Talk:Battle of Rorke's Drift/Archive 1

Source material?

"The previous scene was played out again..." 17 were not killed it was 10

A whole lot of this article sounds like it was copied out of a book. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You say that as if it were a Bad Thing. -) Actually, it's probably from one of the official eye-witness testimonies, previously published elsewhere. Dennette 07:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This does not strike me as an impartial account of the battle - it is too close to the popular accounts. Of particuar concern is what is left out - for example, the massacre of Zulu wounded after the battle that is mentioned in the article on the movie Zulu but not here. This is not a simple story of British heroism in the face of an unprovoked account. There was plenty of heroism, but also atrocities. Also, use of language like "Chard had not counted on the fickleness of the natives" can be interpreted as being racist (although I am not saying this is in any way deliberate). In this example, fickle is too pejorative a term. A simple statement like "the African troops deserted their posts before the battle" (with detail) would be more appropriate as, without evidence, we can only guess motives. If the view on the fickleness of the native contingent is a historical quote then this should be made clear.

[Apologies - the above comment was mine and I negleted to claim authorship. My name is Phil Ivens. This edit 26/8/06]

It should also be noted that the eleven VCs awarded was not the largest for a single action but it was the largest to a regiment in a single action, i.e. seven to the 24th. Alan.

"...interpreted as being racist." Trite. Over-used. The brainwashed politically correct buffoons can interpret a loaf of white bread as being racist. 24.206.253.199 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Somebody rub you the wrong way today, Captain Rightwing?

No, Mr. Sharpton, I think he's just sick of the constant cries of "racism" everytime anyone says anything unflattering about anyone black. It just gets so old. -RR63

Dalton

He was Gazetted On November 17, 1879... so if he got his VC in January, he was awarded much earlier

He received his VC from General Hugh Clifford VC at a special parade at Fort Napier on 16 January 1880. His VC is in the Royal Logistic Corps Museum, Blackdown, Camberley, Surrey.

anglo-centric

I agree - I think this account is unacceptably biased. It is a coloful tale, but very biased towards the point of view of the Europeans. It needs serious editing before it is ready to be included as an encyclopedia article. Nice writing though! I'm adding a neutrality tag - please write here to tell me if i'm off base (or on base) --Bmk 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's been a fair amount of editing since July, but I've just read the article and there doesn't seem to be anything violating NPOV in it. The article does need work-- there are a number of glitches in the writing (e.g., someone named "Stephenson" is referred to, and we can only infer who he was by context). More substantially, the article is filled with military historical detail, but lacks much on the context or aftermath of the battle. Much of this context is provided in the Anglo-Zulu War and Battle of Isandhlwana articles. More details on the disposition, nature, and movements of the Zulu forces would be desirable, but a disparity in the detail available for the British and Zulu forces is inevitable given the disparity in the volume of the historical record. The neutrality tag should be pulled. MayerG 05:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

History is written by the victors. Much of the article reads like it was copied out of a book written by the victors and even then is very sanitized. Many of the 24th were disemboweled during the battle, and in revenge several hundred woulded Zulus were executed after the battle. 144.136.49.213 12:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"rampaging Zulus" - Britons kill with civility, but Zulu's "rampage".

To say the neutrality flag should be pulled is utter nonsense. Either that or it the title of the article should be changed to "The British interpretation of the battle at Rorkes Drift". Its a biased story. 41.244.250.175 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• This entry is total propaganda, eschewing the military exploits of the supremely talented and vastly superior British "manhood" over that of the less capable and certainly inferior (although obviously physically much larger and more athletic) Zulu warriors... Did Queen Elizabeth write this article herself? Thank god we still have real white men with narrative skills to continue the tradition of white supremacy contributing to Wikipedia... It will enable us all to sleep easier at night... Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven, care to actually point out where this occurs, because, the whole point of the battle being a great defense intrinsically implies that there was a great offense. If the Zulus were incompetent, then the battle never would have gained notoriety in the first place. As for those claiming 'bias' we could easily prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your objections are rooted in marxist rhetoric (many of you have the air of freshman enamored with your 'radical' (tenured, paid 100,000K + and has grad students working for less than minimum wage) proffesors , though a widespread nonsense, is still a nonsense. However, it would quickly isolate you to a very small group: those aged 18-22, whether by loan or parent funding, are attending western universities (something less than .01 percent of the world's population ever does) costing average of 30,000 dolars a year (compared to, say the average day wages of a day laborer in india are about 2 dollars) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.110.54 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Welsh-Centric

The 24th were a Welsh Regiment. The outrageous heroism of that company cannot be edited to make it acceptable to people who do not like Europeans. There is nothing colourful (I presume that is what the previous, grammatically challenged poster meant), about it. 139 beats 4000 equals courage, big time.

