Talk:Rhodesia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:05, 29 November 2007 editFibo1123581321 (talk \| contribs)564 editsm →More irrational reverts ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:26, 24 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Rhodesia/Archive 3) (bot
(270 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WikiProject Zimbabwe\|class=B\|importance=top\|Rhodesia=yes}}
	{{~~WPFC\|class=B~~}}		{{Controversial}}
			{{Round in circles}}
	{{facfailed}}
			{{South African English}}
	{{AfricaProject\|class=B}}
			{{Article history
	{{talkheader}}
			\|action1=FAC
			\|action1date=14:58, 25 January 2006
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Rhodesia/archive1
			\|action1result=not promoted
			\|action1oldid=36527309
			\|currentstatus=FFAC
			\|otd1date=2007-03-02\|otd1oldid=112098405
			\|otd2date=2008-03-02\|otd2oldid=195193616
			\|otd3date=2010-03-02\|otd3oldid=346910661
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Zimbabwe\|importance=top\|Rhodesia=yes\|Rhodesia-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Former countries}}
			{{WikiProject Africa\|importance=Top\|AFR10k=yes}}
			{{WikiProject British Empire\|importance=high}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Rhodesia/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=90 }}

			== Unnecessary quotation marks ==
	]: June 2004 – March 2006

			The quotation marks around the Phrases “incompetent insurgents” and "superbly professional government troop's” aren’t need, the PF forces where extremely incompetent and the Security Forces where extremely skilled and beat the PF in every battle during the bush war. To keep these quotation marks in useless. ] (]) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
	==Canberras==
	In the discussion of Rhodesia's military assets during the Bush War the Hawker Hunters are mentioned but not the Canberras. These were the largest & most powerful aircraft the Rhodesian Air Force had. Were they omitted because they were used to bomb other countries?

			:By the nature of insurgency, it is expected that insurgents will lose actual battles against nation-state forces. ] (]) 22:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
	''image removed''

			== Article's Map ==
	''The picture is that of an RhAF aircraft damaged by a SAM hit, probably taken in the late 1970s. Do you think that the aircraft is a Canberra?.

			i hate to nitpick, but shouldn't this article's map show Sudan as a unified state? similarly to ]. ] (]) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
	''Do you know if any of the RhAF Canberras were still operational at the end of the war?. There were certainly losses in the war. They were able to replace Hunters (from Israel and Jordan (?)) but I doubt they could replace the Canberras. Bob'' ] 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

			== South Africa in the first paragraph ==
	That is a Canberra and not a Hawker. The Canberras were old with many hours on the airframe. In fact, the wings had a tendency to fall off and the Rhodesians were unable to get spare parts. --] 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

			Why is South Africa called "Apartheid South Africa" at the end of the first paragraph as if it was country's official name? Wouldn't it be better to keep it at a neutral "...the other being the Union of South Africa"? ] (]) 17:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
	''Yes, that is broadly consistent with my recollection. The Canberras never amounted to much operationally. At least two were lost to accidents and one was shot down in the war. Bob'' ] 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
			:Agree on the naming front. However, the Union of South Africa came to an end in 1961, so linking to that is also anacrhonistic. Have corrected. ''']''' <sup>] </sup> 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

			== Country area ==
	''ps the ] was designed to be a high speed, high altitude light bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. It would be very vulnerable if used to attack defended ground targets from low altitude. It would have been of marginal use, at best, in the war ''

			Why is the stated area of Rhodesia 177 km<sup>2</sup> less that the stated area of Zimbabwe? Was there some sort of territory change/gain in 1980? --] (]) 13:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
	Actually, the Canberras were used in external operations in Mozambique and in Zambia. In Zambia they were used in the raid against Nkomo's force at West Farms and Mulingushi. On the West Farms raid (supported by the Hunters and helio gunships) there was concern about wings falling off when they increased speed for the bomb runs. In a "famous" tape called Green Leader, the Canberra flight leader actual voices this concern>--] 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages:Edit Request Wizard/Protected/notProtected}}
	''Interesting. But if you go to the ] article, you will note that Zimbabwe is not recorded as a user. That leads me to suspect that the aircraft were no longer operational at the time of independence - but that may be wrong. Bob'' ] 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

			<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
	My understanding is that the Canberra's in the Rhodesian airforce were phased out pre the establishment of the independent Zimbabwe and its new airforce.--] 13:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

