This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've seen the recent edits by 86.206.46.77, and their reversions. It is true that South Africa and Portugal did not formally endorse Ian Smith's UDI ... > i.e., had those two countries been closely questioned then [I am inclined to guess that] they would have agreed that UDI was an illegal act - or at the very least "unconstitutional": (the same could of course be said about the Declaration made by the United States in 1776). But it could be argued that Portugal and South Africa acknowledged that a country called Rhodesia continued to exist after 1965. Indeed, even Zambia had to do that, and (in a sense) Britain and other countries acknowledged that too. Furthermore, when the "Beira Patrol" was set up by the British Royal Navy, there was an angry exchange between Lisbon and London - with Lisbon claiming that Britain had been violating Portuguese sovereignty. I do not have access to all the documents, but some of them could well have implied a certain amount of sympathy by Portugal for Smith's government. So maybe it is a question of the wording to be used in the main Wiki article. Certainly, we cannot say that Rhodesia (as apart from Southern Rhodesia) was accorded "official recognition" by anybody. But in this context, we could perhaps draw a few interesting comparisons with other cases; e.g. did the USA actually give "official recognition" to Vichy France when they opened an embassy there?-- DLMcN ( talk) 02:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no citation for the statement: "The Rhodesians hoped that the declaration of a Republic would finally prompt sympathetic states to grant recognition". I am inclined to doubt whether that was ever true.
I do remember, though, that many Whites saw very little point in continuing to acknowledge the Queen as titular Head of Rhodesia - when she was obviously not willing to fulfil that role.-- DLMcN ( talk) 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ... so - pending possible comments - I will remove the above-mentioned statement. -- DLMcN ( talk) 10:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
-Just one point: Rhodesia was claiming to be a commonwealth realm; not a dominion. There is a difference. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What do folks think about merging History of Rhodesia into Rhodesia. Rhodesia is a historical topic, and it is natural that the full summary of its history would be discussed on the main page, with links out to important subtopics. At Talk:History of Rhodesia, there was a proposal to delete that article in 2008, and there were no objections although no one went forward with the deletion. The two articles have considerable overlapping content and Rhodesia is not too large to absorb the additional content. As others actively maintain this page, I'm not going to formally propose - but from my perspective this would make sense. LaTeeDa ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
My personal view is that the recently added piece from Evelyn Waugh is misleading and unnecessary. However, rather than reverting it, I am content to wait and see what other editors say about it? -- DLMcN ( talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I tagged this sentence for WP:NPOV. It's been in the article since 2007. OK if we remove it?
"After independence in April 1980, the history of Rhodesians became that of the whites in Zimbabwe." - LaTeeDa ( talk) 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead to make the most important points obvious in the first few sentences (its relation to Zimbabwe, and its relationship to white rule, especially), and to try to clarify the different political eras. I don't have a great depth of understanding, and it is possible that I stepped on toes regarding this sensitive topic, or otherwise missed the mark. LaTeeDa ( talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been an extensive three-way discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cliftonian#Rhodesia_Lead [plus another section which followed that] ... if necessary, we could move it all here. I argued in favour of the small change I made today in the main article. -- DLMcN ( talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody is obviously misinterpreting my use of the category " oligarchy" here. Yes, Rhodesia was a republic but so was South Africa under apartheid - a state which is presently classified on this site as an oligarchy. Rhodesia's system concentrated de facto political power in the hands of a small minority (though unlike apartheid, it was nonracial) and so it falls under the definition of "oligarchy". -- Katangais ( talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why the title of the country in Afrikaans was included - Afrikaans was never an official language in Rhodesia. It was taught in white schools, and there were many Afrikaners in the country, particularly Enkeldoorn, now Chivhu, and in Ian Smith's government, but it had no official status before or after UDI. Quiensabe ( talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Gukurahundi seems carefully pitched to pin all the blame on South Africa and make the Fifth Brigade sound like liberators. Also the casualty estimates differ dramatically from those in the main Gukurahundi article. Furthermore the quotation from Ed Cumming has been cut down from the version of the quote in the source document to make it far more supportive of the POV than it really is. I am not an expert on the subject but some correction seems called for. - Metalello talk 05:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Katangais - Your sentence: "The years immediately following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country which eventually brought about majority rule" is misleading. The "years immediately following" were in fact reasonably prosperous and settled - (I was there at the time!) - Sanctions were admittedly an irritant, but little more. The first serious threat from guerillas was not until 1972 (in the northeast of the country ... when they managed to infiltrate unexpectedly from Mozambique). However, even that was eventually contained effectively, with the help of the construction of Protected Villages. Matters only started to deteriorate (and even then, not straightaway) when Mozambique became independent in 1974-75.
