Talk:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/Archive 1

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


Template[edit]

{{User memorial Rhodesia}} For those who wish to memorialize Rhodesia—Preceding unsigned comment added by Expatkiwi (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British High Commissioner in Salisbury?[edit]

I removed the reference to the UK's High Commissioner in London, as it is unlikely that any such post would have existed, even though Southern Rhodesia was unique in having a High Commissioner in London. (Perhaps that's why the misconception arose.) In line with constitutional practice, the Governor would have represented the British monarch and the British government, as Governors-General did in dominions until the 1930s. There was a British High Commissioner in Salisbury, Zimbabwe (until it was renamed Harare in 1982) but not in Salisbury, Rhodesia. Quiensabe 23:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesia1.jpg[edit]

Image:Rhodesia1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More explanation required[edit]

This article should explain what Smith's government's main grievances against British rule were, and why Britain was so strongly opposed to UDI as to institute sanctions (apart from the fact that they were declaring independance). --Slashme (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved to Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Note: that current page had quite some history so I moved it to Unilateral Declaration of Independence (disambiguation)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia) → Unilateral Declaration of Independence — The capitalization makes the title unique and avoids having to use the parenthesized disambiguator suffix. —Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia) → Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence — I find the argument that "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" would be ambiguous patently ridiculous, but this is at least marginally better than the status quo. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could this not cause confusion with, for example, Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence? Search engines don't usually differentiate between capitals. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, the Kosovoan document does not have "unilateral" in its official title, and its WP article likewise lacks "unilateral" from its title. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my point. Although the proposed title is capitalised, there have been several unilateral declarations of independence in history. For that reason, I think Rhodesia's needs qualifying, and I really don't think use of capitalisation is sufficient. At the simple title, whether capitalised or not, the average reader would expect to find an article about such unilateral declarations in general, rather than one specifically about Rhodesia. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of independence is an assertion of the independence of an aspiring state or states. Such places are usually declared from part or all of the territory of another nation or failed nation, or are breakaway territories from within the larger state. Not all declarations of independence were successful and resulted in independence for these regions. Such declarations are typically made without the consent of the parent state, and hence are sometimes called unilateral declarations of independence (UDI), particularly by those who question the declarations' validity.

That would suggest that most such declarations can be considered unilateral. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The capitalization in the proposed title implies a proper noun; if someone were looking for unilateral declarations generally, I'd think it odd for them to capitalize their query; and certainly there'd be a hatnote to the Declaration of Independence article. My point is, if one is searching for the exact string "Unilateral Declaration of Independence", this is the most sensible destination, with Declaration of Independence being the obvious runner-up. "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" is the document's exact title, and it is a unique one. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I really think this needs thinking out. I'm not at all happy that this is the best solution so, reluctantly, I have to say Oppose. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I take it you would prefer "Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence"? --Cybercobra (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose. It should have Rhodesia somewhere in the title. Wizzy…☎ 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your note Cybercobra. Yes, I'd have no problem at all with Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence, and it would be a damned sight better than what we have at the moment. It's only really personal aesthetics, but I don't like what you call the parenthesized disambiguator suffix (what a fantastically Wikipedian phrase that is! LOL). Skinsmoke (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Unilateral Declaration of Independence. I believe, and Google Scholar and Google Books generally confirm, that this term without a qualifier usually refers to the Rhodesian UDI. A hatnote will suffice to lead everyone to the correct article. Ucucha 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support per my original proposal and arguments. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move per Ucucha. Propaniac (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Unilateralism[edit]

You called it "unilateral declaration of independence". But do you know any bi/multilateral one? Declaration of independence is unilateral by definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.91.193 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost always referred to as the "Unilateral Declaration of Independence"; this name, along with its acronym "UDI", are understood widely to refer to the Rhodesian declaration rather than any other. It's not a matter of "us" giving it a name. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article because its title does not represent a global perspective on UDI[edit]

The topic of unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is discussed beyond the topic of the Rhodesian example. The article did not present a global perspective and thus I moved it. If people disagree with my WP:BOLD move, I am welcome to discuss it here.--R-41 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unilateral Declaration of Independence"—note the capital letters on each word—refers to Rhodesia's UDI. "Unilateral declaration of independence"—without—refers to unilateral declarations in general, as you are describing. I have moved the other page appropriately. Unilateral Declaration of Independence", with the capital letters, should come here, to the Rhodesian page. Please see the discussion above. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That decision is fine with me.--R-41 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hutchinson's Encyclopedia supports Cliftonian - it says that the term "UDI" refers specifically to "Rhodesia, 1965". --DLMcN (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I can't make the move myself as I'm not an administrator, so I'll list this at requested moves. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2012[edit]

