Talk:Battle of Ventersdorp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article quality[edit]

I have cleaned up the article, but I doubt that it meet the criteria for a being a wikipedia article, in fact it comes pertty close to being a "soapbox" / "propoganda" article especially taking into account the original article's tone and references.

Some criticial changes I made:

  1. This is not a battle, it does not meet the criteria for a battle and shouldn't be placed in the category of Battles of South Africa.
  2. Clarifying the relevance.

Deon Steyn 08:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, there was no 'tone' as you speak of, the fact is that the police were better armed, they had equipment provided by the South African government and the protesters had hunting rifles, pistols and wooden batons and home- made teargas. Also the police had attack dogs, please take a look at what the AWB uses/ used in it's conflicts, it's generally makeshift equipment, not to the standard of the police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.2.133 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The date of Deon's comment is July 2006 - the article has changed a lot since then. Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Zaian 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plaster of Paris[edit]

I heard that the Boers were putting plaster of paris on their arms and legs to scale the barbed wire fences is it worth putting in the article, because I believe that at the Truth and Reconcilliation Commision the government cited this as the reason for killing the Boers.

By the way didn't they lock arms, I have some video footage on the Nick Broomfield film His Big White Self and they were locked in arms and kicking at the cameras. I'll mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.255.151 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 November 2006

Whites or not[edit]

I watched the news report footage and the light- haired man who was carrying a bottle and locking arms with several other people and kicked at a camera was locking arms with, to his right, a man who by the looks of it was Indian or coloured, I can't make a definiate decision, if anyone else has His Big White Self like me then take a look and see if you agree. The man kicks at the camera and then half drags along another man in khaki and he looks non- white. It could tie in with the possibility that the AWB, despite being white supremacists, had coloured and Indian members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.2.133 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Identities of deceas[edit]

Does anyone have any idea who the 3 people who died were? The incident was a big mess and the SAPS were very violent and so I think to an extent the South African government has tried to cover it up and stop people hearing about it too much.

82.20.49.215 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoul be in Battles of South Africa[edit]

I've looked at what qualifies as a battle on wikipedia and since this ended with people kicking dogs in the face, spraying teargas and the battle ended at 10.30 p.m. by which time over 4,000 people had been exchanging fire for several hours. To be honest considering that there was hundreds if not thousands of firearms being discharged it's quite amazing that only one man was killed from gunfire and that not more were injured.

Whatever you say it would have looked like and felt like a battle, how much more scary does it come? Thousands of people shooting guns blindly at each other into the night and no sign of it ending?

BOV1993 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The term "battle" was only used by the media to sensationalize the event. This was not combat and it was not warfare and there weren't armies involved. You can't classify riots or crowd control problems (for example "soccer hooligans") as battles even though the media might use the term or even though many people might die. To call this a "battle" would be an insult to military forces everywhere. --Deon Steyn 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I disagree with you Deon, I think that it was a battle leading up to civil war, although the war part never actually happened. It wasn't just random hooliganism, they had a goal and it was to either disrupt the meeting and force DeKlerk out of Ventersdorp or to get inside of the meeting hall and make their voices heard or quite possibly assault people and 'trash the place' to be blunt, judging from their behaviour later on in the storming of the WTC in Johannesburg.

I think that it would be an insult to the policemen who were shot and the AWB members who were injured and especially to the legacy of and to the families of the 3 AWB members killed to say that they were killed in an incident of 'hooliganism'.

It involved military- style tactics, namely arming themselves with Doom insect repellent, firearms, gas masks (makeshift or genuine), sticks and particularly cutting the town's electricity. The men who went there had gone prepared for a battle, they had taken an item which they would attatch to their arm and use to stab police with (look at the page on arthurkemp.com regarding the Battle of Ventersdorp). According to the arthurkemp.com source they had set up a medical base in the AWB headquarters building, all of these are indicative of people preparing for a battle.

BOV1993 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a white supremacist AWB fantasy that they were a military force involved in a war and any attempt to portray them as such would be propaganda of a very dubious nature. There was no war, there were no armies, ergo there was no battle. There was a riot - well organized or not - dealt with by a police force. The only reason the term "battle" stuck is because it was in the media. --Deon Steyn 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a 'White supremacist AWB fantasy'?, I wish you wouldn't be so derogatory about people who were just trying to help.