However, at this stage, I am not going to alter the main article. I do not have access to many references and sources, but what I say above is certainly confirmed in Ian Smith's "The Great Betrayal". -- DLMcN ( talk) 16:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help), for example: pages 119 through 126 are particularly interesting and pertinent. They confirm what you say. The Rhodesian economy boomed significantly between 1969 and 1974 (when Portugal had its revolution), with economic growth far outstripping Britain's. Much of this followed the declaration of a republic in 1970. See
this graph showing Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's GDP growth per year since 1960: information from the World Bank shows an enormous boom during the early 1970s, followed by a contraction later that decade. Hope all this helps, guys. —
Cliftonian
(talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Just wondering what Rhodesia's economy was like. A dedicated section would be nice. 76.120.229.176 ( talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a coin from Rhodesia dating from the 1970's!
This article is quite biased from the very beginning and seems to purposely play down the role Cecil Rhodes had in creating and administrating this "unrecognised state". It was actually a very important part of the British Empire which the British government wanted to exercise direct imperial rule over from London. Rhodes was instrumental in preventing that and fought for independent rule and a domestic parliament.
Hendrik Biebouw claims that all references to "indigenous African" or "indigenous black" with reference to the nonwhite majority populations of Rhodesia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland are POV. His ostensible claims include suggesting that neither Shona or Matabele are indigenous to Central Africa because they are of "East African" descent. Hendrik has also gone so far as to claim that Afrikaners are indigenous Southern Africans instead, making some whites more 'native' to Zim than the blacks. We've already discussed the same issue on the White Africans of European ancestry and Afrikaner articles before - in both cases, editors have overruled these reckless changes. First off, if we really wish to open this can of worms, nobody is truly indigenous to the Rhodesias. A number of the black tribes - certainly, the Matabele - emigrated during the medieval Bantu movements. The civilisation that built Great Zimbabwe (in some circles still a matter of debate) was obviously there first, and whether it was Shona or not most historians can agree that they were negroid. Bushmen were around far before then, but their population in Central Africa was negligible. By this logic Afrikaners are not indigenous to Southern Africa either, because most of the Afrikaans parent stock landed at the Cape between 1688-onwards...long after the Bantu migrations began. So it's very likely that the Rhodesias were populated by black tribes prior to van Riebeeck's landing.
Afrikaners have lived in RSA for going on four hundred years now. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Africa, they're welcome to it in my book. But we must recognise that there are black Zimbabwean peoples who have lived in their country for over four hundred years and predate Afrikaners. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Zimbabwe, they have every right to. -- Katangais ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the historical confusion about this name has spread to Wikipedia. :-)
Currently, this page only concerns itself with a small slice out of the history of Rhodesia. However, there are several historical articles talking about pre-1965 Rhodesia linking to simply Rhodesia, that is to here.
If there is consensus that it is appropriate for " Rhodesia" to link to this specialist page and not for the general article on Rhodesia currently Rhodesia (name), fine.
But then I suggest you use "what links here" to tidy up all the existing links created when Rhodesia was an appropriate link to the pre-1965 usage of the term, such as for WWII articles.
As an example, East African Campaign (World War II) says, under "Opening moves":
Just a friendly heads up CapnZapp ( talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sentences like "Rhodesian society carried rich cultural varieties that went hand in hand with Rhodesia's prosperity", "They also established a relatively balanced economy, transforming what was once a primary producer dependent on backwoods farming into an industrial giant which spawned a strong manufacturing sector, iron and steel industries, and modern mining ventures. These economic successes owed little to foreign aid" among others, really make me concerned about whether or not this article is written in promotion of its style of society instead of merely reporting upon it. Sabot Cat ( talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that on 2 March 1970, the Government in Salisbury declared that the country was a republic. However, I very strongly suspect that the "Republic of" prefix was not added to the country's official name. Unfortunately, I haven't found a copy of the (republican) Constitution of Rhodesia, 1969. That would probaby put the question to bed. However, I note that (i) the 1979 constitution (See scan here) refers at the top of the Statute to "Rhodesia", not "Republic of Rhodesia" and (b) the new state, which was a republic, didn't have a "Republic of" prefix nor is there any reference anywhere to "Republic of". I put this out there for consideration. Anegada ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. Anegada ( talk) 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for a list of casualties, at least for the Bush War section, including how many total White civilians, White women, and White children were maimed and killed. Casualties are important to the discussion of any war. Starhistory22 ( talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the parts that I removed were removed because the only mentions of economy or standards of living in the article are literaly citations of Smith's own thoughts from his memoirs. They're absolutely not something that's useful in an encyclopedia. Maybe in an article about his memoirs, but not on an article about Rhodesia or about its economy. We have actual economic data and conclusions made by economists that we can use to base the article on. Not some former prime minister's vague statements that conflict with data. 78.0.236.124 ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if this page needs a pop culture section -- for better or worse, Dylann Roof's Charleston church massacre propelled Rhodesia and its history into the mainstream, at least in America. He was known to wear a patch of Rhodesia on his jacket, a fact given much attention in the media. Roof's association with Rhodesia is part of the country's legacy -- many, including myself, where unaware of Rhodesia prior to the Roof revelations. Beyond his actions, I'm sure there are films, etc. that are set in or have to do with Rhodesia. Joeletaylor ( talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has generally dictated that the flag in the infobox should be the most contemporary flag of the state, whether in its present form (for a country that still exists) or the one that was present when it was disestablished (for a former country). Basic examples include South Africa, the Confederate States of America, Burma, etc.