	''Vumba. My recollection is that the Canberras were far from being key assets, although they were used. They were too expensive to operate and too vulnerable to ground fire for a major role. But I am no expert. Bob'' ] 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

			* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl\|textdiff}})''':
	Maybe the following link will give some insight http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-africa/zim/zim-af-all-time.htm
			The music file for the anthem "God save the Queen" is named "God save the King.ogg" and the subtitles are also in the masculine form.
	It lists 20 in total (4 were trainers). Agree with their vulnerability, that's why the Rhodesians probably only used them in low-level surprise attacks (eg West Farms and Mulingushi) or with prior Hunter softening up. At lest that is my understanding.--] 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
			* '''Why it should be changed''':
			Since the anthem was removed in 1970, the music file with subtitles should match what the title accurately describes.

			Additionally, the usage is inconsistent across the three pages "Rhodesia" "Southern Rhodesia" and "Rhodesia (1964-1965)", with two different music files and all subtitles in the masculine form.
	Vumba - is there an internet link for that Green Leader recording from the Zambian airspace incident?
			I also question (for lack of a better word) the Daseinsberechtigung of the article "Rhodesia (1964-1965)", but that may be due a different discussion.
			] (]) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
			<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
			{{reftalk}}

			== History Seems Incomplete ==
	''If you have had no luck, go to and buy a copy of the Rhodesia Was Super CD (approx US$10).'' ] 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

			This article, and the history section in particular, seems to exhibit a particular slant by focusing extensively on the white minority's economic and political history while minimizing broader historical context and the experiences of the black majority. The history section starts relatively late, omitting significant early figures like Cecil Rhodes, and heavily emphasizes the economic activities and political maneuvers of the white population. This selective historical narrative may give an unbalanced view of Rhodesia's history, glossing over the impact of colonialism and the black majority's struggle against racial discrimination and for independence.
	==Capitalisation of racist terms==
	Is there a standard for black vs Black, white vs White? The article uses them interchangeably and I wonder if it would be worth agreeing a standard? I did a copyedit of it tonight and it is an excellent article otherwise I thought. ] 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

			I would politely request a review by someone with scholarly credentials and specialization in African history. ] (]) 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
	==property and education qualifications on the Rhodesian electoral roll==
	139.92.214.98. You have altered the description of these qualifications from ''“(unexceptional for the early twentieth century)”'' to ''“(common in southern Africa at the time, but not so elsewhere)”.''

	I am no expert but I wonder if your understanding is correct?. Property, income, education and gender qualifications were commonplace in Europe and North America until well into the twentieth century. Less than 3 millions votes were cast in the 1911 general elections in the UK. The 1918 UK election was the first with anything like a mass electorate and full universal suffrage was not actually achieved until the 1931 election. Education qualifications had the effect of excluding blacks from the electoral roll in some Southern US states until well into the 1960s. Qualification by ethnicity was a peculiarly South African thing that even the Rhodesians shied away from until late in the UDI era. My facts may be incorrect in detail, but I am sure my main thrust is correct.

	Unless you object, I will revert your alteration in the next few hours.

	Bob ] 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

	“ effectively excluded blacks from the electorate”

	Although technically true this gives quite a false impression considering the racially charged climate in discussing Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa of the time. The electoral register was designed to guarantee a more qualified vote so as to prevent a populist democratic system dragging the country down into banana republic type anarchy or military rule. As already mentioned, internationally it was hardly rare at the time.
	It ‘effectively’ also meant that poor whites were denied the vote as well as the presumably well educated wives of successful farmers and businessmen. Also, not that there were that many of them, but black doctors, lawyers and some farmers actually would have qualified for the franchise.
	Considering South Africa, right next door, did disenfranchise because of race, it does seem a bit churlish not to mention the (almost) race neutral characteristic of Rhodesia’s electoral system.
	] 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	You make an excellent point, Edward. But for us to incorporate in our article textg that conveys that opinion we need to find sources that state so. Can you help provide any? ] 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Banana Republics==
	Damon. You have just inserted the following section of text concerning the period leading up to the 1965 UDI :

	".. newly independent African States were descending into communist 'banana republics', and were expelling White and Asian settlers, the White Rhodesians were justifiably concerned."