• I would say 100 children with guns, artillery and a fort of any ethnicity can beat 4000 men with knives and spears and no siege technology on a fairly regular basis. There is little that is heroic or courageous about the Brits. They were simply meaner than most other populations... Do not confuse nastiness for valor... Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • steven ,just proves (again) you have no idea what you're talking about. The zulus had rifles, a plenty, and were (and still are) known as one of the fiercest martial races on the planet. But its amazing you no doubt would be among the first to scream 'racism' yet libel the Anglo Saxon peoples. And where do you live? And what language to you speak? And what university do you attend?
    • oh and one more thing, just days before- an event that will no doubt warm your heart- the same Zulu army wiped out a regiment. As you no doubt know, a regiment is somewhat bigger than 130 men(the number of British defenders at Rorke's drift) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.110.54 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

- They weren't actually a Welsh regiment at the time - they became the South Wales Borders years later --80.41.20.199 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As you say, they weren't a Welsh regiment. In fact, the Welsh constituted only 11% of the 24th. Regt. at Rorke's Drift. Although the regiment was then based in Brecon in South Wales and called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot (later to be the South Wales Borderers). Many of the defenders had never been to Brecon. Of the eleven VC recipients only Robert Jones and John Williams were Welsh. Alan 25.1.07

Did it happen?

I'm sure I've seen it argued somewhere that the battle did not happen at all, and was invented as propaganda. I think this was based on a handwriting analysis of the (proported) eyewitness accounts; apparently they were all written by the same hand. m.e. 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it argued somewhere that the earth is hollow and filled with humanoid lizards who run human affairs by taking on the forms of our political leaders. That doesn't mean we should pay the theory any heed.

Unless there is compelling new evidence, it's best to just ignore claims like this one. 81.151.124.167 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Don't forget that many soldiers were illiterate. That could explain the claim that the handwriting was the same: they would have had to dictate their account. fdewaele, 5 February 2007, 13:12.

I think I've heard that 'Rorke's Drift Battle' denial is a criminal offence in some countries. Punishable with brain implants. [Alan 25.1.07]

Article name

I think the name of this article should be Battle of Rorke's Drift - currently a redirect. Almost the entire article is about the battle. Wizzy…☎ 14:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either that or add more background information on Rorke's Drift. Although this latter option isn't really practical as, excepting the events of the battle, Rorke's Drift has rarely been historically significant for reasons other than being a vital river crossing. 81.151.124.167 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Elmo

Heroic?

Surley this warrants putting 'Heroic British Victory'? I edited before but it got changed... if this ain't a heroic victory, i don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Hhwha2 (talk • contribs)

Well considering the British had gone over with the aim of subjugating a nation, confident in the ease of their task due to their superior firearms and the general racism prevalent in British society at the time (see Chelmsford's comments on the "inferiority" of Africans), no I don't think they were heroic figures. The battle certainly was impressive, but what do you expect if you invade a country, a red carpet? Of course you'll be attacked if you provoke it. It was hardly Thermopylae. I suppose, noting how the attitude of the British at Rorke's Drift would have switched rapidly from a feeling of ease in their supposed superiority to one of fear which actually required guts to stay and fight, that you could put this in Ironic British Victories... 86.142.246.130 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well considering the British had gone over with the aim of subjugating a nation"

what 'nation" were they subjugating ? if you knew anything about the history of that region you would know the Zulus were a conquering race who were subjugating other african tribes. You're right it was hardly Thermopyale -the British as Rorke's drift won. Again, what country did they invade? Zululand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.110.54 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture

you could of got a better picture than that its pritty bloured iv got a book and its got a better picture than that

Dramatizations

Should we include the mention that an issue of Star Wars Empire: To The Last Man, The Battle of Maridun, was inspired by this matter? that is what it says in Wookiepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.228.119 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No (Trip Johnson (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Prelude?

On 11 January, the date the British ultimatum to the Zulus expired, the column crossed the river at Rorke's Drift and encamped on the KwaZulu bank.

Shouldn't the article say something about what this ultimatum was, before it is mentioned this way? 206.53.197.24 (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The above was fixed 10:30, 15 November 2008 by Dirkbb, by adding a link to the mention of the ultimatum in question. Thanks. SlowJog (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Rorke's Drift → Battle of Rorke's Drift — As noted in #Article name Almost the entire article is about the battle. Pahari Sahib 09:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, the battle is the only thing the place is known for, and that's normally simply known as Rorke's Drift, not "Battle of..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 August, 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The primary source cited calls it the Battle of Rorke's Drift. "Rorke's Drift" may be shorthand for the battle but, as a title, it implies the article is about the place. This is clear from the current opener: "Rorke's Drift was a mission station ..." — AjaxSmack 01:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It was a battle. Scott Free (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