We don't need the two separate flags in Rhodesia's infobox, either. Since Zimbabwe Rhodesia is covered in a separate article, this one should display the last flag to be flown in pre-1978 Rhodesia - the green tricolour. -- Katangais (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
ive removed it pending any real reason to keep it, seems to void npov and is pretty useless, its a journal entry with little other sources or verification and a statement that things were better for blacks with a rhodesian state tv program as a source.
65.126.111.194 ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure where the idea comes from that South African English uses -ise spellings. What is the source, please? During my 30 years as a writer in South Africa, -z endings were the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollystolly ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The Background section is not neutral point of view. Rather than an NPOV and accurate description of the pre-UDI Rhodesia, it is an attempt to glorify the administration at this time. For example, it describes it as a "unique state which reflected its multiracial character". It was "multiracial" only in the obvious sense that it literally had people of multiple races, but the state did not respect people of non-white races in any meaningful sense. Similarly, it says "White residents, meanwhile, provided most of the colony's administrative [...] skills". They "provided" the administration in that the white administration (government) sought to retain power (hence, the UDI) and prevent democratic rule.
Key parts also make vague unquantifiable claims dependent on a single source of questionable reliability: http://www.countriesquest.com/africa/zimbabwe/history/settler_colony.htm ("owed little to foreign aid", "well-organised and praised for their efficiency"). Mattflaschen - Talk 05:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Howzit all,
This concerns the latest iteration of the page, as revised by User:ComicsAreJustAllRight. I have objected to a number of the changes, specifically removal of a section concerning Gukurahundi as "a conspiracy theory". It has been generally accepted that the campaigns carried out by the CIO, Fifth Brigade, and members of the Police Support Unit in the Midlands in the 1980s resulted in about 20,000 deaths and were a byproduct of the ZIPRA/ZANLA ex-combatant fighting, which also included the 1981 Entumbane Uprising. I think we can all agree it is also no secret that South Africa was involved with the initial surge of ZIPRA dissidence, as documented by Peter Stiff in his books The Secret War and Cry Zimbabwe. This was very generally the opinion in Southern Africa at the time and well researched by journalists such as Brendan Seery, as well as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (p.6). Stiff included in his book a number of interviews with former members of South African military intelligence who described Operation Drama, the arming of Super ZAPU militants, in detail. While conducting research for the article " Rhodesian Brushstroke", for instance, I came across multiple references in Stiff's compilation about how Rhodesian uniforms were re-issued to dissidents sent to infiltrate the country from South Africa, which I noted there. There has also been considerable discussion in this regard at the "Gukurahundi" talk page.
User:ComicsAreJustAllRight's attempt to whitewash this piece of history as "nutty conspiracy theories" - to say nothing of his blanket removal of well-cited information pertaining to this, including Stiff's citation, is rather odd considering the article does have a few points which are much more hotly debated by scholars of Zimbabwean and Rhodesian history, but that's not one of them: namely, a) Gukurahundi happened, and thousands of civilians were purged by Mugabe's government, and b) South Africa was involved in the initial phase of dissident activity, which it supported largely through the efforts of ex-members of the Rhodesian security establishment. Due to the vague nature of the pretext given for removing the entire paragraph it is unclear whether the contributor was referring specifically to South African backing of the dissidents being false, or Gukurahundi as a whole. Either way, I think that sort of thinking is WP:Fringe, given the ample amount of evidence and especially considering the mushrooming of recent literary interest on Rhodesian and Zimbabwean history.