	Perhaps that statement is less than objective?. Some whites may have perceived things the way you put it, but was that perception objective fact? The main reference case is obviously Kenya, which had a large white/Asian population and was moving to independence during the period in question. Bob ] 04:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

	ps - I have now adjusted your text to make clear that it is expression of opinion rather than fact. I hope that is OK. Bob ] 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

	Damon. Thanks for attempting an adjustment - but I am not sure it is much of an improvement. It presents opinion as if it were fact. The obvious reference cases are Kenya and Botswana, both of which had smooth transitions to a relatively prosperous independence without the violent civil war that Rhodesia experienced. Bob ] 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

	ps : I mean, where are all these communist banana republics that bankrupted their treasuries while expelling their White and Asian settlers?. Can you name three?. Take a look at ].

	Damon. I was waiting for you to name Uganda - but you cannot describe Idi Amin as a communist. How about this, as a compromise text :

	''Until well into the 1990s, many ] sought to justify UDI on the ground that it had delayed independence by 15 years. They claimed that this delay enabled Zimbabwe to avoid some of the economic and political problems suffered by many other newly independent African nations.

	This line (and its modern variants) is essentially an "ex post" justification of UDI. At the time of UDI, I do not recall anyone saying that it was intended to promote a 10 or 20 year transition period leading to majority rule. But, I do accept that it was a line that some people took many years later. Bob ] 09:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

	==Structure of article==
	Guys. I was thinking about removing the "Publications" section and replacing it with "Songs and speeches of the UDI era". The latter being a collection of audio links. What do you think?. Bob ] 18:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

	As nobody has commented, I have removed the Publications section. Perhaps others would care to contribute more internet accessible material including audio and video by way of references?. Bob ] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

	==(Redirected from RHO)==
	Could someone tell me why this (RHO) is directed to this page?
	I was looking for the gene RHO. It sent me here.
	SRodgers--] 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	:It could be that it was Rhodesia's international vehicle designation. I am guessing. Maybe that needs to be made a disambig page. ] 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	::ps-checked myself, if you type it in lower case, it goes to the disambig page. ] 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	Rhodesia's vehicle designation was RSR--] 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	==insertion of POV and error in latest 4 postings==
	4 anonyomous postings during the last 24 hours have introduced such material as :

	''"Those civilians aboard both airliners who survived the rocket attack and subsequent crash were raped and hacked to death by the black insurgents"''

	This is a reference to the survivors of the downing of the Hunyani in 1978. The Rickards website () concerning the Viscount disasters gives a full and fair account of the event. None of the survivors were raped or hacked to death.

	The claim (often made) concerning the "rape" or "gang rape" of survivors () appears to originate from a fictionalised account of the event contained in the ] novel ''The Angels Weep''. It is an interesting illustration of how a falsehood can become accepted as fact.

	An extract from the Rickards website reads :

	''One of the sensationalistic Jo'burg papers claimed that the white females had been raped by the terrorists before being murdered, though this was untrue (as was confirmed to me by the doctor who examined the bodies). ''

	Bob ] 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

	==insertion of POV and error in latest posting==
	An anonymous posting has incorporated comment such as the following opinion on majority rule / democracy :

	''" ... the leaders of continued Rhodesian independence from black tribal rule continued. Foreseeing the need for a united front in negotiations the Rhodesian Front was established to meet with British colonial officials. This negotiations became of critical issue following the merger of Northern Rhodesia with the black tribal nations and the formation of a black national supremacist government"''

	The idea that a black people are incapable of modern, multi-cultural concepts of government underpins this opinion. The recent history of South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia and even Zimbabwe demonstrates this opinion to be mistaken. Bob ] 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

	Bscar23625, the problem is that other states did not. The ones you named were more the exception than the rule. Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda were more typical examples of what Rhodesia wanted to avoid becoming. Smith's autobiographies bore this out.
	] 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

	''Damon. Africa is a very big place and comparing Zimbabwe to Nigeria is rather like comparing the UK to Turkey. Valid comparisons for Zimbabwe are neighbouring countries like Botswana and South Africa - which have similar economics and demographics. As an aside I don't accept that even the history of Nigeria indicates that black people are incapable of modern forms of government. best wishes. Bob'' ] 11:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	With the proliferation of national WikiProjects, even one for Austria-Hungary, 90 years gone, would there be enough interest to justify such a project as this? See ] if that sounds worthwhile. Happy New Year! ] 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	{{WP Rhodesia Invitation}}

	==yes,massa==
	its questionable how senseful it is to create an article about a country which doesnt exist any more under this name. rhodesia was created and maintained by a part of the population which never counted more than 5% of the population and considered the rest inferior because of their race and excluded them from political and economical ressources. those who dared to fight against being second class citizens in their own country are usually termed either "nationalists" or "marxists" here. the rhodesian-articles are a playground for a certain type of users. ]

	Call for a deletion vote, then. ] 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

	It doesn't matter if you like the country or not, it's enough that it's notable.