British Empire/United Kingdom

The battle was subject to an expansion of the British Empire, however the British Empire was not a belligerent. Flosssock1 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The forces engaged included both British Army and colonial troops. The war itself was started without the knowledge of the UK government in London due to local leaders overstepping their authority. The Empire was at this time a single political entity to a great extent so it makes most sense and it is most helpful to readers to present British Empire as the belligerent party. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree and endorse David's comments. I would add that edit warring is unhelpful. Justin talk 15:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But that was the war, this page is on the spacific battle. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Men who was present at Rorke's Drift

header 1	header 2	header 3

This roll is based on those prepared by Lieutenant Chard and Colour Sergeant Bourne after the action.

General Staff

Maybin, G.W. Colour-Sergent.

Royal Artillery N Battery 5th Brigade

Cantwell, John. Gunner 2076. awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal Evans, Abraham. Gunner 1643 Howard, Arthur. Gunner 2077 Lewis, Thomas. Bombardier. 458

Royal Engineers 5th Company

Chard. John Rouse Merriott. Lieutenant, awarded Victoria Cross Robson, Charles John. Driver. 12046 (Chard’s Batman)

2nd Battalion, 3rd (East Kent) Regiment of Foot (The Buffs)

Milne, Frederick. Sergeant. 2260

1st Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot

Beckett, William. Private. 25B/135 Desmond, Patrick. Private. 25B/568 Horrigan, William. Private. 1-24/1861 Jenkins, James. Private. 25B/841 Nicholas, Edward. Private. 25B/625 Payton, Thomas. Private. 25B/372 Roy, William Private. 24/1542, awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal Turner, Henry. Private. 25B/104 Waters, John. Private. 1-24/447 Wilson, Edward. Sergeant. 25B/56

2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment (2nd Warwickshire)