JBAK88 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Battle of Goedgevonden[edit]

The article on the so called Battle of Goedgevonden should be merged into this one as it's not notable on it's own and relates to the background of this article. --Deon Steyn 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%. The Goedgevonden incident was not notable enough for its own article. Zaian 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree 100%. The Goedgevonden incident was entirely different, one was about removing squatters on farmer's land and one was about raiding a political meeting. The Goedgevonden incident involved local farmers and the Ventersdorp one involved people from all over South Africa and even some white Namibian farmers drove down. The Goedgevonden incident was entirely different in nature other than it was an AWB- backed protest/ riot, the Goedgevonden incident was primarily farmers destroying black shacks and attackings black squatters, attacks on the unarmed, whereas the AWB were outgunned in the Ventersdorp incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BOV1993 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The Goedgevonden incident is so entirely non-notable, that it should either be delete or added to this page as some sort of footnote or background information. They involved publicity seeking stunts in the same small community, by the same AWB leaders. While I appreciate your efforts at adding content, your sole sources seem to be the completely biased white supremacist AWB. I suggest you start citing reliable references showing that this incident is noteworthy (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). --Deon Steyn 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so far we have two editors in favour of the merge with the only one,BOV1993, against it. BOV1993 also hasn't provided independent references and has been blocked for unacceptable behaviour. I will proceed with the merge if there aren't any objections. --Deon Steyn 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished merge, it's now part of a new sub-heading called "background". (ps. oops, I wasn't signed in, but I did the merge) --Deon Steyn 08:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back[edit]

Hi,

My ban's been lifted, I'm editting under IP at the moment but I'll soon return with an account. I was wondering why you had classed the www.arthurkemp.com website with information concerning the 'Ventersdorp Incident' as biased? When even the BBC has a bias against the AWB.

86.27.135.81 10:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fuck you. 104.194.112.210 (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goedgevonden Incident[edit]

Firstly the AWB hasn't been given a fair hearing on this article regarding the Goedgevonden incident, perhaps it should be more clear that they were forcing people off their own property, I agree that attacking the nearby township was uncalled for but this article doesn't stress how let- down by their own people the Boers felt by 1991.

86.27.142.51 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My IP has changed[edit]

Hi. My IP changed to 86. something back there, I don't know why, either way this article is very unsympathetic, particularly with regards to the fact that DeKlerk only did this to rub it in the faces of the conservative Christian whites that he could go to any town he liked and spread his message. The police attacked first, the AWB merely responded, they had intended for it to be a peaceful march to hand a petition to DeKlerk and the police attacked them, this would've angered them and they would've responded.

82.14.87.191 10:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox?[edit]

How about if someone added an infobox for this article? 134.74.74.34 14:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a standard info box lay- out for political clashes, in nature it was quite unique.

82.13.45.78 11:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a point of?[edit]

On what grounds can you say that Terre'Blanche 'made a point' of standing in front of the cameras, it's much more plausible that he was talking to the policeman and the cameras decided to film it, on what grounds can you say he made a point of it?

You've indicated no evidence to support that assumption.


82.3.70.171 12:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wikipedia?[edit]

What is the issue about who the owner of the land was? Who was the owner of the land when the squatting commenced? The fact that the land may have been State owned at some point of time does not entitle anybody to occupy that land illegally. A Deeds search will show who the current and previous owners are.Gregorydavid 01:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor (User:JBAK) that insists on making these changes, is a right wing extremist, that has been banned indefinitely. He has created several sock puppets (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JBAK) to try and circumvent the ban and is now resorting to anonymous edits (several IPs have already been blocked). I will continue reverting every single one of his edits (all/mostly sourced from AWB sources). --Deon Steyn 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving[edit]

Deon Steyn and anybody else who is interested, I'm leaving wikipedia, no more sockpuppets and no more vandalism, I've grown sick of it.

JBAK

I'll leave a note later and I'll give over the names of all of my sockpuppets.

Iadmitit 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ventersdorp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ventersdorp&oldid=1210636373"