![]() | Queen of Rhodesia was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 1, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite being proclaimed the
queen of Rhodesia,
Elizabeth II refused to recognise the title? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Monarchy of Rhodesia. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Goldsztajn ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll take this, I might be up to a week before commenting. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi The C of E, apologies for the delay, the non-virtual world has not allowed the time I had earlier hoped to go over this. Nevertheless, I thought I would leave some initial comments to see if you would like to work further on this. First, the lead is incomplete; it is too short and contains information that is incorrect. Second, the article is heavily dependent on contemporaneous newspaper reportage; which tends to give the article a news event feel, with a subsequent lack of historical analysis. Further, by relying on newspapers so much, the article focusses on the "Queen" as person, leaving aside issues related to the Queen (ie the Crown) as a political institution (although to be fair, this problem was compounded by the name change in the article).
I think with further revision in the article related to the comments below, the lead could contain more detail.
As mentioned above, the dependence on newspaper reports means there's a shortage of academic work to provide deeper historical analysis. Some examples:
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
The article covers the basic events relatively well, but does not really provide depth. At this point I would not pass as GA, but let me know if you wish to work on it. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The C of E In carrying out the GAN review, I've found the stamp that you just reverted for use in the article is not correctly licenced. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Monarchy of Rhodesia → Queen of Rhodesia – "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. The actual term used by the sources is "Queen of Rhodesia". DrKay ( talk) 09:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy
The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy, linked to Britain and the Queen, or should it become a republic?The abstract of Kenrick (2018) reads as:
In the aftermath of Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, Queen Elizabeth II became a contested icon in a struggle to define Rhodesian nationhood and identity. After UDI, rebel Rhodesians were forced to reconcile an act of treason against the Crown with a monarchism that permeated white settler society. This article moves beyond existing studies that focus upon the Queen as a diplomatic bargaining chip in the negotiations between the British and Rhodesian governments to consider her symbolic position within white settler society in the years after UDI. It argues that debates about the Monarchy were an important aspect of white Rhodesian attempts to define themselves and their nation in a decolonising world. The article also shows how the Rhodesian Front’s changing position on the Monarchy reveals its nationalist project to be essentially reactionary in character, and how the shift over time from settler colonial discourses of ‘loyal rebellion’ to discourses of independent nationhood demonstrates the wider comparative potential of the Rhodesian case study resulting from its peculiar post-UDI position between settler and non-settler colonies.No use of scare quotes anywhere. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
David Cannadine’s work in particular is salient to the story of Rhodesia’s monarchyp1080:
In order to understand the contradictions inherent in Rhodesia’s retention of the monarchy between 1965 and 1970, it is necessary to contextualise the subject both in the domestic context of early UDI-era Rhodesia and a much older international tradition of settler struggles for autonomy in the British Empire.Let's all assume good faith; my interest is in completing the review of this GAN, constructive contributions are more than welcome. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
"Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term". Given that the term remains in use in multiple sources, your claim is objectively untrue. If you are asserting its lack of existence constitutionally, well, that's a moot point, but then you are not talking about a *term*. Moreover, if you are taking the position that the Monarchy of Rhodesia lacks constitutional existence, then its axiomatic that the Queen of Rhodesia does as well. Perhaps best we agree to disagree and move on. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I may be late to the party here. It appears that there are indeed no references to a "monarchy of Rhodesia" in published sources, but when I reviewed the article for DYK I found that the term " monarchy in Rhodesia" is used in, among other instances, the titles of two papers. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You're requesting the article title be changed to Queen of Rhodesia, when it's already at that title? GoodDay ( talk) 04:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Twice I've removed assertions inserted into the text that ER2 refused the title. The first time it was in the article it was cited to pp79-80 of Anne Twomey's The Veiled Sceptre (cough, not Spectre...!). The second time it was added to the lede without reference to sourcing. The closest Twomey's text comes to mentioning a refusal is around the attempt to appoint Clifford Dupont as GG in 1965. Even here there is no explicit refusal, ER2 was simply advised not to even consider the request. The text goes on to state that in October 1964, before UDI, the British government made clear it would advise the Crown not to accept any request to become a separate sovereign, but mentions nothing to do with an action by ER2. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Queen of Rhodesia was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 1, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite being proclaimed the
queen of Rhodesia,
Elizabeth II refused to recognise the title? |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Monarchy of Rhodesia. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by The C of E ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Goldsztajn ( talk · contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll take this, I might be up to a week before commenting. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 22:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi The C of E, apologies for the delay, the non-virtual world has not allowed the time I had earlier hoped to go over this. Nevertheless, I thought I would leave some initial comments to see if you would like to work further on this. First, the lead is incomplete; it is too short and contains information that is incorrect. Second, the article is heavily dependent on contemporaneous newspaper reportage; which tends to give the article a news event feel, with a subsequent lack of historical analysis. Further, by relying on newspapers so much, the article focusses on the "Queen" as person, leaving aside issues related to the Queen (ie the Crown) as a political institution (although to be fair, this problem was compounded by the name change in the article).