Adams, Robert. Private. 25B/987 D Company Allen, William Wilson. Corporal. 2-24/1240, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Ashton, James. Private. 2-24/913, B Company Barry, Thomas. Private. 25B/1381, B Company Bennett, William Private. 25B/918, B Company Bessell, William. Lance-Corporal. 25B/l287, B Company Bly, John. Private. 2-24/2427, B Company Bourne, Frank Edward. Colour-Sergeant. 2-24/2459, B Company, awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal Bromhead. Gonville. Lieutenant B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Bromwich, Joseph. Private. 25B/1524, B Company Buckley, Thomas. Private. 25B/1184, B Company Burke, Thomas. Private. 25B/1220, B Company (Buried Liverpool (Ford) Roman Catholic Cemetery) Bushe, James. Private. 2-24/2350, B Company Camp, William Henry. Private. 25B/1181, B Company Chester, Thomas. Private. 25B/1241, B Company Chick, James. Private. 25B/1335, D Company Clayton, Thomas. Private. 25B/755, B Company Cole, Robert. Private. 25B/1459, F Company Cole, Thomas. Private. 25B/801, B Company Collins, Thomas. Private. 25B/1396, B Company Connolly, John. Private. 25B/906, C Company Connors, Anthony. Private. 2-24/2310, B Company Connors, Timothy. Private. 2-24/1323, B Company Cooper, William. Private. 2-24/2453, F Company Davies, George. Private. 25B/470, B Company Davis, William Henry. Private. 25B/1363, B Company Daw, Thomas. Private. 25B/1178, B Company Deacon, George. Private. 25B/1467, B Company, alias George Power Deane, Michael. Private. 25B/1357, B Company Dick, James. Private. 2-24/1697, B Company Dicks, William. Private. 2-24/1634, B Company Driscoll, Thomas. Private. 25B/971, B Company Dunbar, James. Private. 25B/1421, B Company Edwards, George. Private. 25B/922, B Company, alias George Orchard Evans, Frederick. Private. 25B/953, H Company Fagan, John. Private. 25B/969, B Company French, George. Corporal. 2-24/582, B Company Galgey, Patrick. Drummer 2-24/1713, D Company Gallagher, Henry. Sergeant. 25B/81, B Company Gee, Edward. Private. 2-24/2429, B Company Hagan, James. Private. 25B/978, B Company Halley, William. Lance-Corporal. 25B/1282, B Company Harris, John. Private. 25B/1062, B Company Hayden, Garret. Private. 2-24/1769, D Company Hayes, Patrick. Drummer 2-2412067, B Company Hitch, Frederick. Private. 25B/1362, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Hook, Alfred Henry. Private. 25B/1373, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Jobbins, John. Private. 25B/1061, B Company Jones, Evan. Private. 25B/1428, B Company, alias Patrick Cosgrove Jones, John. Private. 25B/1179, B Company Jones, John. Private. 25B/970, B Company Jones, Robert. Private. 25B/716, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Jones, William. Private. 2-24/593, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross Judge, Peter. Private. 2-24/2437, B Company Kears, Patrick. Private. 25B/972, B Company Keefe, James. Drummer 2-24/2381, B Company Key, John. Corporal. 2-24/2389, B Company Kiley, Michael. Private. 25B/1386, B Company Lewis, David. Private. 25B/963, B Company, alias James Owen Lines, Henry. Private. 2-24/1528, B Company Lloyd, David. Private. 25B/1409, B Company Lockhart, Thomas. Private. 25B/1176, B Company Lodge, Joshua. Private. 25B/1304, B Company Lynch, Thomas Michael. Private. 25B/942, B Company Lyons, John. Corporal. 25B/1112, B Company Lyons. John. Private. 2-24/1441, A Company Manley, John. Private. 2-24/1731, A Company Marshall, James. Private. 25B/964, B Company Martin, Henry. Private. 25B/756, B Company Mason, Charles. Private. 25B/1284, B Company Maxfield, Robert. Sergeant. 25B/623, G Company Meehan, John. Drummer 2-24/2383, A Company Minehan, Michael Private. 2-24/1527, B Company Moffatt, Thomas. Private. 25B/968, B Company Morris, Augustus. Private. 25B/1342, B Company Morris, Frederick. Private. 25B/525, B Company Morrison, Thomas. Private. 25B/1371, B Company Murphy, John. Private. 25B/662, B Company Neville, William. Private. 25B/1279, B Company Norris, Robert. Private. 25B/1257, B Company Osborne, William. Private. 25B/1480, B Company Parry, Samuel. Private. 25B/1399, B Company Partridge, William. Private. 25B/1410, G Company Pitt, Samuel. Private. 25B/1186, B Company Robinson, Edward. Private. 25B/1286, B Company Ruck, James. Private. 25B/1065, B Company Savage, Edward. Private. 25B/1185, B Company Saxty, Alfred. Corporal. 25B/849, B Company Scanlon, John. Private. 25B/1051, A Company Sears, Arthur. Private. 2-24/2404, A Company Shearman, George. Private. 2-24/1618, B Company Shergold, John. Private. 2-24/914, B Company Smith, George. Sergeant. 2-24/1387, B Company Smith, John. Private. 25B/1005, B Company Stevens, Thomas. Private. 25B/777, B Company Tasker, William. Private. 2-24/1812, B Company Taylor, Frederick. Private. 25B/973, B Company Taylor, James. Lance-Sergeant. 25B/82, E Company Taylor, Thomas Edward. Private. 25B/889, B Company Thomas, John. Private. 25B/1280, B Company, alias Peter Sawyer Thompson, John. Private. 25B/1394, B Company Tobin, Michael. Private. 25B/879, B Company Tobin, Patrick. Private. 25B/641, B Company Todd, William John. Private. 25B/1281, B Company Tongue, Robert. Private. 25B/1315, B Company Wall, John. Private. 25B/1497, B Company Whetton, Alfred. Private. 2-24/977, B Company Wilcox, William. Private. 25B/1187, B Company Williams, John. Private. 25B/1395, B Company, awarded Victoria Cross, alias John William Fielding Williams, John. Private. 25B/934, E Company Williams, Joseph. Private. 25B/1398, B Company Williams, Thomas. Lance-Sergeant. 258/1328 Windridge, Joseph. Sergeant. 2-24/735, B Company Woods, Caleb. Private. 25B/1316, B Company

90th Light Infantry

Graham, James. Corporal. 1123, alias Daniel Sheehan

Army Service Corps

Attwood, Francis. Second Corporal. 24692, awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal

Army Commissariat and Transport Department

Byrne, Louis Alexander. Acting Storekeeper (civilian) Dalton, James Langley. Acting Assistant Commissary, awarded Victoria Cross Dunne, Walter Alphonsus. Assistant. Commissary

Army Medical Department and Army Hospital Corps

Reynolds, James Henry. Surgeon. BA MB ChB, awarded Victoria Cross Pearse, Mr., Surgeon Reynolds’s servant Ludding, Thomas. Private. McMahon, Michael. Private. 3359, awarded Distinguished Conduct Medal, later withdrawn after he deserted. Miller, Robert. Corporal.

1st Battalion 3rd Regiment Natal Native Contingent

Adendorff, James. Lieutenant. (See later note) Mayer, Jessy H. Corporal. A native of Mkungo’s tribe.

2nd Battalion 3rd Regiment Natal Native Contingent

Anderson, Michael. Corporal. Doughty, William. Corporal. Scammell, Carl. Corporal. Schiess, Ferdnand Christian. Corporal, awarded Victoria Cross Wilson, John. Corporal.