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 not moved. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence → Unilateral Declaration of Independence – See the discussion above. This article was at "Unilateral Declaration of Independence", but R-41 moved it here to make room for a new article about unilateral declarations of independence in general. That new article is now at unilateral declaration of independence—note the lack of capital letters—thereby freeing up Unilateral Declaration of Independence—with capital letters—again, which is established above to be the appropriate location for this article. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of World History published by Chambers Harrap in 2000 also regards "UDI" as denoting Ian Smith's declaration. --DLMcN (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it is generally frowned upon to distinguish article titles merely by case. The current title seems fine. What is the motivation to remove Rhodesia's from it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. The terms "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" and "UDI" primarily refer to the Rhodesian declaration anyway, so putting "Rhodesia's" is superfluous. The article was previously called "Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia)", but was moved along this reasoning two years ago (see above discussion). DLMcN provides two sources above (one in this section, one in the next) which define UDI as denoting the Rhodesian declaration of 1965, and a cursory Google Books search further reveals this to be the case. I'll point out one in particular; in The Declaration of Independence: A Global History by David Armitage, the contents page shows us the full names of many declarations—"The Venezuelan Declaration of Independence; Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand; ... Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel"—and the Rhodesian declaration is finally listed at the bottom, simply as "The Unilateral Declaration of Independence". "(Southern Rhodesia)" is given afterwards to disambiguate, yes, but clearly just for that and not as part of the actual name. We have hatnotes on the articles to differentiate between this article and the one on unilateral declarations in general, and I see no reason why moving this article back to "Unilateral Declaration of Independence", the proper name, would obstruct this. The only potential problem I can see is deploying Wikilinks while writing, but an informed contributor won't make this mistake, and even where it is made it is not difficult to remedy. A parallel that springs to mind is Malcolm Macdonald and Malcolm MacDonald. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move When I hear unilateral declaration of independence, I think of Kosovo or Azawad, not Rhodesia. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Declaration of Independence should redirect to Declaration of independence? Jafeluv (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

  • I believe the following images need a US copyright tag
File:Harold Macmillan number 10 official.jpg
File:Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home official.jpg
File:Harold Wilson Number 10 official.jpg
  • They are released by the UK government under an Open government licence, which releases the images worldwide. I think the present tags are sufficient. See here. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why/how is the image File:Muzorewa 1978 b.jpg in the public domain?
  • This picture, sourced here, is an image from the collection of the Dutch photographers Anefo that was released under a CC-BY-SA licence by the Dutch National Archives as part of Ga het na, a collaboration between the Archives and Spaarnestad Photo. It is tagged correctly as being under a Dutch CC-BY-SA licence. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two references with Harv format errors: refs 44 and 145
  • OK, fixed—one was a misspelling of "Schwarz" as "Schwartz" and the other was a missing reference in the bibliography —Cliftonian (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really well-researched, comprehensive coverage of an important event in the history of Africa. I have no critical comments on the prose - I found it easy to read and understandable even with limited prior knowledge of the topic. Thanks for your hard work on this. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! I hope my answers above are adequate. Thanks again —Cliftonian (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good - great work. I'll give this a GA pass. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a mess[edit]

The section "Notes and references" is empty. Is "Footnotes" supposed to be a sub-section? What about "Speeches" and "Newspaper and journal articles"?

The one article in "Historiography" is not referenced in any of the footnotes. Should it be moved into "Further reading"?

Speaking of which, "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend". It seems like some, but not all, of the works in the section were indeed used. Should the section be split?

