User talk:Katangais/Archive 3

Conflict year cat
I cannot find any rule about listing years for long lasting conflicts. They are not listed by decades like you said. I do not see why adding the conflict category for the relevant years would be over categorization. This way people see that it occurred at the same time as, say, the Angolan and Mozambique Civil War, South African Border War etc, so it shows the larger historical and geopolitical context. All of these are list by year.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They are only present on these other articles because you added them. Look, you're the only editor going around adding these pointless cats to all the other articles. Think - what kind of precedent are we setting by doing so? Do you want to add a hundred extra categories to the Hundred Years' War simply because the war was ongoing for all of those years? Stick to the decade like everybody else has been doing so all along. Furthermore, if you want to be technical the Namibian war was on and off throughout the '60s and early '70s. Before the independence of Angola, some years there was no SWAPO activity at all. It isn't really accurate to claim that the conflict was happening during those specific years when it wasn't, although with 20/20 hindsight there was an undeclared state of war on.


 * Keep in mind that this type of categorisation would be acceptable for a war that lasted under a decade, ie the 1981 Entumbane Uprising. -- Katan gais (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Dear Katangais—a Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones, and a Happy New Year! Have a great one. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men. Love from all the Asher household. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boetie Gaan Border Toe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graham Clarke. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Aircraft in fiction page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643444583 your edit] caused an ISBN error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F643444583%7CAircraft in fiction%5D%5D Ask for help])

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643491730 your edit] to Mikoyan MiG-29 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1999, Генерал Великович на авиашоу (довоенная фотография). 26 марта ему предстояло сбить F-16 88-0490 [http://artofwar.ru/img/z/zampini_d_f/text_0580/index.shtml Генерал Великович на авиашоу (

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Media of Zimbabwe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lancaster House Conference and Joint Operations Command. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

SADF SANDF categories
I saw this on your BoonDock's talk page and thought I would add my 2c. As BoonDock says there is a lot of overlap. Even the rank insignia carried over for a while before being replaced. Equipment such as the Ratel started with the SADF and continued to the SANDF. I would be opposed to the creation of categories as we could have duplication or miscategorisation. Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Howzit Gbawden. Thanks for your interest.


 * You're right that there's a lot of overlap, but I could argue the same for Zimbabwe. Commons has separate categories for both the military of Zimbabwe and the military of Rhodesia, despite the fact the rank insignia is 100% the same (and even the decorations, albeit with some name changes and a few new ones added) and there's some Rhodesian equipment still in use with the Zimbabwean Defence Forces. I simply drew a logical comparison with RSA. -- Katan gais (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not saying you're wrong, its a valid comparison. I do a fair bit of work categorising images on Commons and I just worry about the duplication or miscategorisation. Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oom Paul
Hello Katangais, how are you? I have just opened a peer review for Paul Kruger and I thought that you, as something of an Afrikanophile, might be interested. Any thoughts you may have would be very gratefully received. Thanks and have a great week. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Gulf War military equipment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M84. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oom Paul
Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

European population in Cape Colony, 1691
Don't you think it's better to refer precisely to the state entity "Dutch Cape Colony" for statistics which were probably measured only within its bounds, rather than "Cape" which constitutes an ambiguous region? For example, Dutch Cape Colony had an administrative division called "District of the Cape". We must be careful not to let loss of precision chip away over the years at Wikipedia articles about history. What do you think? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed the text of that box because I felt as though it were too lengthy. Where titled, graphs and the like ought to have shorter captions. Furthermore, given that the Dutch East India Company usually carried out a census based on the number of ingezeetenen (subjects) rather than by geographic division (the districts of the Van der Stel era and the later landdrost jurisdictions), there may be more ambiguity to the statistics than you think. I know for a fact that the Cape government considered the Bergenaar and the Griqua subjects for instance, although they lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle at the time and occasionally wandered beyond the colony's frontiers. -- Katangais (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, understood. Thanks for your hard work. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The German Origin of the Trekboers.
During our debate of last year you noted that most of the ancestors of the Trekboers were from German families, but in one place you note that they were mostly from Lower Saxony while in another place you note that the German ancestors of modern day combined White Afrikaans people go back to folks from Rhine-Westphalia. I realize that these areas are close to one another, but I am interested in where you think the roots of the Germans who significantly helped to create the Trekboers were from. I have always been told & have read that the Germans that the Trekboers were from were mostly from the north western part of the modern day German State [ as of course there was no modern day German State back during the 17th cent. ] so the states you mentioned sounds about where one would expect they would be from, but tracking down an exact location has often been difficult. You noted that you had a list of the names of the folks [ as per the site you linked to ] who started the Trekboers. How did you obtain these names? As I would like to examine them too. I would be very interested in looking at the names of the folks who started the Trekboers but noticed that the site you linked to has a list of a lot of names that were the progenitors of the macro White Afrikaans speaking population in general. I am interested in sifting out the names of the initial progenitors of the Trekboer group. Thanks for any assistance or direction.