Natal Mounted Police

Green, Robert S. Trooper. Hunter, Sydney H. Trooper. Lugg, Henry. Trooper.

Acting Chaplain to the Volunteers

Smith, George. The Reverend The Rev Smith’s native servant Daniels, Mr. ferryman

Note :- Lieutenant Adendorff was added to Chard’s roll of those present at Rorke’s Drift, mainly because he said he would stay, but there is overwhelming evidence he rode off soon after his arrival. He was later arrested at Pietermaritzburg on the charge of desertion in the face of the enemy. There was also a strong suggestion that he had left Isandhlwana earlier than was necessary because he was the only one to escape via the track which was cut early on by the Zulus. There is no evidence that a trial ever took place, possibly because Chard’s report said he had warned the garrison at the drift.

Not included in these figures are those who did not remain to assist in the defence viz. Stevenson’s Natal Native Contingent detachment, Vause’s fugitive Natal Native Horse from Isandhlwana, Otto Witt and his native companion, Lieutenant Thomas Purvis 1st Battalion, 3rd Regiment, Natal Native Contingent - a hospital patient - who accompanied Witt to safety, Chard’s native voodooper, Chard’s native wagon driver who hid in a cave on the Oscarberg throughout the attack, and all those fugitives from lsandhtwana who stopped to give a warning and rode on. Of all the latter only Adendorff was incorrectly credited with remaining to assist in the defence and was thus the only man said to have fought at both the Isandhlwana and Rorke’s Drift actions.

British Casualties.

Killed in action 22nd January 1879: Acting storekeeper L.A. Byrne (Commissariat Department) Sergeant R. Maxfield (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private R. Adams (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Chick (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private T. Cole (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Fagan (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private G. Hayden (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private W. Horrigan (1st Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Jenkins (1st Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private E. Nicholas (1st Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Scanlon (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Williams (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Trooper S. Hunter (Natal Mounted Police) Corporal W. Anderson (Natal Native Contingent) Killed whilst deserting. Plus: One Unknown Private (Natal Native Contingent)

Died of Wounds 23rd January 1879: Lance-Sergeant T. Williams (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private W. Beckett (1st Battalion, 24th Regiment)

Seriously Wounded: Acting Assistant Commissary J.L. Dalton (Commissariat Department) Corporal W.W. Allen (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Corporal J. Lyons (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Corporal C. Scammell (Natal Native Contingent) Corporal F. Schiess (Natal Native Contingent) Drummer J. Keefe (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Bushe (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private P. Desmond (1st Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private F. Hitch (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private A.H. Hook (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private R. Jones (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Smith (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private W. Tasker (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Private J. Waters (2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment) Trooper R. Green (Natal Mounted Police)

Bromhead's deafness

There doesn't seem to be any discussion at the Bromhead article so I'll put it here. The Bromhead article describes him as "profoundly" deaf - I knew he was deaf but was he really "profoundly" so? He may have been, for all I know, but it just sounds a bit heavy - surely that means almost 100% deaf, which would make it impossible to function as an army officer?86.149.50.199 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thousands & hundreds of Zulu guns?

As pointed out on the Talk:Isandlwana talk page, there is no source stating the Zulus carried thousand of guns at any battle of the Anglo-Zulu War. British Battles website is not a legitimate source and has a serious point of view problem. But even British Battles website doesn't claim that "hundreds were carried by the force approaching Rorke's Drift" this is both WP:NOR and WP:SYN.Tttom1 (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at the classic "The Washing of the Spears" by Donald Morris and find no reference to thousands of guns. The Zulu captured a large number of guns at Isandhlwana and used SOME in various places, including Rorke's Drift, but their marksmanship was poor. They typically fired high to "give the bullets strength" as they put it. And the force that swept down on Rorke's Drift was a fast-moving reserve. They were not only deployed to eliminate fleeing British remmants at Isahdhlwana, but had a further 12-mile run to reach the fort. They did not have time to stop and gather hundreds of guns plus ammo. Overall, the Zulu made little effective use of firearms.EssequiboEarl (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A user on your talk page has provided multiple sources, which you there characterize as "minority" without any support of your own. Nor have you supported your claim that British Battles is not a reputable source. Your edits appear to be unreferenced POV. While any articles can and should be improved, this article seems reasonably well written, encyclopedic, and well referenced. Therefore I am removing the tags. Enon (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Other user gave one source that mentioned Zulus having guns (Ian Knight - Knight never says Zulus have thousands of guns at either Isandlawa or Rorke's Dift - no first account says it either) and the other source, World History, actually refuted his claim described the armaments of the Zulus as shields and spears: p.462 "They had a national army of twenty-five thousand men equipped with cowhide shields, assegais and clubs.". User was answered on his page and elsewhere. Consensus was to use the word 'some' or 'a few' as stated by Smith-Dorrien. 3rd source was British Battles- self published and not a reliable source.Tttom1 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So there were guns, but not thousands. How many is a few? Given 4000-5000 Zulu troops, if even 5% had guns, that is hundreds of guns. You still have not supported your allegations of POV and unreliability with regard to the British Battles source, certainly not to the degree needed to cut it completely, especially given its value for images and its apparent legitimate, sourced nature and overall encyclopedic tone.

