Talk:Transvaal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transvaal article.
Article policies

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

Contents

[edit] The focus of this page

I'm worried about the (lost) focus of this page, and in particular its first paragraph. Is this an article about the Transvaal "area" (whatever this means), the South African Republic, the Transvaal Colony, the Transvaal Province, or what?

Earlier in the life of this article, it was clear that this article was about the Transvaal Province, with this province's history (including the SAR) outlined in the "History". Seperate articles, like South African Republic and Gauteng were about the previous and later reorganizations of this area, but this article focused on one period (1910-1994). We have now lost this focus, and it is no longer clear what belongs in this article and what belongs in the other articles...

Nyh (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this article is properly rewritten to describe the Transvaal Province (1910-1994) with proper references to other articles about the Transvaal region both in terms of political entities and geographical area. Important is to make a lay-out of the different articles, their content and focus and the way in which they are linked. This can prevent further confusion as with the recent changes in the infobox. Michel Doortmont (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old comments

  • Wait Troy, I'm confused... how is it independent and a province? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 11:31, 18 January 2003 (UTC)
  • TODO: I want to add a paragraph about the pre-1850 history for the Transvaal. The old "Transvaal Province" included this paragraph which needs to be fact-checked:
    "Originally, the Sotha and Venda peoples settled there in what is believed to be the eighth century. In the 1830s, Boers departed on the Great Trek to escape British rule in the Cape Colony and settled in the Transvaal area.".
    Also perhaps link and talk about Voortrekkers and the Zulus which they fought (see Boer article). Nyh 07:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is this page unreachable directly? I can only get here via a redirect from Transvaal Province. Otherwise I get a blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.209.98.35 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 February 2004 (UTC)
    this must have been some sort of transient problem, I can now get to "transvaal" with no problems.Nyh 13:45, 6 February 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On the settlers' ethnicity

Hi. A simple phrase like "Dutch settlers, known as Boers ..." was replaced by someone by an amazingly verbose, convolute and impossible to understand string of nationalities:

In the 1830s and the 1840s, descendents of Dutch settlers / French Huguenot refugees / German Prostestants / & smaller numbers of Belgians / Scandinavians / Scots / including an admixture of Indian, Khoi-Khoi & Malay, known as Boers (farmers) or Voortrekkers (pioneers), exited the British Cape Colony, in what was to be called the Great Trek.

I don't think that this can stay. How about saying "decscendents of Dutch and other settlers, known as Boers..."? This long detailed list should be listed in Boers, and whoever wants to see it can go there. Alternatively, you can write an entire paragraph about the ethnic composition of the Boers. But it simply cannot be one big slash-separated adjective - that looks horrible.

Nyh 14:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi Nyh, The links you restored are going to the wrong places. In the Geograpy heading it talks about the Transvaal province not republic or anything else.

Natal links to a disambig page while KwaZulu-Natal Province goes to the province itself. If you use Natal Province or Natal Colony they are redirected to KwaZulu-Natal.

Orange Free State links to the Orange Free State Republic and not the province where Free State Province is the province itself.

Need more clarity in where links must go to. --Jcw69 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But, according to what I understand, Orange Free State is also the name of the 1910-1994 province of South Africa. Free State Province is the name of the post-1994 province, and is irrelevant because Transvaal is a pre-1994 province. Or am I misunderstanding something (I have to admit I am not a south african, just a fan)?? Also, Natal has the beginning of a description of the 1910-1994 Natal province. True, the description is one paragraph, and it acts as a disambiguation page, but still it is the only page on Wikipedia which describes the correct entity, namely the 1910-1994 province of South Africa. KwaZulu-Natal is the wrong entity - it is a post-1994 province that never coexisted with Transvaal so a link to it doesn't belong in the Transvaal entry.
But if I'm wrong, please help me understand why.
Nyh 12:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In many situations (such as cities with different names in Roman times), we redirect to from the ancient name to modern, so the city's history is a continuous narrative. This works because the location is the same, the population is continuous usually, etc. For states and provinces with fluctuating borders and definitions, it works better to have multiple articles, and for each article to describe relationships both to modern units and to contemporaneous ones - consider articles like Gaul and Lusitania for instance. Stan 13:16, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Maybe we should have seperate pages. Eg Pre-Whites, Natal Colony, Natal and KwaZulu-Natal. But in which one do we place the early history before whites arrived in South Africa and named the provinces. As for Transvaal there is Pre-Whites, Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek, Transvaal, (now divided up into smaller pieces).
So which way to go? --Jcw69 10:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand the question. Please read the current page (I wrote most of it), and there is no question on what it discusses: the Transvaal Province of South Africa, the one that existed in 1910-1994. Like any page about a country or province, it begins its history section by mentioning how the region become a province, but the first paragraph makes it clear the focus of the article is the province, and not the Boor state or anything that preceded it - or the current (post-1994) provinces. So, in the Geography section, we must mention entities that existed at the time. Some of them had their name changed in the middle (which is why I mentioned both), but some names are clearly anachronistic and shouldn't be used - "KwaZulu-Natal" is an entity that never existed together with the Transvaal province, so it should not be mentioned (except perhaps as some sort of clarification, perhaps something like "... Natal (today's KwaZulu-Natal)."). Similarly, as I understand (and I didn't hear that disputed).

Consider for example the article on the Maya civilization. It makes sense to mention they lived in areas which noadays are in Mexico. But it does not make sense to say something like "The Maya empire bordered on the United States on the north". Since the United States did not exist at the time, it's an anachronism and it doesn't make any sense. I claim that it's just as strange to say that Transvaal bordered on KwaZulu-Natal - these entities never co-existed.

Nyh 10:57, 25 Aug 2004 (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. It's not universally followed, but seems clear enough to use for decisionmaking about content. Stan 16:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transvaal (The Hague)

There is also a 'wijk' in The Hague called Transvaal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.130.200 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. I'm presuming that 'wijk' is the same as Afrikaans 'wyk' meaning something like 'district'. Booshank 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a mention at the top of the article. - Regards, Ev 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or misguided additions - removed

Anonymous user 81.153.180.50 has changed the infobox beyond recognition and fiddled with dates etc. This is either vandalism or a completely misguided change. I undid the change. Michel Doortmont (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)