Ron7 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Howzit, Ron. Good to hear from you again.


 * Well, the reason for my inconsistency is that occasional sources have conflicted (and at the time of our discussion I may have rushed my math). From memory I think the largest single group from Germany originated from Lower Saxony. That was the general consensus of the first attempts by SA scholars to study Afrikaans genealogy in the 1930s and after reading numerous secondary sources which reference this I am convinced that this is the case.


 * Nevertheless, some very important progenitors also came from Rhine-Westphalia so that location was also quite prominent. The third largest group seems to have come from the Duchy of Schleswig, which was then a fiefdom of Denmark but is now part of modern Germany.


 * I'm glad you asked about how I obtained the specific names of the Trekboers. The answer lies in an amazing book called "Voortrekkerstamouers" by Jan Visagie which I picked up from Fourways Booksellers the last time I was in Johannesburg for about 700 Rand. Steep for a book in SA but well worth it! All the surnames of the original trekkers are there. It's an incredibly concise piece of academia and if you had ancestors who participated in the Great Trek this is absolutely the surest way to find them.


 * I was able to calculate which percentage of Trekboers originated from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France by matching the families in the book to the e-family.co.za online index which tells us where each progenitor came from.


 * If the surname was not in Visagie's book but appeared in the e-family index, I assumed they were Cape Afrikaners and made a separate series of calculations for them.


 * Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Howzit Katangais. Glad to see your response, but there might be some confusion.


 * The first thing I should clarify is when I am talking about the Trekboers I am talking specifically about those earliest people / trekkers who left the vicinity of Cape Town & environs from about 1670 onwards then all throughout the 1700s when they trekked further inland into Africa thus inadvertently expanding the Cape frontier. [ As the VOC kept trying to exert control over the Trekboers primarily through the setting up of the Cape frontier towns of Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet to little avail ] Do you have the actual names of those specific Trerkboers? Or just the Voortrekkers of the Great Trek. Which would still interest me too though. The term Voortrekker was given to the people who trekked during the Great Trek by the Broederbond historians of the 20th cent as they were generally known as Trekkers back during the era so there is often confusion when I talk about Trekboers because a few people have erroneously thought that I was talking about the Voortrekkers. Though the vast majority of the Voortrekkers were in fact descended from the Trekboers. The term Trekboer was coined during the late 17th cent to describe the nomadic pastoralists who trekked away from the Cape Town & surrounding region during the 1700s. The term was soon shortened to Boer by around 1750. There are still a lot of folks who often have not heard about the Trekboers because I discovered that this part of history was simply not taught or mentioned or covered very sparingly during the era of Broederbond control.


 * The the Dutchy of Schleswig looks like it was a predecessor to the state of Schleswig-Holstein which is the northern most state of Germany which borders Denmark. I find it interesting that they use a flag that is basically the current Dutch flag upside down... the blue bar is on top. Just like the old Yugoslavian flag. What interests me most about this is that the current Dutch flag is a prominent motif that has been used in numerous Boer Republic flags - starting at Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet in 1795 when the frontier Boers there revolted against Dutch rule & declared the Swellendam Republic & the Graaff-Reinet Republic.