""They had a national army of twenty-five thousand men equipped with cowhide shields, assegais and clubs."

If I am described as "wearing a red shirt and black shoes" that would fail to support the thesis that I'm not wearing pants.Enon (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:SYN - "If I am described as "wearing a red shirt and black shoes"" It cannot then conclude you were wearing 5 pairs of blue pants unless a reliable source that says so.Tttom1 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

______

Here's more sources:

"Wearing feathers and furs and loincloths of oxhide, etc., and armed mainly with assegais and large ox-hide shields, the Zulus also had a few muzzle-loading percussion smoothbore muskets at Isandlwana. Captured Martini-Henry rifles were used, however, the same afternoon and evening at Rorke’s Drift, against the gallant British defenders. Fortunately the Zulus were bad shots."

The South African Military History Society / Military History Journal - Vol 4 No 6 (December 1979 SA ISSN 0026-4016) "Firepower and Firearms in the Zulu War of 1879" by Major (Dr) Felix Machanik http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol046fm.html

"The firearms which had found their way into Zulu hands were mainly muzzle-loaders of cheap commercial manufacture. Individual Zulus, such as Chief Zibebu, one of Cetshwayo's generals, had become excellent marksmen; most others were mediocre shottists who tended to shoot high or close their eyes when pulling the trigger.

However, the large number of rifles captured at Isandlwana were put to good use by the Zulus, and even if their fire was not highly accurate it had considerable nuisance value. Instances of this kind were reported in connection with the defence of Rorke's Drift and the attack on Khambula."

The South African Military History Society / Military History Journal Vol 4 No 4 December 1978 - Zulu War Centenary Issue SA ISSN 0026-4016 "The Zulu Military Organization and the Challenge of 1879" by Cmdt S. Bourquin, DWD http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol044sb.html

"The story of Rorke's Drift has often been told and perhaps nowhere so graphically as by Donald R. Morris in his study of the Zulu War, 'The Washing of the Spears.' The author was able to reconstruct the events of the night of January 22-23, 1879, from a wide variety of sources. One account, however, was not then available to him; that compiled by Frederick Hitch who, with ten others, received the Victoria Cross for gallantry in action on that occasion. It has not been published before and is reproduced here as a footnote to history and as a tribute to Private Hitch and his comrades who fought so courageously against overwhelming numbers in the fierce struggle to defend the post by the Buffalo River."

From Pvt. Hitch's account:

"Wilest doing this I noticed it was with great difficatly (difficulty) they were keep (kept) back, they keeping up a heavy fire from front and rear from which we suffered very much. It was than (then) about when Mr Dolton(Dalton) was shot and Mr Dunn (Dunne). Mr Dolton was very active up till he was wounded. We had to fall back to the second line of defence when the Zulus took position (possession) of the hospittal. Bromhead & myself & five others took up the position on the right of the second line of defence, (in) which we were exposed to three cross fires."

The South African Military History Society / Military History Journal Vol 2 No 6 December 1973 SA ISSN 0026-4016 "Frederick Hitch and the Defence of Rorke's Drift" by M. Boucher http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol026mb.html Pvt. Frederick Hitch, VC (1855-1913)

Account of the battle, at the same site:

The South African Military History Society / Military History Journal Vol 4 No 4 December 1978 - Zulu War Centenary Issue SA ISSN 0026-4016 "The Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 - Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift" by G.A. Chadwick, B.A., B.Com http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol044gc.html

So Bourquin and Boucher (Hitch) support the proposition that there were a large number of Zulu rifles at Rourke's Drift and Machanik supports that there were captured Martini-Henry rifles there without giving an indication of their number. Enon (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Zulus also had a few" as per Smith-Dorrien again, so not many - some. "Instances of this kind were reported..." refers to inaccurate fire not numbers. Got a source that says: X number of Zulus had X number of guns at RD? None of the arguments that the rifles taken at Isandlwana were used at RD have a factual basis. The reserve corps of Zulus was unengaged at the battle so had no access to those rifles. Maybe a few were taken from the fugitives - who knows?Tttom1 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