Other points to address include the latest revision's removal of what the editor perceives to be "weasel words" - "communist". Communist in itself is not a weasel word, as it merely denoted the political ideology espoused by both Mugabe's ZANU and Nkomo's ZAPU at the time (when Rhodesia was in existence, both Mugabe and Nkomo repeatedly made reference to Marxism as their official ideology). It is important when addressing the topic of the bush war that ZANU and ZAPU considered themselves both African nationalist and Marxist when it came to their politics, while their cause received considerable support from the Southern Rhodesian Communist Party prior to its banning. ZANU-PF - and by extension, ZAPU, chose to abandon Marxism-Leninism as the party ideology only in the 1990s. I object to the labeling of any political ideology, whether it be apartheid or communism, as a "weasel word" when discussing a political party in a political context.
Thirdly, I am very much concerned by edits such as this one where valid information was given, with a source, but instead of merely tweaking the language the actual content was removed as an "opinion". There were final talks in October prior to UDI; that is relevant information. Both sides continued to cite rather irreconcilable opinions - the British wanted immediate majority rule, or at least the immediate commencement of the transition process, Smith's delegation continued to claim these demands were too radical. Certainly, "a formula doomed to failure" could be challenged and removed without affecting the content, but again it's unclear which part of the sentence is contested as "opinion" rather than fact, because all of it was blanked.
Fourthly, the blanket removal of cited information here without a contesting source. The statement that something is not factually accurate cannot be substantiated against sourced data without another source to back it up. The sentence which is now missing from the article goes as follows: "This situation certainly made it very different from other lands which existed under colonial rule, as many Europeans had arrived to make permanent homes, populating the towns as traders or settling to farm the most productive soils...."
Both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were exceptional in this regard. Scott Taylor's source makes ample reference to the fact that European settlers from the British Isles and other colonial dependencies elsewhere were primarily interested in farming or trading in the British South Africa Company's dominion.
One final nitpick: the tag at the top of the editing window was added to this article by an administrator for a reason. South African and British spellings are the rule per the relevant style guide linked there, so the addition of American spellings are generally frowned upon. -- Katangais (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ey?
"Resistance" movements seem rather biased, whatever you think the actions of the guerrillas were guerrilla/terrorist war (with the majority of victims being of course Black). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 ( talk) 11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1296&file=S83-08_FragileDomEnergy.pdf&title=The+Fragility+of+Domestic+EnergyWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This article refers to ZANU and ZAPU as African and black nationalist on separate occasions, despite the article for African nationalism saying "Not to be confused with black nationalism..." Not to mention only ZANU is listed as African nationalist on their article. I think the term black nationalist [forces] should be replaced with either African nationalist [forces] or insurgent [forces]. Insurgent is my preferred option as it is the only one 100% accurate. ActuallyPalpatine ( talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
-- Spafky ( talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The UDI government was unrecognised, not Rhodesia. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
.
Not sure if this is useful but here is the link to the video
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/independence-ceremony-union-jack-flag-lowered-prince-news-footage/685232232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.198.17 ( talk) 12:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
United Kingdom | United States | Rhodesia |
---|---|---|
Older? |
Older? |
Older? |
Newer? |
Newer? |
Newer/Last? |
It seems odd to me that the original flag, which was used for only three of the fourteen years Rhodesia existed, would get the prominence it now gets as a result of a relatively recent edit. Yes, chronologically it came first, but the
flag of Rhodesia is undoubtedly the green and white tricolour with which anyone who is familiar with the history of the country is acquainted, and which is prominent in the
flag of Rhodesia article.
Is there a technical way in Mediawiki in which the green and white tricolour can be given greater prominence without negating the correctness and relevance of the older flag? In particular I'm referring to the tooltip that one sees when hovering the mouse pointer over a link to this article -- e.g., Rhodesia.
-- Craig ( t| c) 21:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The flags are in the correct order, with the second flag of the Republic of Rhodesia -- that existed for 80% of the existence of "Rhodesia" -- given prominence because the Republic of Rhodesia is really what this article is about, and it was the flag of the country when the country ceased to exist. The other flag, while the "first" flag, was almost unknown outside of Rhodesia (and the UK) and it makes no sense to give it prominence over the flag of the Republic of Rhodesia. To make an analogy, it would be like making the flag in the article on the United Kingdom the flag of Great Britain of 1606/1707 (without St. Patrick's Cross), or the flag of the United States article the old Betsy Ross flag with thirteen stars in a circle. If you disagree with this, please take it to the talk page where this can be discussed, and where there is already a section addressing it.