 * I probably do not have ancestors [ perhaps distant cousins though ] who participated during the Great Trek but my Cape Boer great grand father was a Cape Rebel who fought on the side of the Boer Republics during the second Anglo-Boer War. A lot of Cape Boers fought on the side of the Boer Republics but very few Cape Dutch ever did. [ The inhabitants of the Western cape region. ] The Cape Boers naturally shared a lot more in common with the Boers of the republics than either group shared with the Cape Dutch. I presume that many of the names from the book you found are also within your website but I am interested in having a resource of Trekboer names where they are listed by themselves if possible. I find it to be quite a miraculous task that someone was able to track down the names of the Trekboers seeing as how they tried to live so far outside of government control. I can totally see how there could be a book on the names of the Voortrekkers because those folks had settled down for a while & were better known to government officials while the earliest Trekboers of the 1700s were rather wild [ living a lot even like the Khoisan herders they were replacing on the frontier ] & were also rather nomadic moving regularly from place to place - though I have read that some of their names were registered via some of the land lots which were rented to them via the VOC. [ One of the tepid ways the VOC tried exerting control over them. ] Does your book Voortrekkerstamouers list the names of the Trekboers that I am talking about? Or just the names of the Vootrekkers who went on the Great Trek.


 * How do you know if Visagie's book was comprehensive or accounted for everyone? As you presumed other names you found outside of the book were probably Cape Dutch. I ask this because I discovered that the book: Les Francais Qui fait l'Afrique du Sud [ The French Huguenots Who Made South Africa. ] did not list all of the French Huguenot progenitor names that it listed in the middle of the book because I later discovered quite a number of other Huguenot progenitor names that the book simply did not list.


 * For a long time I have been reading & hearing about how the Boers are "mostly of German origin" or have the largest percentage of their roots as being of German origin but would be interested in examining some concrete specifics like a list of the Trekboer progenitor names. Some of which I can see in the site you linked to but I would very much like a resource devoted to the topic specifically because I am sure that this is one of the dynamics [ the biggest dynamic was their impoverished roots & anti-authoritarian outlook which caused them to trek during the 1700s though ] that led to the distinct emergence of the Boer people on the Cape frontier.

Ron7 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ron, you bring up a number of good points. As you noted Visagie's book only deals with those who participated in the Great Trek and he does not go into great detail about the earlier history. However, you're right in that the VOC didn't keep good records as it was and certainly made very little attempt to track all the communities living on the Cape frontier, which of course included not only Boers but Bergenaar and other Coloured groups that were considered to be little more than outlaws.


 * Since however (allowing for one or two select exceptions) it was only Trekboers who participated in the Great Trek, "Voortrekkerstamouers" is probably the most comprehensive compilation of Trekboer families you'll find anywhere. I don't know of another source, written or digital, where Trekboer-specific names would be recorded (as you already know most scholars do not differentiate between white Afrikaans subgroups). Depending on the information available about the individual clan, I think this particular book does an outstanding job of giving adequate summary details for each trekker line, but of course if you're looking specifically into one family history it would be just a start.


 * A total list of all the Trekboer progenitors doesn't yet exist - I've already mentioned why I believe "Voortrekkerstamouers" is the best we can do. And to be fair, there isn't a lot of interest in the subject right now in RSA. After several months in Gauteng and the Free State I can honestly say I did not meet anybody outside of elderly Afrikaans right-wingers who had the slightest inkling of what the difference was between Cape Boers and the Voortrekkers. As North Americans both you and I may take our knowledge for granted; that kind of semantics is guaranteed to puzzle most South Africans you meet, even those at Boer cultural centers and museums.


 * If you want to do some original research of your own, Ron, and I encourage anybody who's as taken with this subject as yourself, to go to RSA like I did (or collaborate with a project/scholar who can). You could try visiting the churches and checking their registers, which would include records of deaths, name changes and baptisms. Secondly, gain access to all the VOC census returns. They're floating around out there somewhere and I think the raw archive is still maintained by the University of Stellenbosch.


