Talk:Voortrekker Monument

[Untitled]

I have deleted the following:

some believe that the architect was influenced to an extent by the ruins of Great Zimbabwe when designing it.

Reason: Not relevant; If any evidence, please provide citation.

Luidier 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I have deleted the following from the article:

Whereas in Central and Eastern Europe, the new democratic governments have systematically wiped out all the symbols of the Communist era, the multiracial government of South Africa has accepted that apartheid creations like the Voortrekker Monument should continue as a part of the country's history.

For the following reasons:

• This is either editorialising or borders on editorialising, in any case, it is not a verifiable fact (if it is, please provide a citation.
• This is demonstrably not true, as the government has wiped out some symbols of apartheid, particularly statues of NP prime ministers.
• Calling the Monument a symbol of apartheid is a bit misleading (particularly for the non-SA reader) ... building of it began in 1938, before the NP came into power, and it was completed only a year after they came to power.

Regards, Elf-friend 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Should we really say 'commemorated in Apartheid-era South Africa as the Day of the Vow'? This day was celebrated eversince the Battle of Blood River in 1838. Long before Apartheid.

Maggiedj (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun ray and Longitude

I have heard a story that the hole in the dome had to be moved when it was discovered that the ray would miss the cenotaph at noon on 16 December; original calulations had forgotten either that the longitude of the monument was not exactly 30°E or the equation of time, and so the sun would not be due south at 12:00 (GMT+2). Incidentally, I suspect that the Sun is usually in the same place in the sky twice not once a year. --Rumping (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"African-Egyptian"

There is nothing in the article to endorse or substantiate the use of this odd coining.
Where is a single quotation?
It looks like someone came along and glued "African" onto Egyptian.
The article in Afrikaans makes no use of this term.
Varlaam (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the article uses Commonwealth spelling except for the "African-Egyptian" section which suddenly switches to Yankee spelling.

Please eliminate the US-centric agitprop from the article.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's all rather mad. There's more of it in a separate article called Symbolism of the Voortrekker Monument. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, voortrekkers clenching their assegais as they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their black co-Africans. That's the image the monument endeavours to summon up.

I am assuming that this is not utter rubbish; that references to Egyptian architecture at least are appropriate?

Varlaam (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that a string search through the log would elicit a culprit as well as what the text is supposed to say?

Varlaam (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Egyptomania had been in full swing for quite a while, so it's not unreasonable to suggest an influence from that, but it looks more like late Arts and Crafts style to me. The problem is access to sources on the design. Paul B (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Egyptian influences are probably very overdone in this article, and yes, it lacks references and needs to be addressed or rewritten. You will however find some published opinions asserting such symbolism. Moerdijk probably did not incorporate any such elements of Egyptian religion on purpose, at least to my knowledge. Rather it may be seen as a subsequent culture or movement which demands a strict Trinitarian relationship in cultural matters, in accordance with the spirit of the vow, by voicing its objection to any alternative focus. Cultural monuments resembling obelisks, for instance, or having the sun as object, would then be discouraged and brought into disfavour. The trend is not limited to this monument. JMK (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

B-Class

I don't believe this article is well enough referenced to be B quality. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinions, or controversy section

A few days ago, an IP added the following opinion to the History section of the article:

"It was described, by the English playwright, novelist and screen-writer Keith Waterhouse, as “surely the most vulgar memorial ever constructed by man”, in his memoir Streets Ahead (Hodder and Stoughton, 1995)."

I've removed it and placed it here because it doesn't fit in anywhere in the article right now (least of all the History section). I was hoping there could be a section created for such opinions (positive or negative). Also, it appears on many websites already verbatim, and I think it's a copyright violation in how it is now. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 13:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The best translation of ONS VIR JOU

In this article, ONS VIR JOU is translated in three ways: (1) We're for you, South Africa (2) US FOR YOU SOUTH AFRICA (3) We for thee South Africa

(1) is too colloquial for an inscription on a solemn monument (“We’re” instead of “We are”).

(2) Afrikaans ons means both ‘we’ (subject case’ and ‘us’ (object case). In this inscription, it is in subject case and therefore ‘we’ is needed.

(3) is best. Since this is a solemn monument, “thee” is best.

All things told, (3) is the only proper translation.S. Valkemirer (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In theory, I agree completely. Before you make the change, however, I suggest you source a citation or two showing somewhere else this translation has been used. BoonDock (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)