Hi @ Thorpewilliam: could you help me understand the reversion of my edit? It seems the reasoning you put in your edit summary supports the exact opposite of the edit you made, and indeed goes against a previous edit you made that I fixed the whole article to align with. Thanks Volteer1 ( talk) 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I've seen the recent edits by 86.206.46.77, and their reversions. It is true that South Africa and Portugal did not formally endorse Ian Smith's UDI ... > i.e., had those two countries been closely questioned then [I am inclined to guess that] they would have agreed that UDI was an illegal act - or at the very least "unconstitutional": (the same could of course be said about the Declaration made by the United States in 1776). But it could be argued that Portugal and South Africa acknowledged that a country called Rhodesia continued to exist after 1965. Indeed, even Zambia had to do that, and (in a sense) Britain and other countries acknowledged that too. Furthermore, when the "Beira Patrol" was set up by the British Royal Navy, there was an angry exchange between Lisbon and London - with Lisbon claiming that Britain had been violating Portuguese sovereignty. I do not have access to all the documents, but some of them could well have implied a certain amount of sympathy by Portugal for Smith's government. So maybe it is a question of the wording to be used in the main Wiki article. Certainly, we cannot say that Rhodesia (as apart from Southern Rhodesia) was accorded "official recognition" by anybody. But in this context, we could perhaps draw a few interesting comparisons with other cases; e.g. did the USA actually give "official recognition" to Vichy France when they opened an embassy there?-- DLMcN ( talk) 02:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no citation for the statement: "The Rhodesians hoped that the declaration of a Republic would finally prompt sympathetic states to grant recognition". I am inclined to doubt whether that was ever true.
I do remember, though, that many Whites saw very little point in continuing to acknowledge the Queen as titular Head of Rhodesia - when she was obviously not willing to fulfil that role.-- DLMcN ( talk) 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC) ... so - pending possible comments - I will remove the above-mentioned statement. -- DLMcN ( talk) 10:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
-Just one point: Rhodesia was claiming to be a commonwealth realm; not a dominion. There is a difference. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 10:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What do folks think about merging History of Rhodesia into Rhodesia. Rhodesia is a historical topic, and it is natural that the full summary of its history would be discussed on the main page, with links out to important subtopics. At Talk:History of Rhodesia, there was a proposal to delete that article in 2008, and there were no objections although no one went forward with the deletion. The two articles have considerable overlapping content and Rhodesia is not too large to absorb the additional content. As others actively maintain this page, I'm not going to formally propose - but from my perspective this would make sense. LaTeeDa ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
My personal view is that the recently added piece from Evelyn Waugh is misleading and unnecessary. However, rather than reverting it, I am content to wait and see what other editors say about it? -- DLMcN ( talk) 09:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I tagged this sentence for WP:NPOV. It's been in the article since 2007. OK if we remove it?
"After independence in April 1980, the history of Rhodesians became that of the whites in Zimbabwe." - LaTeeDa ( talk) 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote the lead to make the most important points obvious in the first few sentences (its relation to Zimbabwe, and its relationship to white rule, especially), and to try to clarify the different political eras. I don't have a great depth of understanding, and it is possible that I stepped on toes regarding this sensitive topic, or otherwise missed the mark. LaTeeDa ( talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There has been an extensive three-way discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cliftonian#Rhodesia_Lead [plus another section which followed that] ... if necessary, we could move it all here. I argued in favour of the small change I made today in the main article. -- DLMcN ( talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Somebody is obviously misinterpreting my use of the category " oligarchy" here. Yes, Rhodesia was a republic but so was South Africa under apartheid - a state which is presently classified on this site as an oligarchy. Rhodesia's system concentrated de facto political power in the hands of a small minority (though unlike apartheid, it was nonracial) and so it falls under the definition of "oligarchy". -- Katangais ( talk) 20:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why the title of the country in Afrikaans was included - Afrikaans was never an official language in Rhodesia. It was taught in white schools, and there were many Afrikaners in the country, particularly Enkeldoorn, now Chivhu, and in Ian Smith's government, but it had no official status before or after UDI. Quiensabe ( talk) 22:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Gukurahundi seems carefully pitched to pin all the blame on South Africa and make the Fifth Brigade sound like liberators. Also the casualty estimates differ dramatically from those in the main Gukurahundi article. Furthermore the quotation from Ed Cumming has been cut down from the version of the quote in the source document to make it far more supportive of the POV than it really is. I am not an expert on the subject but some correction seems called for. - Metalello talk 05:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Katangais - Your sentence: "The years immediately following Rhodesia's UDI saw an unfolding series of economic, military, and political pressures placed on the country which eventually brought about majority rule" is misleading. The "years immediately following" were in fact reasonably prosperous and settled - (I was there at the time!) - Sanctions were admittedly an irritant, but little more. The first serious threat from guerillas was not until 1972 (in the northeast of the country ... when they managed to infiltrate unexpectedly from Mozambique). However, even that was eventually contained effectively, with the help of the construction of Protected Villages. Matters only started to deteriorate (and even then, not straightaway) when Mozambique became independent in 1974-75.