From that same website: "The generality of Zulu warriors, however, would not have firearms - the arms of a coward, as they said, for they enable the poltroon to kill the brave without awaiting his attack." http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol044sb.html . Putting bits and pieces selectively together as you just did above is OR and SYN. See:WP:NOR and WP:SYN Tttom1 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a possible reading ("instances"...), but it seems a bit strained. Even if the rifles weren't captured, there were still enough to allow "keeping up a heavy fire from front and rear", and "three cross fires" which would require many guns considering that most were muzzleloaders used by poorly-trained men. Machanik does say that captured rifles were at RD, but your counter-point is a good one and perhaps he's wrong. However, there is firsthand evidence from just before the war that the Zulu men were nearly all armed with rifles. Enon (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A first-hand source prior to the battle says the Zulus had many breech-loaders even without capturing them from the British:

"Almost every man [Zulu] has a gun. Guns and ammunition are cheaper at any military kraal in Zululand than at Port Natal. These goods are imported by Tonga men, who come in large gangs from Delagoa Bay, for white merchants. An Enfield rifle may be had for a sheep of a Tonga man; many have breech-loaders. The missionaries, whose principal occupation was trading, deal in ammunition."

From: Messrs. Smith and Colenso's explanatory letter to Sir M. Hicks-Beach, dated June 9th, 1878, quoted in a footnote on pp.159-160 of History of the Zulu war and its origin By Frances Ellen Colenso and Lt. Col. Edward Durnford, published in 1880 by Chapman and Hall, Piccadilly. http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&ei=S8z6S6-2CML_lgf776jFCg&ct=result&id=Fz1CAAAAIAAJ&output=text&pg=PA159 Enon (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

John Shepstone, Acting Secretary for Native Affairs at the time on the Zulu army - "Equipment: Each man carries his shield and assegais, and a kaross or blanket if he posses one, he may also have a war dress of monkey skins or ox tails, this is all." Tttom1 (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

______

Requesting reliable sources that discredit other sources is ludicrous—what, are scholarly journals or academic institutions supposed to publish special alerts to satisfy your demand? A self-published source without an editorial board to speak of or any peer review process by qualified experts is not credible for precisely these reasons and should be aggressively removed. Whether or not you can detect the POV visibly carried in its name is immaterial. Albrecht (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on those wishing to use a source to show that it meets the WP:reliable source policy, not on those challenging it to show that it isn't. David Underdown (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Requesting reliable sources that discredit other sources is ludicrous" - I'm not asking for a source referring to British Battles itself as being unreliable, but simply an example of something asserted on BB that is directly contradicted by a more reliable source. (Reliability isn't either-or, rather a continuum over several measures.) No one would really claim that a factual and encyclopedic source shouldn't be referenced at all would they? That the standard is "verifiability and not truth" should not be construed as a disregard for truth in favor of procedural standards, but rather as a standard requiring that what is presented as truth be checkable. It is not clear whether BB has a peer- or editorial- review in place, the individual identities of its authors, whether it is self-published or itself constitutes a small publisher. However it seems to be factual on the few points I have checked against reliable sources, is an encyclopedic reference to British battles, and cites two sources for the Rorke's Drift article.

The reliability of a source is not a matter only of form of publication and review, but primarily of consistent verifiable factual accuracy. A source does not have to be formally peer-reviewed to be reliable: WP:verifiability says: "Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances." A source that has no editorial review but is unbiased and accurate over several dozen articles on related topics is more than reliable enough to use as a source of convenience and a supplementary source. Additional and more reliable sources should always be added when they exist, but if they are print sources they are of less practical utility and are less likely too actually be consulted by Wikipedia readers than less procedurally verifiable but still factually accurate online sources such as British Battles.

Back to the topic at hand: is there a reliable source that says that any of the British casualties were not from gunshot wounds? Clearly most of them were, which along with their desirability and availability from looting at the previous battle tends to support a substantial presence of guns on the Zulu side. But if any of the casualties were not from gunshot wounds that would directly refute the British Battles site and by itself prove it to not be a reliable source. That is the sort of refuting information that is unambiguous and should be easy to source. Enon (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:SELF PUBLISH: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This clearly describes why British Battles is not a reliable source while Ian Knight's web site might be a reliable source. You removed the tags for these as a whole in the first place without disciussion and declined to replace with reliable sources in the second. What other articles have or don't have is not relevant to improving the refs in this article. The other tags on the article were not put there by me and most of the reliable refs were put there by me. A link to BB for its images could be put into 'External Link' section as it is in many other articles for BB - that I believe is the limit to its appropriate use. In addition: Horace Smith-Dorrien (1925) Memories of Forty-eight Years Service. E.P. Dutton, Chapter 1B "It was a marvellous sight, line upon line of men in slightly extended order, one behind the other, firing as they came along, for a few of them had firearms, bearing all before them." eyewitness account, emphasis added. Smith -Dorrien was at Isandlwana and survived it. furthermore the detachment attacking Rorke's Drift was not engaged or on the field at Isandlwana after the battle so didn't get any guns there. No one disputes the Zulus had some guns, but you can source 'a few'.Tttom1 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Defense of Rorke's Drift painting