 * For now Wikipedians must work with what they have. --Katangais (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First I just wanted to correct your point "difference... between Cape Boers and the Voortrekkers." There is no cultural difference between Cape Boers & the Voortrekkers. The difference is between the Cape Dutch & the Boers. The Cape Boers were the folks who remained on the northern & eastern Cape frontier during the Great Trek. All Boers emerged on the Cape frontier. Most appeared to have gone on the Great Trek but a sizable number remained. Their descendents became the Cape Rebels of the second Anglo-Boer War. The folks within the south western Cape region were the ones known as the Cape Dutch due mainly to their attachment to Holland & their notable Colonial outlook while the Boer people of the frontier had cut all ties to Europe [ authors like Oliver Ransford & Sidney Robbins note this. ] & were noted as being fiercely anti-colonial & independence orientated. I am still astounded how too many people do not realize that there was / is not one White Afrikaans speaking group. That was simply a 20th cent myth & a stunt pulled solely for political reasons. It might never have even been pulled if the Cape Dutch could have had even more numbers to have asserted themselves without having to co-opt the smaller Boer people. But it appears the co-option of the Boer people was done mainly to prevent the Boer Republics from being restored than anything else as the establishment got a scare with the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which had as its aims the restoration of the Boer Republics. It saddens & annoys me to no end that so many people have no understanding of the basic fact that the Boers are an anthropologically distinct people from the Cape Dutch who were born on the Cape frontier hundreds of miles away from the Cape Dutch. Imagine telling an Acadian you think of him or her as simply a French Canadian & that you do not understand what the "difference" is between them & the Quebecois. It would be quite insulting & offensive to say the least. The term French Canadian [ originally the term was just Canadien spelled in the French manner as noted ] was / is the historical term for the folks who are often now referred to as the Quebecois. The cruel irony is that the Quebecois & Acadians have more in common with each other than the Cape Dutch has with the Boer. The Boer people were the ones who had to struggle to survive on the harsh Cape frontier without virtually any outside support or assistance while the Cape Dutch laughed at them & had the protection of the Colonial power.


 * I am also quite saddened & annoyed at the often erroneous perception that it's only so called Right Wingers that have any interest in knowing about the valid & crucial difference between Boer & Cape Dutch. This misconception comes from the fact that the modern day Cape Dutch descendents tend to have "progressive" or left-leaning political views while the Boer people have views that are seen in today's world as conservative or right leaning for the most part. It is also important to remember that the false left / right political paradigm is often something that is imposed from the top down & does not necessarily reflect the views of the common person. Further irony is that the single biggest organization that propounded the erroneous concept of "one Afrikaner nation" in order to obscure the smaller & distinct Boer people were roundly viewed as very big Right Wingers. IE: The Afrikaner Broederbond. Therefore those who are trying to undo the damage that this Right Wing organization did to the Boer people are now the ones accused of being Right Wing which is about as hypocritical & Bizarro World as one can get.


 * As far as I can tell the actual Right Wingers are the folks in the HNP who are in fact promoting the "one Afrikaner nation" theory of the 20th cent. There seems to be a political backlash against those Boers who recognize themselves as distinct from the Afrikaners & perpetuated by the Afrikaner establishment to cynically portray the Boers who are aware of their distinct nature as Right Wingers thus rendering the term Right Winger as a bit of a pejorative & misdirection. Furthermore I would say that it does not matter whether there is a lot of interest in the topic or not [ actually there is more interest in it than we were led to believe ] because compiling this crucial information is important for the sake of the historical record. It is bad enough that too many Boers & by extension too many people around the world in general have a lot of misconceptions of who the Boer people were & are. A lot of folks erroneously believe that they were the ones who ran the old RSA simply because of the derogatory term "boer" that was used largely by Bantus when they would refer to the government or to the security police in particular.


 * There are a lot of folks who are not so called Right Wingers who have been talking about the difference between Boers & Cape Dutch for years like the founder of Randburg Robert van Tonder [ though he was often tarred as such by a press that was opposed to Boer self determination ] who was a vocal opponent of Hendrik Verwoerd & began advocating for the restoration of the Boer Republics in 1961 the same year the Verwoerd declared his so called Republic of South Africa / Dutch born journalist Adriana Stuijt [ who was anti-apartheid & faced harassment by the Broederbond ] / the founder of Boervolk Radio Theuns Cloete [ who disagrees with both Right Wing & Left Wing politics ] / the author Noel Mostert [ who noted in print the difference between the Boers & the other White Afrikaans speakers ] Then of course myself as well as I have written extensively about this topic outside of the restricting context of a Left or Right political paradigm. Robert van Tonder in fact wrote a book on the topic first printed in 1977 & I recently learned that in Chapter 13 he explicitly outlined the valid differences between Boer & Cape Dutch which made my jaw drop considering how close they matched the findings I made over the years & decades now. I am sure that this list is growing all the time because once anyone starts to learn the truth about this then they now have a moral obligation to examine it further & to speak out about it because it is overwhelmingly the people of Boer descent who are the ones who are now forced to live within squatter camps as "internal refugees" in South Africa due to the colour of their skin coupled with being poor.


