentions in the next decade as the urban labour market became an arena in which Afrikaner intellectuals sought to capture the cultural allegiance of the urbanising Afrikaans-speaker. >

From: The Construction of Eugène Marais as an Afrikaner Hero. Sandra Swart. Journal of Southern African Studies. 30.4, Dec 2004.

I would remind you you to refrain from posting a point of view which is not even substantiated by the observable facts.

Ron7 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)