Is this painting by Alphonse-Marie-Adolphe de Neuville as written there (and elsewhere) or by Elizabeth Butler as claimed on Elizabeth Butler and elsewhere on the 'net ? I tried to check JSTOR and found an article talking about "The Defense of Rorke's Drift, January 22nd, 1889" by Lady Butler. I'm assuming it's this one but could someone please confirm ? If there is a mistake many pages that use this pic will have to be corrected. --Alþykkr (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, found my own answer (apparently). There are two "The Defense of Rorke's Drift" paintings, one by Butler and one by Neuville, and the one used here is by Neuville. The Elizabeth Butler article shows the wrong one (by Neuville), correcting now. --Alþykkr (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Web sites like British Battles are not reliable published sources, they just represent the website owner's personal opinion and are not subject to peer or editorial review, nor do they attribute their claims. Colenso is one of the basic sources used by all legitimate historians on the subject.Tttom1 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

British Battles citations are WP:SELFPUBLISH and will be removed. They need to be replaced by legitimate published sources.Tttom1 (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The WP:SELFPUBLISH tag does not seem to apply here. I checked the account in British Battles on most of the cited points and several other points against "Rorke's Drift, 1879: 'pinned like rats in a hole'" by Ian Knight and did not find any discrepancies. I looked at other sources on google books as well that dealt with the topic more briefly, and they seem to line up. The style of the British Battles entry for Rourke's drift is a little uneven, but it does cite two sources and it seems valuable for the many pictures it provides as well. Do you have any specific, verifiable, (not-already-refuted) inaccuracies to point out in this source? (You have objected to the citation of that source and other sources for the observation that the Zulus had firearms, although clearly the Zulus did have firearms, given the British losses from gunfire noted in the article and every in-depth account of the battle. It seems that your opinions on the topic are likely less reliable than the cited material.Enon (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

BB is self published and not a reliable source. Doesn't actually attribute his statements. Since you have found reliable sources to support some statement you should add those.Tttom1 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I added new references (at the cost of some hours work) which you inappropriately deleted in your revert - please edit selectively. You have not made any substantive response to my post, simply repeating your unsourced assertions. You have also deleted the British Battles reference despite its value for its images. I ask again: Do you have any specific, verifiable, (not-already-refuted) inaccuracies to point out in this source? Also, why do you think each of these initial tags are needed? This article seems better referenced than most untagged articles.Enon (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:SELF PUBLISH: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This clearly describes why British Battles is not a reliable source while Ian Knight's web site might be a reliable source. You removed the tags for these as a whole in the first place without disciussion and declined to replace with reliable sources in the second. What other articles have or don't have is not relevant to improving the refs in this article. The other tags on the article were not put there by me and most of the reliable refs were put there by me. A link to BB for its images could be put into 'External Link' section as it is in many other articles for BB - that I believe is the limit to its appropriate use.Tttom1 (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Enon, try looking at User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#Websites in general and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You for the sorts of questions that need to be answered to show a source is reliable. David Underdown (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tags - request opinions

This article currently has tags for more references needed, copyediting needed, and original research.

• Given the British Battles source has been deleted, more references are again needed. Sections above address this.
• The article has had over 70 edits since the copyedit tag was added and it looks to me as if this tag is no longer needed.
• The "original research" tag seems questionable. What bits appear to be OR ?

Enon (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep tags. Needs more legit refs, OR still being attempted. Still reads as if it was lifted nearly whole from another source.Tttom1 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Still reads as if it was lifted nearly whole from another source." But the grammar, spelling and usage are all OK, right - so maybe copyedit isn't the right tag. Perhaps a tone tag would be better - how do you think should the tone be different? Could you be more specific about which bits are OR?Enon (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked for opinions, you got my opinion. Since there is no consensus as yet to remove tags - tags stay. Hopefully more editors will add their opinions in the next few weeks.Tttom1 (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, my name is Ronk01, and I am the MEDCAB mediator for this case. I would appreciate it if interested parties would make a statement regarding their position on the casefile page under "Opening Statements" Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronk01, I have already done so.Tttom1 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to the mediation page, interested parties comments welcomed on that page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-23/Battle of Rorke's Drift.Tttom1 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be closing the casefile for this page tommorow unless there are any objections, as it appears that the conflict has been resolved. Ronk01 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections here, thanks for your efforts.Tttom1 (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I just need to wait for Enon's consent. Ronk01 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)