 * I agree with you concerning the fact that this book Voortrekkerstamouers is probably the best resource that we have to date on the Trekboer [ ancestors of the Voortrekkers ] & certainly the Voortrekker families. That is why I was wondering if you could create a list or even website listing those names. I created a list listing the names of the French Huguenot progenitors from the book I found on the subject & I would be more than happy to trade a copy of the names I have for a copy of the names of the Voortrekkers that you have from that book. There appears to be a long running movement [ mainly by the Broederbond & its allies ] to obscure the truth about the true origin of the Boer people because I found a book that rather betrayed this agenda & spelled it right out when it noted that the Broederbonder myth makers of the 20th cent did not think that anything that happened prior to the 19th cent was relevant which I found quite telling.

Ron7 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The following excerpt is from the second page of The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid, and the Afrikaner Civil Religion. From: T. Dunbar Moodie. Which outlines how the Afrikaner establishment worked to suppress an important era of Boer history as it would have revealed the distinct nature of the Boer people / nation.


 * Quote: [ For Afrikaners the century between the British occupation of the Cape in 1806 and the execution of Jopie Fourie in December 1914 was the period of revelation. During that era, God made known His will for the Afrikaner people. Prior to that period events were unimportant except to the extent that they delineated a scant "myth of origin". ]


 * Note: when the text talks about "Afrikaners" they are talking about the political class of rulers ie: the Afrikaner establishment. Not the average Boer or even Cape Dutch. There are other folks who openly talk about the fact that the Boers are distinct from the Cape Dutch who are not part of the so called Right Wing. Those individuals are: Professor Tobias Louw of South Africa: a philosophy teacher who identifies as a Boer & authored a lengthy open letter to the ISS back in September of 2003 outlining the distinction. Professor Irving Hexham of Canada noted the distinction between Cape Dutch & Boer of the frontier within his long dissertation on Christianity in Southern Africa. Professor Wallace Mills of Canada. Who noted that the Boers of the frontiers [ where the Boer people were from ] saw themselves as different & distinct from the Dutch population of the south western Cape region.

Ron7 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't done near the amount of research on the topic as you have, but of course I'm not in any way ignorant about the differences between Boer and Cape Dutch. These are distinct Afrikaans groups with their own traditions and history just like the Griqua, Baster, Bergenaar, etc. To claim they're one and the same simply because both groups are white South Africans is nonsense. I get it.


 * To be fair to the Cape Dutch, not all of them were evil caricatures who laughed at the Boers, collaborated with the colonial power, and helped pen them in the concentration camps. Perhaps you will recall the Afrikaner Bond tried to stop the outbreak of hostilities during the Second Anglo-Boer War by mediating between Kruger and the British.


 * Maybe your experiences were different, but my point about most South Africans today (and indeed most one would consider Boer descendants) are totally in the dark about it. I've listened to Theuns Cloete's broadcasts and even he admits that it's difficult trying to get the younger generation to recall anything about the Boer republics, much less the treks. On one occasion, he mentioned an exhibit of Boer artifacts in Cape Town at which almost no SAffies turned up, only tourists like Americans. Regardless of how much you and people like Cloete have studied the subject the fact remains it's neither fashionable nor politically correct to pursue it in RSA. Most history dissertations nowadays concerning Afrikaans people are written about apartheid or the Nats.


 * Finally: "Voortrekkerstamouers" is a massive volume of almost 800 pages and from a rough skim over 1,000 names. It's going to take me a lot of time and incentive to reproduce it, and I'd rather we discuss this in a more appropriate forum. Can you give me some contact details, an e-mail address? I can be directly contacted by the "E-Mail" link on my userpage. --Katangais (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Griquas are also a very interesting people themselves as they are basically a more mixed race version of the Boer people in many ways in cultural terms. Just like the Rehoboth Basters for that mater as well. The Griquas even use an inverse version of the Transvaal Vierkleur as their own flag. Which they adopted after the second Anglo-Boer War. The generic term Coloured was often just as detrimental [ perhaps even more so ] to the groups lumped under the term as the term White & Afrikaner was to the Boer people / nation.