	To the contributor under the heading (with no date); just listen to yourself, you are describing 90% of all the states that have ever existed! To try and justify leaving out this article because you don't like it is just blatant POV. And as for 'certain types of users': well that's just life isn't it? There are quite a lot of articles in WP that attract people with extreme views and that is no valid argument for wiping them all is it?--] 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

	==note to Editor 194.133.122.138==
	Thankyou for your updates (14/01) to the article which are recognized and much appreciated. From the editing comments you make, I take it that you are Dr Angus Selby. I have inserted numerous references in various articles on Rhodesia and Zimbabwe to your thesis. I hope those are entirely to your satisfaction, but please correct them if you feel that you have been in any way misrepresented. As an aside, I found your thesis to be fascinating. regards. Bob Scarlett ] 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Political divisions?==
	What were the names of the provinces/states/whatever that made up Rhodesia, and is there a map of them available? Please and thank you. ] 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

	I also remember military operational areas, but can't remember how they were used or what they were called. No luck on the internet so far and all my other resources are limited right now. ]1730, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

	You are thinking, I think of the Operation Zones. They were set up over a period of several years and broadly coincided with provincial boundaries. They were Operation Hurricane (the first) in northern Mashonaland, then Operation Thresher in north Manicaland, Repulse in the south-east (roughly Victoria province), Tangent (roughly Matabeleland) Grapple (the Midlands). The last was Splinter which was only set up around mid-1978 for the area between Chirundu to Victoria Falls. Perhaps someone who got one of those copper plaques would confirm this. I was only about 10 at the time.--] 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

	==British colony after 1965?==
	The first sentence of the article states that "Rhodesia was the name of the British colony of Southern Rhodesia after 1965." A couple of comments/questions about this.

	First, is it not debatable that it was still a colony after 1965? I realize that the UK and essentially the entire world did not recognize it as independent by virtue of UDI, certainly the de-facto government (i.e., the Smith government) would have denied it was a British colony after 1965, right? Or, was part of the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 an agreement that UDI was null and void, and always had been? And thus that Rhodesia continued to be a colony, admittedly a rebel colony, from 1965-1980?

	Second, when Lord Soames was governor, he was Governor of Southern Rhodesia, was he not? (That is, the adjective "Southern" was still part of the title of the colony, per the British Government point of view.) That's what it says when I look up the Lord Soames Misplaced Pages entry, anyway.

	So ... it would seem that either the name was "Southern Rhodesia" all along, i.e., up until 1980, or it ceased to be a British colony. But it doesn't seem right to say that the name was "Rhodesia" and that it was still a British colony.

	One last comment in this vein. It seems that "Independence" is often used to describe the events of 1980. However, obviously some had the view that Independence began in 1965. So this is a loaded term.

	Were Smith himself writing this, he would say that it ceased to be a colony in 1965, right? He would also say that it ceased to be known as "Southern Rhodesia" beginning in 1965, right? (Or would he say that name change happened later?) Would he acknowledge that it reverted to its status as a colony in 1979-80? Or perhaps he wouldn't be hung up on legal titles, and would just regard as a very unfortunate ending for a wonderful country?

