Talk:Lizzie van Zyl

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lizzie van Zyl article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Military history: Biography / African / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	African military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Empire

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2018)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Notability

Can someone verify if this person is notable? A single person who died in a war (who hasn't been of much historic or media-related significance) to me doesn't deserve an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.213.10 (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really speaks the the values and ideas you have; I wonder what you'd say about the Syrian Child that died, Death of Alan Kurdi would be notable either? The point is to observe they are similar, and the media responses between the two were equal; though similar processes of distortion or exploitation of the images also occurred. PSYCHREL (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Emily Hobhouse, Lizzie was notable and written up substantially in the British press. She was also used in later years to talk about the evils of the concentration camps.

So yes notable, because of the manner or her death and the fact there were records (photographic and others) depicting her.

Biscuit1018 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is..It was then, and is now. Just because you do not care about the issue, or cannot identify with the position does not make it not relevant; it is in fact an important part of the historical record. PSYCHREL (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's the press coverage of Lizzie van Zyl and her place in the written discourse of the time that makes her notable today.--Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 09:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Medical Terms

Are we speaking about Typhus or Typhoid Fever? They are different diseases. Typhus is known as the "prison fever" and was responsible for many, if not most, of the deaths in the German camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.227.170 (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious references

I have some serious concerns about the references used in this article. Over 85% of it seems to be referenced only to one web-link, http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm

I can't check what that link actually says because it just gives me repeated 500 errors (internal server errors.) However, the rest of that website seems to be a political site for Boer activists. This may not be considered reliable as a primary reference.

The other two references cited ( http://www.lib.uct.ac.za/mss/bccd/Histories/Bloemfontein/ and http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0038-23532010000300014&script=sci_arttext ) seem much more reliable HOWEVER the tone of what they have to say is very different to the WP article they are supposedly supporting. Both of them in fact caution that the case has been surrounded by mythology, is more complex than is often presented, and many facts are in doubt. For example, it is perhaps worthy of note that the typhoid epidemic that probably killed Lizzie, also killed many British adults including over 8,000 British soldiers. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored redirect as the article is notable by itself

This article was redirected without good cause Some may not be comfortable with the fact the British ran genuine 100% real concentration camps and have sought to hide the evidence. They know they cannot get it deleted so they did what they could and hide it as a redirect. That is a backdoor deletion.208.54.40.200 (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting this; per earlier conversations here. "Can someone verify if this person is notable? A single person who died in a war (who hasn't been of much historic or media-related significance) to me doesn't deserve an article." PSYCHREL (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues that need correcting.

There is no evidence that Lizzie was “starved”. The evidence is that she died from typhoid. It is known that typhoid can damage the bowel and prevent food absorption.

The entry claims that Lizzie and here mother were incarcerated following the refusal of their father to surrender : This strongly implies that they were in the camp because of the father’s refusal to surrender. The reason why they were in the camp is not known. It is probable that they were placed there because of the scorched earth policy which resulted in all the people in a district being sent to the camps - it did not matter whether or not the menfolk were still on commando.

Bloemfontein was part of the Orange Free State camps. The differences in the rations were small ( 2 ounces less of sugar and potatoes substituted for mealie) and may have been equalised before she arrived in the camp. We know that Lizzie’s mother earned money in the camp and was able to purchase extra food from shops in the camp. The entry pushes the “starvation” claim contrary to the known history.

see https://archive.org/details/bruntwarandwher01hobhgoog/page/n354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“was moved to the new hospital about 50 kilometres away”. Absolute rubbish. The evidence is she was in the camp hospital until her mother removed her to the family tent.

Hélène Opperman Lewis is not a historian and is not an a neutral commentator. The reference to her is a dead link.

The Photo section fails to mention the use of the image by the anti-war side as propaganda.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hobhouse

Currently we have this text...

According to Hobhouse, she was treated harshly in the hospital. Unable to speak English, she was labelled an "idiot" by an English-speaking doctor and her nurses, who were unable to understand her. One day she started calling for her mother; a lady went over to comfort her, but "was brusquely interrupted by one of the nurses who told her not to interfere with the child as she was a nuisance."

I have found the reference in "The Brunt of the War, and where it Fell" on page 214 which can be seen here

https://archive.org/details/bruntwarandwher01hobhgoog/page/n244

There is no reference to "idiot" and it isn't Hobhouse that saw the event. The reference for this is to a dead domain name and is described above in the dubious references talk section.

I'm going to delete it.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who took the photo? Hobhouse or de Klerk?

The caption reads "Lizzie van Zyl, photographed in January or February 1901 by anti-war activist Emily Hobhouse," but the article says that the photographer was "a man named de Klerk". This is a contradiction. 173.47.247.165 (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. I removed the mention of Emily Hobhouse as there is no indication from the sources listed on the image page that she was the photographer. The source that mentioned de Klerk is a dead URL with no archive, which I have noted accordingly. Peaceray (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]