However, at this stage, I am not going to alter the main article. I do not have access to many references and sources, but what I say above is certainly confirmed in Ian Smith's "The Great Betrayal". -- DLMcN ( talk) 16:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help), for example: pages 119 through 126 are particularly interesting and pertinent. They confirm what you say. The Rhodesian economy boomed significantly between 1969 and 1974 (when Portugal had its revolution), with economic growth far outstripping Britain's. Much of this followed the declaration of a republic in 1970. See
this graph showing Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's GDP growth per year since 1960: information from the World Bank shows an enormous boom during the early 1970s, followed by a contraction later that decade. Hope all this helps, guys. —
Cliftonian
(talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Just wondering what Rhodesia's economy was like. A dedicated section would be nice. 76.120.229.176 ( talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a coin from Rhodesia dating from the 1970's!
This article is quite biased from the very beginning and seems to purposely play down the role Cecil Rhodes had in creating and administrating this "unrecognised state". It was actually a very important part of the British Empire which the British government wanted to exercise direct imperial rule over from London. Rhodes was instrumental in preventing that and fought for independent rule and a domestic parliament.
Hendrik Biebouw claims that all references to "indigenous African" or "indigenous black" with reference to the nonwhite majority populations of Rhodesia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland are POV. His ostensible claims include suggesting that neither Shona or Matabele are indigenous to Central Africa because they are of "East African" descent. Hendrik has also gone so far as to claim that Afrikaners are indigenous Southern Africans instead, making some whites more 'native' to Zim than the blacks. We've already discussed the same issue on the White Africans of European ancestry and Afrikaner articles before - in both cases, editors have overruled these reckless changes. First off, if we really wish to open this can of worms, nobody is truly indigenous to the Rhodesias. A number of the black tribes - certainly, the Matabele - emigrated during the medieval Bantu movements. The civilisation that built Great Zimbabwe (in some circles still a matter of debate) was obviously there first, and whether it was Shona or not most historians can agree that they were negroid. Bushmen were around far before then, but their population in Central Africa was negligible. By this logic Afrikaners are not indigenous to Southern Africa either, because most of the Afrikaans parent stock landed at the Cape between 1688-onwards...long after the Bantu migrations began. So it's very likely that the Rhodesias were populated by black tribes prior to van Riebeeck's landing.
Afrikaners have lived in RSA for going on four hundred years now. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Africa, they're welcome to it in my book. But we must recognise that there are black Zimbabwean peoples who have lived in their country for over four hundred years and predate Afrikaners. If they want to call themselves indigenous to Zimbabwe, they have every right to. -- Katangais ( talk) 14:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the historical confusion about this name has spread to Wikipedia. :-)
Currently, this page only concerns itself with a small slice out of the history of Rhodesia. However, there are several historical articles talking about pre-1965 Rhodesia linking to simply Rhodesia, that is to here.
If there is consensus that it is appropriate for " Rhodesia" to link to this specialist page and not for the general article on Rhodesia currently Rhodesia (name), fine.
But then I suggest you use "what links here" to tidy up all the existing links created when Rhodesia was an appropriate link to the pre-1965 usage of the term, such as for WWII articles.
As an example, East African Campaign (World War II) says, under "Opening moves":
Just a friendly heads up CapnZapp ( talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sentences like "Rhodesian society carried rich cultural varieties that went hand in hand with Rhodesia's prosperity", "They also established a relatively balanced economy, transforming what was once a primary producer dependent on backwoods farming into an industrial giant which spawned a strong manufacturing sector, iron and steel industries, and modern mining ventures. These economic successes owed little to foreign aid" among others, really make me concerned about whether or not this article is written in promotion of its style of society instead of merely reporting upon it. Sabot Cat ( talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that on 2 March 1970, the Government in Salisbury declared that the country was a republic. However, I very strongly suspect that the "Republic of" prefix was not added to the country's official name. Unfortunately, I haven't found a copy of the (republican) Constitution of Rhodesia, 1969. That would probaby put the question to bed. However, I note that (i) the 1979 constitution (See scan here) refers at the top of the Statute to "Rhodesia", not "Republic of Rhodesia" and (b) the new state, which was a republic, didn't have a "Republic of" prefix nor is there any reference anywhere to "Republic of". I put this out there for consideration. Anegada ( talk) 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. Anegada ( talk) 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for a list of casualties, at least for the Bush War section, including how many total White civilians, White women, and White children were maimed and killed. Casualties are important to the discussion of any war. Starhistory22 ( talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the parts that I removed were removed because the only mentions of economy or standards of living in the article are literaly citations of Smith's own thoughts from his memoirs. They're absolutely not something that's useful in an encyclopedia. Maybe in an article about his memoirs, but not on an article about Rhodesia or about its economy. We have actual economic data and conclusions made by economists that we can use to base the article on. Not some former prime minister's vague statements that conflict with data. 78.0.236.124 ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if this page needs a pop culture section -- for better or worse, Dylann Roof's Charleston church massacre propelled Rhodesia and its history into the mainstream, at least in America. He was known to wear a patch of Rhodesia on his jacket, a fact given much attention in the media. Roof's association with Rhodesia is part of the country's legacy -- many, including myself, where unaware of Rhodesia prior to the Roof revelations. Beyond his actions, I'm sure there are films, etc. that are set in or have to do with Rhodesia. Joeletaylor ( talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has generally dictated that the flag in the infobox should be the most contemporary flag of the state, whether in its present form (for a country that still exists) or the one that was present when it was disestablished (for a former country). Basic examples include South Africa, the Confederate States of America, Burma, etc.
