Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870

History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870

 * Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet the featured article criteria of being uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy.

I'd guess it's been taken from an ancient version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. It also seemed to have been nominated and accepted for featured article status without any South African comment. It's not neutral. The article continually mentioned kaffirs, which is the equivalent of an article on US history mentioning niggers. Probably being based on a colonial text, it describes in great details the British side of the story, but glosses over the Xhosa and Dutch sides.

Some examples: ''Considerable trouble was caused by the emigrant Boers on either side of the Orange River, where the Boers, the Basutos, other native tribes, Bushmen, and Griquas fought for superiority, while the Cape government endeavoured to protect the rights of the natives. ''

The Xhosa tribes gave the colony few problems after the war.

Read the article in detail for better examples, I need to run right now :) Greenman 2 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Well, as a South African who edited and wrote a fair amount of this article, I'd like to say there was a fair amount of South African comment on this article. The word Kaffir does not appear anywher int eh article. I also submit that the article is quite fair, and that other South African editors have not raised any objections to the issues you mention. Quite a bit is said about discrimination against the Xhosa, and I have also cleared up some of the more contentious paragraphs, although the Boers did indeed cause troubles by moving in in large numbers to an area that already was having issues with who owned what. Keep. Páll 4 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

One other thing, this page is mostly used for articles that clearly fail to meet the FAC standard, such as lacking references or being clearly POV-biased. Your objections are either over a perceived lack of information, and some of the phrasing in the article, and thanks to you, the article no longer uses the word kaffir. Why don't you use the talk page so that we can all work together to fix your objections, instead of listing it here for removal from FACs over slight content disputes. Remember one of the Wikipedia maxums, "so fix it!" Páll 4 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)


 * There are two references to Kaffirs in the article:
 * The history of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 spans the period of the history of Cape Colony during the Cape Frontier Wars, also called the Kaffir Wars, which lasted from 1811 to 1858.
 * and
 * "The Kaffirs," in Lord Glenelg's dispatch of 26 December, "had an ample justification for war; they had to resent, and endeavoured justly, though impotently, to avenge a series of encroachments.”
 * Cannot see how these references are inappropriate. Do not support the removal from FA> . - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

Hit and run I see? :-P I have reason to believe this article was reviewed by south africans too. Could you supply some more specific examples? (Or of course ;-) ) Kim Bruning 4 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I know little about this time and place, I cannot be sure if this is indeed POVed or not. The article may need some clarifications (expand on few problems and other not very clear adjectives in few places) but overall I think it's rather good. Greenman, I'd suggest you list here the complete list of POVed phrases and explain to us why they are POVed (pro-white? pro-black? pro-communist? pro-whatever?). Páll put many hours into working on this article, you can surely put few minutes into explaining to us your point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and changes to date. Yes, I was guilty of hit and run, being in a hurry that evening :) I didn't mean to come across as unappreciative of all the work done - the article is excellent in its completeness, especially compared to so many other poorly-covered South African topics, and I'm very grateful for its existence.

However, the article comes across as pro-British to me, and I'm fairly certain that a key original source was an old British text such as the Encylopedia Brittanica. The term kaffir fell from official use early in the last century, and even more recent terms such as native have a predjudicial sound to them (perhaps this is hard to explain to someone not from South Africa, where 'the natives' might sound quite ordinary). Modern historical texts rarely refer to either word except in historical context.

With the gratuitious use of kaffir removed, the article does sound a lot better, and PZFUN's changes also helped. Here are some other sections that need minor improvement.


 * While the northern frontier became more secure, the state of the eastern frontier was deplorable, with the government either unable or unwilling to protect farmers from the Xhosa. ((deplorable for whom? The situation was deplorable for the Xhosa on the northern frontier too, and the 3/4-way dynamics (Boer, Brit, Xhosa, KhoiKhoi) are only mentioned from the govt (Brit) view.))


 * The change from slave to free labour proved to be advantageous to the farmers in the western provinces. ((the major advantage of ending slavery was the impact on farmers??))


 * The entire description of the War of the Axe is from a British colonial point of view. The Xhosa is a thief, the others murderers. No mention of the reasons for the aggression, of the dynamics within Xhosa society as their land disappeared.


 * Sir Harry Smith, informed of the increasingly threatening attitude of the natives, went to the border region and summoned Sandili and the other chiefs for a meeting. Sandili refused obedience, after which the governor declared him deposed... ((again, only one side of the story))


 * More than one unsuccessful attempt was made to kill Sir Harry, and he needed to find a way to escape. At the head of 150 mounted riflemen, accompanied by Colonel Mackinnon, he galloped out of the fort, and rode to King William’s Town through heavy enemy fire — a distance of 12 miles (19 km). ((detailed anecdote about Sir Harry and Colonel Mackinnon - nothing to balance this))


 * Their revolt was followed by that of the Khoikhoi at other missionary stations; and some of the Khoikhoi of the Cape Mounted Rifles followed their example, including some of the very men who had escorted the governor from Fort Cox. But many of the Khoikhoi remained loyal and the Fingo likewise sided with the British. ((again, this point may seem minor to some, but it reads as if a report in a British history text. The very men - how dare they! But the 'good natives' remained loyal :)))


 * After the description of cattle killings (a source from 1878 is described as giving a vivid account of this), comes: The depopulated country was afterwards peopled by European settlers... 2000 industrious North German emigrants, who proved a valuable acquisition to the colony. ((again, the Europeans are described as useful to the colony, while the Xhosa starvation is seen as a delusional sideshow, without a real attempt to understand it - some interesting analyses have appeared recently))


 * Sir George also attempted for the first time, missionary effort apart, to educate the Xhosa and to firmly establish British authority among them, which the self-destruction of the Xhosa rendered easy. Beyond the Kei River, the natives were left to their own devices.


 * The transfer was marked by the removal of the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages to the natives, and the free trade in intoxicants which followed had most deplorable results among the Xhosa tribes.

I am happy enough to recant my suggestion that this article be removed as a featured article. It still has a number of flaws, but I acknowledge the work that has gone into it, as well as the difficulty of finding sources that provide a fair picture. Hopefully these objections can be acknowledged and the article continue to develop with some of these comments taken into account. Greenman 4 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Thank you for listing these. Now may I refer to ? Páll 15:34, 4 July 2005 (UTC)