Talk:Natalia Republic

On the flag & the map

Just a couple of problems. First: I think that the proper flag might be the inverse of the one I posted. I have seen both versions & the flag site is now using an inverse version & am not sure which one is the right one. If anyone can help with this it would be appreciated.

Also: the map is slightly incorrect as the map is showing the province of Natal as it looked when it was part of the State of South Africa. When the Natialia Republic was around, it was only about half of the size of the modern Natal province. See the map at this link for further details.

Therefore: I think the flag might have to be inverted & I know that the map definitely must be reconfigured to show the true (smaller) borders of the Natalia Republic.

Ron7 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a flag I created myself from the description at Flags of the World. It is an SVG, so if it is in fact reversed, that is very easy to fix. --Himasaram 11:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The flag is the right way round, to my knowledge. It was also used by Die Voortrekkers (Afrikaans youth organisation) as their flag - though I doubt they still use it; there's been progressive steps to 'demilitarise' the organisation in the last decade. The way it was oriented was red at the top, with the "arrowpoint" of the white V-shape pointing to the mast. I'm fairly convinced that they would have gotten it right - they were quite focused on symbols, uniforms and regalia in the past.

Battle of Blood River

I changed "battle at Nacombe River" to "Battle of Blood River" because I believe this is by far the most common name for the battle in English. I also changed "retalliation against the Zulus" to "victory over the Zulus" as the former seemed to be biased and did not reflect the truth neutrally, which was that the Zulus sought out the Voortrekkers at Blood River before giving battle. "To retalliate" suggests it was the Voortrekkers who sought out the Zulus to inflict revenge on them for murder of their companions. Booshank 02:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Text from 1911 Britannica nad othe sources

I'm a little concerned at the lack of references in this article. It says it has text from the 1911 Britannica, but I've been struggling to find where that came from. The article needs quite a few references. -Kieran 12:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been copied verbatim from the 1911 Britannica, judging from the language, and shows the bias of its origin. Surely there has been more recent scholarship that could be applied to the article. I've been trying to remove obvious editorial comments and have made my way partway through.Parkwells (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah the source is also no longer possible to find and after nine years it's still bad Flalf (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that updates are needed, but the source is very easy to find. Under "Sources", there is a bullet point for the 1911 Britannica, with a link to the Wikisource transcription. Wikiacc (¶) 04:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that was a problem with my computer. Flalf (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

This is the funniest thing. The entire article only has five sources. This is not good. It's time for some source-ery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)