We don't need the two separate flags in Rhodesia's infobox, either. Since Zimbabwe Rhodesia is covered in a separate article, this one should display the last flag to be flown in pre-1978 Rhodesia - the green tricolour. -- Katangais (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
ive removed it pending any real reason to keep it, seems to void npov and is pretty useless, its a journal entry with little other sources or verification and a statement that things were better for blacks with a rhodesian state tv program as a source.
65.126.111.194 ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure where the idea comes from that South African English uses -ise spellings. What is the source, please? During my 30 years as a writer in South Africa, -z endings were the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollystolly ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The Background section is not neutral point of view. Rather than an NPOV and accurate description of the pre-UDI Rhodesia, it is an attempt to glorify the administration at this time. For example, it describes it as a "unique state which reflected its multiracial character". It was "multiracial" only in the obvious sense that it literally had people of multiple races, but the state did not respect people of non-white races in any meaningful sense. Similarly, it says "White residents, meanwhile, provided most of the colony's administrative [...] skills". They "provided" the administration in that the white administration (government) sought to retain power (hence, the UDI) and prevent democratic rule.
Key parts also make vague unquantifiable claims dependent on a single source of questionable reliability: http://www.countriesquest.com/africa/zimbabwe/history/settler_colony.htm ("owed little to foreign aid", "well-organised and praised for their efficiency"). Mattflaschen - Talk 05:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Howzit all,
This concerns the latest iteration of the page, as revised by User:ComicsAreJustAllRight. I have objected to a number of the changes, specifically removal of a section concerning Gukurahundi as "a conspiracy theory". It has been generally accepted that the campaigns carried out by the CIO, Fifth Brigade, and members of the Police Support Unit in the Midlands in the 1980s resulted in about 20,000 deaths and were a byproduct of the ZIPRA/ZANLA ex-combatant fighting, which also included the 1981 Entumbane Uprising. I think we can all agree it is also no secret that South Africa was involved with the initial surge of ZIPRA dissidence, as documented by Peter Stiff in his books The Secret War and Cry Zimbabwe. This was very generally the opinion in Southern Africa at the time and well researched by journalists such as Brendan Seery, as well as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (p.6). Stiff included in his book a number of interviews with former members of South African military intelligence who described Operation Drama, the arming of Super ZAPU militants, in detail. While conducting research for the article " Rhodesian Brushstroke", for instance, I came across multiple references in Stiff's compilation about how Rhodesian uniforms were re-issued to dissidents sent to infiltrate the country from South Africa, which I noted there. There has also been considerable discussion in this regard at the "Gukurahundi" talk page.
User:ComicsAreJustAllRight's attempt to whitewash this piece of history as "nutty conspiracy theories" - to say nothing of his blanket removal of well-cited information pertaining to this, including Stiff's citation, is rather odd considering the article does have a few points which are much more hotly debated by scholars of Zimbabwean and Rhodesian history, but that's not one of them: namely, a) Gukurahundi happened, and thousands of civilians were purged by Mugabe's government, and b) South Africa was involved in the initial phase of dissident activity, which it supported largely through the efforts of ex-members of the Rhodesian security establishment. Due to the vague nature of the pretext given for removing the entire paragraph it is unclear whether the contributor was referring specifically to South African backing of the dissidents being false, or Gukurahundi as a whole. Either way, I think that sort of thinking is WP:Fringe, given the ample amount of evidence and especially considering the mushrooming of recent literary interest on Rhodesian and Zimbabwean history.