	Some interesting points:
	*I understand that, officially, Rhodesia was a colony from 1923 to 1980. In practice, however, it was never dealt with as a colony though so the label is somewhat meaningless as applied to Southern Rhodesia. It was the only territory with a Prime Minister after the First World War (colonies were under Governors only) and the Southern Rhodesian PM attended conferences of Dominions that colonies had no part in.
	*Secondly, I distinctly remember Lord Soames announcing after his arrival to take up his Governorship that the country would be called 'Rhodesia'. There was never any mention of Southern Rhodesia so I suspect that the wikipedia article that you cite is wrong in this respect - I think that the only time the territory was a colony in reality in its whole history was under Lord Soames for the period Dec. '79 to April '80. It ceased to be known by anyone as Southern Rhodesia from 1964 and it would probably have seemed an archaism to use that name--] 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure exactly one way or the other, but if you have a source that says otherwise to the current info in the article, by all means, correct the mistake. I think you mean an anachronism though, not an archaism. ] 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Move pre1964 history to Southern Rhodesia article==
	This article has an identity crisis. The table in the right identifies it as being about the state from 1964 to 1979. The separate ]n article identifies it as being about the state up to 1964. So the two History sections headed ] and ] belong not here but on the Southern Rhodesia page. I propose they be moved. (This is NOT a proposal to merge 'Southern Rhodesia and 'Rhodesia') ] 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

	I say leave it, it gives context. ] 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	''Rex / Mike. The reality is that the history of Rhodesia did not start in 1964 and it is very difficult to separate the R and SR articles. The present messy compromise seems OK to me. I suggest 'leave well alone'. Bob'' ] 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	: There are three votes on the ] page for the Southern Rhodesia history sections 1890-53 and 1953-65 to be moved to that article. Hardly a big voter turnout. However, looking at some other states' articles, a much better arrangement suggests itself: the Southern Rhodesia page has the 'main article' for SR history 1890 to 1965, while 'Rhodesia' has a summary of SR history, picking out the legacy factors particularly important to Rhodesia 1964-1980, and linking to SR as the main article. ] 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::This makes good sense to me. ] 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::You're forgetting that 'Southern' was added to Rhodesia only after Rhodes went and took land north of the Zambezi and it was named 'Northern Rhodesia'. 'Southern Rhodesia' = Rhodesia. The ] article should simply explain the terms for the lands, and when and how they changed. The complete history should be at the ] article. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::No, you've got your dates wrong, Michael. Rhodes had treaties north of the Zambezi from 1890 (eg Barotseland) before any territory was called Rhodesia. The name '''Rhodesia was not coined for Southern Rhodesia''', but for all the BSAC territory north and south of the Zambezi. These are the facts:<br>— 1 December 1890: Dr Jameson refers in a letter to: "all the so-called Zambesia, or, as it will be called, Rhodesia". (He may well have coined the name). <br>— 14 August 1891 The ''Diamond Fields Advertiser'' (in South Africa) uses the name 'Rhodesia' in a report, the first time it appears in print.<br>— 11 Aug 1894: The BSAC secretary writes a letter to say Rhodesia is an apt name for the country under the company's administration, ie north and south of the Zambezi.<br>— May 1895: this is put into official effect.<br>— Dec 1895: British postal services directed to use 'Rhodesia' to describe collectively the territories under the administration of the BSAC.<br>— Nov 1898 Southern Rhodesia Order in Council says that territory shall be known as 'Southern Rhodesia'.<br>I'll provide the references for these when I locate them again, all I can say for now is that you won't find them with a Google text search. (I would also mention in passing that the first official use of the name Rhodesia occurred in 1892, for a location in Northern not Southern Rhodesia).<br>So it is quite clear that from the start, Rhodesia meant Northern and Southern Rhodesia.<br>It was common for Rhodesians to claim in 1965 that originally 'Southern Rhodesia' = Rhodesia, but this was wrong, and was just another example of the sentiment which developed in Southern Rhodesia that they were the only Rhodesia which counted, and which saw its full expression in the Central African Federation. 1965 was the first time that the name Rhodesia was applied to Southern Rhodesia only.<br>However, none of this matters that much to the point in question, but you brought it up. What matters is that in an encyclopedia, the history of a state belongs with the article on that state, and in an online encyclopedia, linking means that all subsequent articles dependent on the first article are only a mouse-click from it. ] 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::The origin of the name(s) and how they were used is clearly complex and deserves mention within the article itself. I suggest a section on this topic; cites would be excellent. Thanks, Rex. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	::::::See ]. ] 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::That's right, and the references are there, they are: , and . Although they are on the web, they don't come up in Google searches because they were scanned in as JPEGs. ] 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	==External Links==
	A link to http://www.ourstory.com/orafs was removed as linkspam. I disagree. The ORAFs page is a primary source for information about the former Rhodesian Air force, as written by former members of the RAF. If the issue is the fact that the information is hosted on a website that is broadly dealing with history and biography, external links to places like imdb would be equally suspect. Is anyone opposed to me adding the link back? ] 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
	:The problem is that the only people advocating for this link appear to spend their entire time on Misplaced Pages promoting ourstory - and we see that as ]. The site may be good, but it doesn't yet have a reputation for rigor or accuracy. As a site that anyone can edit we should exercise caution in linking to it. Once it has a broad reputation for accurate information it might be an appropriate external link. -- ] 02:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Regardless of other links, this link is to a collection of information about Rhodesia that is relevant and contributed by the people who lived the experience first hand. Any external link being added should be judged by the merit of the page to which it is being linked, and not solely by the site on which it appears. I would like to hear from someone who's primary interest is in Rhodesia, and not in either OurStory or the prevention of Link Spam. Anyone? ] 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