 * No. I never said that the Cape Dutch were all evil caricatures as there were a number of Cape Dutch individuals who were even on the side of the Boer people during their various struggles. [ Like the scout Danie Theron during the second Anglo-Boer War. ] A lot of Cape Dutch were & are just indifferent as well. But as a whole the vast majority of the Cape Dutch have always looked down on the Boers which is something that is STILL going on to this day as anyone notices when they travel to the region. Your rudimentary take on the Afrikaner Bond is very naive because the decisions they made were done in accordance to what would best advance their power. Not in accordance to what was best for the Boer people whom they conveniently started trying to cozy up to in the wake of the vast resources & minerals that were discovered in their republics about a decade earlier. Remember that the Afrikaner Bond was founded AFTER the initial discovery of the resources & minerals that were found in the Boer Republics. Prior to that the Cape Dutch had no interest in the Boer people & were quite happy to ignore them or to laugh at them as they even publicly thought they would "all end up dead" when they began trekking during the Great Trek.


 * The comparatively few pro Boer individuals from the Cape Dutch does not negate the norm among the Cape Dutch population. The following is from the book: Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin from page 57.


 * Quote: [ T D Barry, an English-speaking Bondsman, assured Parliament that he 'had never heard a disloyal word uttered' in the Bond ad that he did not believe there were more than two or three Bondsmen who wished the British flag out of South Africa'. The Bechuanaland crisis, like the Transvaal one before it, rather than triggering disloyalty, was an occasion for Cape Afrikaners to restate their loyalty to Crown and Empire.


 * The jubilee year of Queen Victoria in 1887 offered Cape Afrikaners an outlet for amazing manifestations of love and loyalty, in town and country, in verse and prose. The Afrikaner Bond congress in its official address to the Queen gave the lead:


 * We the undersigned, representatives of the Afrikaner Bond of the Colony... wish to approach you with our heartiest and most sincere congratulations on this blessed occasion... We assure you humbly and respectfully [of] our true loyalty to your throne, and we feel proud that in the great British Empire there are not more loyal subjects than those we represent.


 * It was signed by 'the humblest, loving and most loyal subjects of Your most Blessed Majesty'. In Paarl, the capital of ' Afrikanerdom ', representatives of the Genootschap van Regte Afrikaners and the Afrikaner Bond were present at the local celebration with their flags, while the main speaker expressed his joy at the impressive presence of the burghers which proved Paarl's loyalty to the Queen. The local Dutch newspaper ran a special supplement including a long poem, full of praises for the Queen, by Oom Jan. Such celebrations were not restricted to major urban centers. A correspondent from Van Rhijndorp boasted that 'although our village is small and miserable we have demonstrated our loyalty to our honourable Queen Victoria'. A rural Bond branch in the east held a banquet on a farm. According to the correspondent, 'the house was beautifully decorated and the flag which during thousands of years [sic] withstood the blows of the storm flew merrily high, a striking proof of our Bondsmen loyalty'.


 * In 1887 Hofmeyr was a member of the Cape delegation to the first Colonial Conference held in London. In a proposal combining a mild preferential treatment for colonial produce with a scheme to finance imperial defense, Hofmeyr made the most important contribution to the idea of strengthening the imperial connection. ] End of quoted excerpt.


 * I recognize that the Afrikaner Bond tried to play to both sides during the run up to the second Anglo-Boer War but it is important to remember that in the end S J du Toit sided with the British. The following quote is from Professor Wallace Mills. Quote: [ in a curious footnote, it should be noted that S. J. du Toit later became a supporter of Rhodes! Moreover, as editor of the Die Afrikaanse Patriot before and during the South African War, he supported the British against the Boer republics. ] Furthermore the Afrikaner Bond was not welcome in the Boer Republics. Noted in the book: From Colonization to Democracy: a New Historical Geography of South Africa. By Alan Lester. Noted also in the book: The Anglo-Boer Wars by Michale Barthorp. A lot of Boers saw through the scam the Afrikaner Bond was promoting.