Other points to address include the latest revision's removal of what the editor perceives to be "weasel words" - "communist". Communist in itself is not a weasel word, as it merely denoted the political ideology espoused by both Mugabe's ZANU and Nkomo's ZAPU at the time (when Rhodesia was in existence, both Mugabe and Nkomo repeatedly made reference to Marxism as their official ideology). It is important when addressing the topic of the bush war that ZANU and ZAPU considered themselves both African nationalist and Marxist when it came to their politics, while their cause received considerable support from the Southern Rhodesian Communist Party prior to its banning. ZANU-PF - and by extension, ZAPU, chose to abandon Marxism-Leninism as the party ideology only in the 1990s. I object to the labeling of any political ideology, whether it be apartheid or communism, as a "weasel word" when discussing a political party in a political context.
Thirdly, I am very much concerned by edits such as this one where valid information was given, with a source, but instead of merely tweaking the language the actual content was removed as an "opinion". There were final talks in October prior to UDI; that is relevant information. Both sides continued to cite rather irreconcilable opinions - the British wanted immediate majority rule, or at least the immediate commencement of the transition process, Smith's delegation continued to claim these demands were too radical. Certainly, "a formula doomed to failure" could be challenged and removed without affecting the content, but again it's unclear which part of the sentence is contested as "opinion" rather than fact, because all of it was blanked.
Fourthly, the blanket removal of cited information here without a contesting source. The statement that something is not factually accurate cannot be substantiated against sourced data without another source to back it up. The sentence which is now missing from the article goes as follows: "This situation certainly made it very different from other lands which existed under colonial rule, as many Europeans had arrived to make permanent homes, populating the towns as traders or settling to farm the most productive soils...."
Both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were exceptional in this regard. Scott Taylor's source makes ample reference to the fact that European settlers from the British Isles and other colonial dependencies elsewhere were primarily interested in farming or trading in the British South Africa Company's dominion.
One final nitpick: the tag at the top of the editing window was added to this article by an administrator for a reason. South African and British spellings are the rule per the relevant style guide linked there, so the addition of American spellings are generally frowned upon. -- Katangais (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ey?
"Resistance" movements seem rather biased, whatever you think the actions of the guerrillas were guerrilla/terrorist war (with the majority of victims being of course Black). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 ( talk) 11:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Rhodesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1296&file=S83-08_FragileDomEnergy.pdf&title=The+Fragility+of+Domestic+EnergyWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This article refers to ZANU and ZAPU as African and black nationalist on separate occasions, despite the article for African nationalism saying "Not to be confused with black nationalism..." Not to mention only ZANU is listed as African nationalist on their article. I think the term black nationalist [forces] should be replaced with either African nationalist [forces] or insurgent [forces]. Insurgent is my preferred option as it is the only one 100% accurate. ActuallyPalpatine ( talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
-- Spafky ( talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The UDI government was unrecognised, not Rhodesia. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
.
Not sure if this is useful but here is the link to the video
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/independence-ceremony-union-jack-flag-lowered-prince-news-footage/685232232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.198.17 ( talk) 12:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
United Kingdom | United States | Rhodesia |
---|---|---|
Older? |
Older? |
Older? |
Newer? |
Newer? |
Newer/Last? |
It seems odd to me that the original flag, which was used for only three of the fourteen years Rhodesia existed, would get the prominence it now gets as a result of a relatively recent edit. Yes, chronologically it came first, but the
flag of Rhodesia is undoubtedly the green and white tricolour with which anyone who is familiar with the history of the country is acquainted, and which is prominent in the
flag of Rhodesia article.
Is there a technical way in Mediawiki in which the green and white tricolour can be given greater prominence without negating the correctness and relevance of the older flag? In particular I'm referring to the tooltip that one sees when hovering the mouse pointer over a link to this article -- e.g., Rhodesia.
-- Craig ( t| c) 21:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The flags are in the correct order, with the second flag of the Republic of Rhodesia -- that existed for 80% of the existence of "Rhodesia" -- given prominence because the Republic of Rhodesia is really what this article is about, and it was the flag of the country when the country ceased to exist. The other flag, while the "first" flag, was almost unknown outside of Rhodesia (and the UK) and it makes no sense to give it prominence over the flag of the Republic of Rhodesia. To make an analogy, it would be like making the flag in the article on the United Kingdom the flag of Great Britain of 1606/1707 (without St. Patrick's Cross), or the flag of the United States article the old Betsy Ross flag with thirteen stars in a circle. If you disagree with this, please take it to the talk page where this can be discussed, and where there is already a section addressing it.
Hi @ Thorpewilliam: could you help me understand the reversion of my edit? It seems the reasoning you put in your edit summary supports the exact opposite of the edit you made, and indeed goes against a previous edit you made that I fixed the whole article to align with. Thanks Volteer1 ( talk) 05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)