	''Pitolunt. Perhaps you are being too unselective in just inserting the site as an External Link?. It contains a lot of dross but some excellent material. Perhaps you should pick out a few good items and insert them as individual References?. I took one item and inserted it as Reference 43 in the ] article. Bob'' ] 09:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks, and you make a good point. Out of respect to the administrators, I am encouraging other contributors to add to the page rather than doing it directly.] 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Deleted the erroneous 'Afrikaaner' (sic)==
	I removed the alternative spelling 'Afrikaaner' that was given in brackets as this is simply erroneous. Someone has become confused because the language Afrikaans is spelt with three A's but 'Afrikaner' is only spelt with two. This is because according to Afrikaans spelling rules vowels in closed syllables (those ending in a consonant) are pronounced as short vowels while those in open syllables (those not closed by a consonant) are pronounced as long vowels. To create a long vowel sound in a closed syllable the vowel is doubled. Therefore the third A in 'Afrikaans', which is used to denote a long vowel in the closed syllable, becomes redundant and is omitted when the ending is added and the syllable becomes open.

	This is rather hard to explain but can be considered similar to the English system in which we pronounce 'strip' with a short vowel but 'striped'with a long vowel. ] 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Expanded Information about Rhodesia.==
	Why doesn't the article about The Republic of Rhodesia include information about education, economy and the social life of the common rhodesian? Atleast it must have been better than what Zimbabwe is today..
	==Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF==
	]
	''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].

	Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

	] 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==
	Hi all. This article is not comprehensive when it comes to education. Please kindly assist with expansion of pre-indepedence information for example on the aforementioned article ie, alumini, faculty, etc. ] 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
	==Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF==
	]
	''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].

	Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

	] 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
	==Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF==
	]
	''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].

	Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

	] 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Administrative divisions? ==

	What were the administrative divisions of Rhodesia? ] 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

	They were very similar to the present divisions, except that Mashonaland and Matabeleland were not divided as they have been since 1984 (I think). This gave five provinces: Matabeleland, Mashonaland, Manicaland, Midlands and Victoria (renamed Masvingo in 1982). There were no metropolitan divisions as these (Harare and Bulawayo) were introduced in the late 80s--] 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	Okay, thanks. ] (]) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Please discuss - not revert - good faith edits!==
	I am brand new here and perhaps, therefore, a little naive when it comes to interpreting policies and guidelines but I understood that simple reverts were basically to be used only for vandals.

	I have spent some considerable time analysing ]'s editing behaviour and discovered that he uses this powerful revert tool '''excessively''' - in my opinion.

	We all understand that it is the work of a moment to revert to an earlier edit version but, if this is done without due care and attention, then not only can one revert to a version with errors and mistakes but one also risks (unintentionally or otherwise) slighting the work of other editors.

	For example, in this , ] re-introduced US-English spellings into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English against ], removed sourced material without explanation or discussion and changed into "redlinks" internal linking that, in the reverted edit, functioned correctly. All with the less than helpful or explanatory edit summary of ''"Not sure why you're stalking me here..."''. { shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacites simple (but very destructive) reverts.}

	For the avoidance of doubt, our ] specifies ''"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, '''with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor'''.

	''Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) '''fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles''' (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter."'' (my emphasis added).

	I have only edited articles where ]'s reverts of multiple good faith editors are particularly and unequivocally damaging and I seek neither to aggravate nor antagonise him - merely for him to change his behaviour so that he actually analyses others contributions and then subsequently makes constructive '''edits''' rather than destructive reverts.

	to this article.