 * Quote: [ The discovery of gold confronted the Cape with the sudden prospect of becoming the 'poor relation' in South Africa. Kruger blocked the extension of the Cape railway system into the Rand, the new powerhouse of the South African economy, threw obstacles in the way of trade in agricultural products and made it as difficult for Cape Dutch-Afrikaners in the Transvaal to obtain citizenship as it was for other Uitlanders . At the same time, Hofmeyr and his Bond were increasingly acting as British imperial agents by supporting British-backed expansion which aimed at the encirclement and isolation of the Transvaal. ] From compromised Broederbonder historian Hermann Giliomee who nonetheless often still notes some important & verified facts on the topic at hand.


 * Furthermore: a resident of the Transvaal Republic during the era: a one C H Thomas authored a book which outlined what he called "the true reasons" for the second Anglo-Boer War wherein he explicitly noted that the Afrikaner Bond was being directed from "a coterie based in Holland" which was actually working behind the scenes to foment a war between the British & the Boer Republics in their aim of exerting Dutch control over the region. So the Afrikaner Bond was not as pure as the driven snow as they clearly had ulterior motives for the sudden interest in the Boer people & of their coveted Boer Republics. Remember: even The Society for True Afrikaners [ nice Orwellian sounding name to boot! ] of 1875 had among its founding members two individuals from Holland. It is no coincidence that the entire Afrikaner civil religion that the Cape Dutch Afrikaners crafted during the 20th cent was a massive expropriation of some notable events of Boer history which in many ways was a continuation of what the Afrikaner Bond started in the late 19th cent. This was done in order to co-opt the Boer people & to use some of their history as the rational for their rise to power.


 * Quote: [ The ablest men in Holland and South Africa exercised themselves with that task with an ardour impelled by jealous hatred against the English and intensified by successive revelations of more startling discoveries of gold and other mineral wealth in the Transvaal. It was then, about thirty years ago, that a well-informed, influential and unscrupulous coterie in Holland devised the fell projects which developed into that potential association since known as the Afrikaner Bond. ] From: Origin of the Anglo-Boer War Revealed. C H Thomas.


 * No they are not all "totally in the dark" about it. While the majority still appear to be in the dark about it, the fact of the matter is that quite a lot of young folks are waking up to this as was noted in a 2007 Mail & Guardian article by Yolandi Groenewald entitled: Bang-Bang You're Dead. Which was about the commemoration of the Battle at Majuba. Theuns Cloete's main frustration is over how the HNP still has so much power over their brainwashed followers. Who do so much to try to deny the existence of the Boer people / nation. Which broadcast did Cloete refer to Boer artifacts in Cape Town tat no one was interested in? I guess I must have missed one of his broadcasts. Or I am assuming this was one of his broadcasts on his radio show as I am mainly only familiar with his interviews with The Right Perspective [ which he did about 3 in 2007 ] & the interview he did with The News Guy in 2010 [ the producer of The Right Perspective ] & the interview he did with Spignola Speaks in 2012. Good grief man. If we ever wait for this topic to be politically correct then it will likely never be told. Did the anti-apartheid activists wait until it was politically correct before they acted? Did George Washington for that matter wait until is was politically correct before he stood against the British? By this ridiculous standard Robert van Tonder should have sat quietly in a corner just staring at his watch. Which is what the establishment would have rather he had done! I do not care [ in the abstract of course ] is there are only a few people who even care about this topic [ as I noted though it is a lot more than we were ever led to believe as it was covered up for political reasons ]. The nature of this topic requires that it be told & come out into the open. No people deserve to be usurped & have their identity stolen while their history is used to rationalize a teleocratic agenda that even suppressed them as well then got them accused as being responsible for the actions largely undertaken by the usurpers who sit in relative comfort while those whom they usurped are left holding the bag - some of whom are even now living in squatter camps wondering how that happened.