@Cliftonian: It seems you are the main editor of the article. Mind taking a look? ~barakokula31 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has completely buggered up the formatting here (I suspect the same person who added this 'Historiography' bit, which I don't recognise). The 'Further reading' isn't that, that is the bibliography I compiled to go with the footnotes. Thanks for flagging, does it look OK to you now? Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks fine now, thank you. ~barakokula31 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a Republic[edit]

The main article says: "The Smith administration ....... abandoned [its loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II] in 1970 when it declared a republic in an unsuccessful attempt to win foreign recognition". The Rhodesian government actually held a referendum on the issue, asking voters whether they thought the country should become a republic: a substantial majority said "Yes". The main reason for that approval, was a speech made by the Queen in Jamaica, in which she referred to (and criticised) Rhodesia's "Illegal Regime". Up until then, she had never spoken publicly about the UDI. Rhodesian voters therefore felt that she had abandoned them. While voting, many people just shrugged their shoulders, remarking "Because of that speech, we are already a republic". There is a brief reference to the occasion on page 152 of Smith's book "The Great Betrayal" - but the '1975' date given, must be wrong. I will try and find a better reference. --DLMcN (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The referendum is mentioned in the article, no?—  Cliftonian (talk)  21:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot find that referendum mentioned in that book, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_constitutional_referendum,_1969 says that more than 80% voted in favour of becoming a republic.

According to my memory [not an acceptable ref. in Wikipedia, certainly!] that controversial speech by the Queen was in 1967 (or possibly 1966). --DLMcN (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - Yes, the main article here does indeed mention that referendum. --DLMcN (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria[edit]

This article fails FA criteria 1c due to not using up to date, high quality academic sources such as[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It also likely fails 1d, as it seems to be similar to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ian Smith/archive1‎. In light of that discussion this article should be reevaluated at Featured article review. buidhe 09:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: You might want to also check out Hugh Beadle, which was promoted by the same user at around the same time with the same historical event. I personally haven't looked at it that deeply, though, so it might be fine for all I know. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Coggins, Richard (18 August 2006). "Wilson and Rhodesia: UDI and British Policy Towards Africa". Contemporary British History. 20 (3): 363–381. doi:10.1080/13619460500407061.
  2. ^ Onslow, Sue (16 August 2006). "A Question of Timing: South Africa and Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, 1964–65". Cold War History. 5 (2): 129–159. doi:10.1080/14682740500062135.
  3. ^ Watts, Carl (March 2008). "Britain, the Old Commonwealth and the Problem of Rhodesian Independence, 1964–65". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 36 (1): 75–99. doi:10.1080/03086530801889392.
  4. ^ Carl P Watts (2006). The Rhodesian crisis in British and international politics (PhD thesis). University of Birmingham.
  5. ^ Facchini, Manuele (September 2007). "The 'Evil Genius': Sir Hugh Beadle and the Rhodesian Crisis, 1965–1972". Journal of Southern African Studies. 33 (3): 673–689. doi:10.1080/03057070701475799.
  6. ^ Brownell, Josiah (September 2010). "'A Sordid Tussle on the Strand': Rhodesia House during the UDI Rebellion (1965–80)". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 38 (3): 471–499. doi:10.1080/03086534.2010.503398.
  7. ^ Kenrick, David (2016). Pioneers and progress: white Rhodesian nation-building c.1964-1979 (Thesis). University of Oxford.
  8. ^ Law, Kate (26 September 2017). "Pattern, Puzzle, and Peculiarity: Rhodesia's UDI and Decolonisation in Southern Africa". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 45 (5): 721–728. doi:10.1080/03086534.2017.1370219.
  9. ^ Nyamunda, Tinashe (8 October 2016). "'More a Cause than a Country': Historiography, UDI and the Crisis of Decolonisation in Rhodesia". Journal of Southern African Studies. 42 (5): 1005–1019. doi:10.1080/03057070.2016.1222796.

"Less developed African colonies" ?[edit]

The lead refers to "less developed African colonies to the north without comparable experience of self-rule". What is meant by that? The concept of "less developed" colonies could be interpreted to carry a Rhodesian-white perspective. If the sentence is referring to Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland, wouldn't it be better to say so directly, rather than using ambiguous language that suggests the article adopts the position of the Rhodesian government? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source: Wood, J. R. T.[edit]

There are numerous statements generally explaining the reasonableness of the White Rhodesian position based on a self-published source: J. R. T. Wood.

If there is no objection, these should be removed. BCorr|Брайен 20:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources aren't automatically unacceptable. I think before a decision is made, it would be necessary to take a look at the book itself, and find out who the author is and what background the author has. See: WP: Self-published works Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia%27s_Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence/Archive_1&oldid=1157509102"