Talk:Boer War

Redirect[edit]

08:44, 25 April 2008‎ Feydey (moved Boer War to Boer Wars: history merge)
02:37, 15 February 2010‎ Robertgreer
16:27, 13 September 2014‎ PBS(An unqualified mention of the Boer War nearly always means the second Boer War, those who know that there were two wars will not make that mistake, so a hate note on the Second Boer War article can be usedr for these case where its needed)

An unqualified mention of the Boer War nearly always means the second Boer War. Those who know that there were two wars will not make that mistake, so a hat note on the "Second Boer War" article can be used for those few case where its needed to allow someone to correct the link or to navigate to the correct article. -- PBS (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I've reverted anyway. If an article Boer Wars exists (and my effort to remove it failed) then the singular term ought to redirect there. Also, this Ngram suggests that the article on the second war ought to be moved to this title, so redirecting this title there is incorrect. You should propose a move. Srnec (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in, I agree that the term "Boer War" refers in 99% of cases to the 1899–1902 conflict, but I think having our article on 1899–1902 at "Boer War" and 1880–81 at "First Boer War" would be confusing to the uninitiated. The best solution in my view is to keep the articles where they are, with a search for "Boer War" redirecting to the second war. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the page Boer Wars fit in? Srnec (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it shouldn't be merged into South African Wars (1879–1915). — Cliftonian (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any OR or SYNTH problems with that article, or do you think it's viable? It seems to be mainly one editor's work, based largely on one source (Meredith) at present. I don't like the title, in any case. Srnec (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. After looking at the South African Wars article more closely I think you have a point. But the criticisms levelled at it could similarly be applied here—both the text and the list of sources at the bottom of this article are almost entirely concerned with the 1899–1902 war. Indeed in many cases the book titles make reference to simply "the Boer War" (referring to 1899–1902). The section on the First Boer War of 1880–81 is six bullet points—unreferenced. The section on the second war is better, but still unreferenced and not really necessary as one can simply look at the article about that war. The "Controversy and significance" section, in my view the only part of this article of any merit at all, deals solely with the more prominent 1899–1902 war, so doesn't even need to be here. Perhaps we could look at merging both this article and South African Wars (1879–1915) into the more general Military history of South Africa? — Cliftonian (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I though best, but User:BD2412 reverted me. He explained himself on his talk page. I agree that:

"Boer War" should not redirect to "Second Boer War".
Having articles titled "Boer War" and "First Boer War" is probably confusing.
"Boer War" overwhelming refers to the Second Boer War.

In light of this, perhaps the solution is to see if there is another acceptable name for the first war. Transvaal Rebellion, Transvaal War and Anglo-Transvaal War are not unusual. Srnec (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the options, here is what I propose. At Military history of South Africa, there are three consecutive sections discussing hostilities between the English and the Transvaal Dutch, "First Anglo-Boer War", "The Jameson Raid", and "Second Anglo-Boer War". Group these together as subsections of a a section titled "Boer Wars", and section-redirect Boer War and Boer Wars there. A reader looking for information on the general subject will find a good summary there, and links taking them on to more specific articles. By the way, I observed in my other conversation with Srnec that Second Boer War contains somewhat redundant "Origins" and "Background" sections, which can be combined and incorporated into any general discussion of the course of events prompting both of these conflicts. bd2412 T 17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds like a good solution to me. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like with Boer Wars-- although that change was a discussion to ought to have been held at Talk:Boer Wars. As I said at the start of this thread the redirect Boer War (which is what this page is) should be to Second Boer War for all the reasons I gave before. So I am going to redirect it back to Second Boer War and put back the head note on that article. -- PBS (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]