 * This is one of the most tragic things of all. The notion that most history dissertations written about Afrikaans speakers are written about Apartheid [ which was initiated by the British before they conveniently recruited the Afrikaans speaker to power as they themselves even admitted ] or the National Party which did everything in its power to prevent the Boer people from exercising any authentic form of self determination. Robert van Tonder had to operate an underground & illegal printing press just to try to get the truth out about the Boer people as far as he could which admittedly was not as far as it deserved considering the important & sensitive nature of the information the he relayed. As Theuns Cloete rightly noted in the first interview: the Boer people were ALSO under Apartheid - even their identity was stolen - yet most people are so brainwashed with the erroneous notion that "all" the Afrikaners were "from the Boers" [ due to the convenient conflation propaganda of the Broederbond ] they often have no understanding of this salient fact. This is why I often despair for the Boer people because I still often hear a lot of pointless / obtuse & hateful anti-Boer rhetoric like: "the Boers should have ALL been killed off in the concentration camps because of [ the later ] Apartheid" [ as the South African author Richard Catto once incredibly asserted in print ] that they did not even implement because the main architects of Apartheid were from the British & later Afrikaner leadership. Not from the Boer people who were not even allowed to have their own leaders after the Boer Republics were conquered.


 * I will contact you via e-mail sometime - though I think I will have to try to find a copy of that interesting book on my own. I am just so glad to know that it exists & is out there & that it appears to confirm what many Boers & others have been saying about their true ethnic roots for quite a long time now.

Ron7 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Katangais and Ron7 Having just read this most interesting dialogue, I'm hoping to interest you both to have a go at a draft article I began some time ago but haven't really touched in a long time - Draft:Afrikaner identity politics. I put down some ideas and possible sources on the draft's talk page. HelenOnline and Zarpboer also commented there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afrikaner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apartheid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Seiljag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 32 Battalion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675007018 your edit] to Chemical warfare may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s and  2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panhard AML, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dunlop and Alvis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panhard AML, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shrapnel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afrikaner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Bush War
I saw your edit summary that it was "rather erroneous to describe it as 'a guerrilla war in the 1970s'". Yes and no. Black nationalist guerrilla incursions from Zambia started at a low level around 1964—before UDI, it should be noted—but from the Rhodesian government's point of view it was essentially just a police action until the attack on Altena farm in December 1972. This is, I believe, usually regarded as the start of the war "proper", and of the main guerrilla phase. The period during which the Rhodesian government was seriously at war was roughly 1975–79. So while the Chimurenga campaign was 1964 to 1979, to say the war was in the 1970s isn't, in my view, totally incorrect. Cheers and I hope you're well. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Howzit Cliftonian. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Regarding the dates, I was aware that guerrillas were sent away for training by ZIPRA as early as 1962 and the killing of Piet Oberholzer took place in 1964 - I have two rather interesting books in fact, Black Fire! Narratives by Rhodesian Guerrillas by Michael Raeburn and From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe by Lawrence Vambe, which detail this very early period of the infiltrations. We can agree that these early encounters were minor skirmishes if that at all. However, while it's true that the Rhodesian government presented the conflict largely as a police action until about 1972, considering the scale and casualties of the 1968 Wankie campaign I feel I must respectfully disagree with them. By all accounts, that was a real military engagement, the likes of which Rhodesia didn't see again until 1975.


 * I feel those who would declare the entire bush war - as opposed to merely the most intensive part of the fighting - as being a 1970s conflict are in fact ignoring the significance of the Wankie incursion. -- Katan gais (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Katangais, likewise. Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it's not such a stark case—so I can understand why someone would refer to it in summary style as a 1970s conflict. The earlier incursions, particularly Wankie, are of note too as you say. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  10:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamba. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eland90I.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Eland90I.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mortara case
Howzit Katangais, hope everything's going well. If you have a few minutes to spare and are looking for something to read I have Mortara case up at FAC here—any thoughts you may have would be very much appreciated. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  07:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zimbabwe Defence Industries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PKM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gukurahundi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Ndebele. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Harper
Howzit Katangais, I know you're always interested in Rhodesian things, so I just thought I'd give you a nudge to the William Harper FAC here... any thoughts you may have would be very welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  09:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we create Category:State of Katanga?
Hi, I'm an Articles for creation reviewer, and we're discussing the proposed creation of Category:State of Katanga. If you have an opinion on this, I encourage you to reply to the comment thread at Draft:Category:State of Katanga! —Ringbang (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)