I think with further revision in the article related to the comments below, the lead could contain more detail.
As mentioned above, the dependence on newspaper reports means there's a shortage of academic work to provide deeper historical analysis. Some examples:
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
The article covers the basic events relatively well, but does not really provide depth. At this point I would not pass as GA, but let me know if you wish to work on it. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The C of E In carrying out the GAN review, I've found the stamp that you just reverted for use in the article is not correctly licenced. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Monarchy of Rhodesia → Queen of Rhodesia – "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. The actual term used by the sources is "Queen of Rhodesia". DrKay ( talk) 09:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy
The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy, linked to Britain and the Queen, or should it become a republic?The abstract of Kenrick (2018) reads as:
In the aftermath of Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, Queen Elizabeth II became a contested icon in a struggle to define Rhodesian nationhood and identity. After UDI, rebel Rhodesians were forced to reconcile an act of treason against the Crown with a monarchism that permeated white settler society. This article moves beyond existing studies that focus upon the Queen as a diplomatic bargaining chip in the negotiations between the British and Rhodesian governments to consider her symbolic position within white settler society in the years after UDI. It argues that debates about the Monarchy were an important aspect of white Rhodesian attempts to define themselves and their nation in a decolonising world. The article also shows how the Rhodesian Front’s changing position on the Monarchy reveals its nationalist project to be essentially reactionary in character, and how the shift over time from settler colonial discourses of ‘loyal rebellion’ to discourses of independent nationhood demonstrates the wider comparative potential of the Rhodesian case study resulting from its peculiar post-UDI position between settler and non-settler colonies.No use of scare quotes anywhere. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
David Cannadine’s work in particular is salient to the story of Rhodesia’s monarchyp1080:
In order to understand the contradictions inherent in Rhodesia’s retention of the monarchy between 1965 and 1970, it is necessary to contextualise the subject both in the domestic context of early UDI-era Rhodesia and a much older international tradition of settler struggles for autonomy in the British Empire.Let's all assume good faith; my interest is in completing the review of this GAN, constructive contributions are more than welcome. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
"Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term". Given that the term remains in use in multiple sources, your claim is objectively untrue. If you are asserting its lack of existence constitutionally, well, that's a moot point, but then you are not talking about a *term*. Moreover, if you are taking the position that the Monarchy of Rhodesia lacks constitutional existence, then its axiomatic that the Queen of Rhodesia does as well. Perhaps best we agree to disagree and move on. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I may be late to the party here. It appears that there are indeed no references to a "monarchy of Rhodesia" in published sources, but when I reviewed the article for DYK I found that the term " monarchy in Rhodesia" is used in, among other instances, the titles of two papers. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
You're requesting the article title be changed to Queen of Rhodesia, when it's already at that title? GoodDay ( talk) 04:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Twice I've removed assertions inserted into the text that ER2 refused the title. The first time it was in the article it was cited to pp79-80 of Anne Twomey's The Veiled Sceptre (cough, not Spectre...!). The second time it was added to the lede without reference to sourcing. The closest Twomey's text comes to mentioning a refusal is around the attempt to appoint Clifford Dupont as GG in 1965. Even here there is no explicit refusal, ER2 was simply advised not to even consider the request. The text goes on to state that in October 1964, before UDI, the British government made clear it would advise the Crown not to accept any request to become a separate sovereign, but mentions nothing to do with an action by ER2. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)