	Like it or not, Misplaced Pages does not arbiter or adjudge "The Truth". It merely tries to summarize in a neutral and balanced way the various cited points of view from (preferably) authoritative sources.

	I would have no beef if folks would simply expunge text (racist or otherwise) with an edit summary of "un-cited" or "unrepresentative of the majority of authoritative sources" - or better still tag them with a template so someone has an opportunity to properly cite. '''My beef''' is that by not taking the trouble to actually edit (rather than revert) texts, it is easy to introduce mistakes that have been corrected by other editors. In this example a link was lost to ], correct italicization was altered and I would really like someone to specify '''exactly''' which are the British or Commonwealth usages that editors believe I changed to Americanisms.


	Here's the "racist" text after I edited:

	A lengthy armed campaign by ], the military wing of the ] (ZANU), and ], the military wing of the ] (ZAPU), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second ''Chimurenga''" (or ''rebellion'' in ]) by supporters of the guerrillas ("First ''Chimurenga'' " was the name given to the ](1896)). The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

	ZANU was led by ], latterly based in ] and was supported by the ]. ZAPU was led by ], based in ] and was supported by the ]<ref>Ian Beckett :</ref>. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU claimed to represent the 80% of the Black population who were ] speaking and ZAPU claimed the 20% who were ]. Most educated Africans supported one or the other of these parties, but the bulk of the uncivilized tribal population was indifferent. ZANU and ZAPU both resorted to intimidation, arson and murder to force the tribesmen to support them.

	The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as ']', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.


	And here's the "non-racist" revert:

	A lengthy armed campaign by ], the military wing of the ] (]), and ], the military wing of the ] (]), against the Rhodesian government followed UDI. This became known as the "Bush War" by White Rhodesians and as the "Second ''Chimurenga''" (or ''rebellion'' in ]) by supporters of the guerrillas. The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.

	ZANU was led by ], latterly based in ] and was supported by the ]. ZAPU was led by ], based in ] and was supported by the ]<ref>Ian Beckett :</ref>. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU represented the 80% of the Black population who were ] speaking and ZAPU represented the 20% who were ]. The degree of support offered by China and the Soviet Union to the nationalist parties was probably less than was commonly thought at the time. The nationalist parties were often described as ']', but events showed that this Marxism was largely superficial. The main priority of ZANU and ZAPU was to end white rule in Rhodesia.

	Can you really not see what you has been lost?</br>Why is it thought that we ''do'' need '''duplicate''' internal links to ] and ] but ''not'' a single link to the ](1896))? ] 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	Here's a reminder of our policy:

	===When to revert===

	====Do====
	* Reverting is '''a decision which should be taken seriously'''.
	* Reverting is used primarily for fighting ], or anything very similar to the effects of ].
	* If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
	* If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

	====Do not====
	* Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
	* Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also ].
	* Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. '''Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.'''
	* There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also ]
	* Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. '''Improve the edit, rather than reverting it'''.

	===Revert wars considered harmful===
	====Reasons====
	Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:
	# They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
	# They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
	# They make the ] less useful, waste space in the database
	# They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists

	Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in ].

	====Three revert rule====
	:''Main article: ]''
	In consideration of the harm of reverting, ] states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a very strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily.

	====Explain reverts====
	When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know ''why'' you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

	Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars.

	If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the ], drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page ''first'', and ''then'' revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page.

	====Exceptions====
	Edits that don't contribute to ] are generally considered to be exceptions to the 3-revert rule. Such edits may include reverts of obvious vandalism, reverts of banned users, or removal of potentially libelous text. See ] for a fuller explanation.

	Please ] rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the ].
	] 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Forum Shopping==
	Rather than reply here to the section I started above, Perspicacite, started the thread immediately below at . Unfortunately nobody else responded there other than I. Without my permission, he then '''partially''' deleted the entire thread there (against policy) and copied '''part''' of the thread here (against policy because it put my comments out of context):
	:Or, in other words, you tried to spam another talkpage on an unrelated issue and then posted a badly formatted complaint on the talkpage you originally spammed. I'm not sure whether that's a rhetorical question or a rhetorical statement. ] 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

	===Talk:Rhodesia===
	A user has posted a ''lengthy'' copy and paste of policies on ] to a point I would consider spamming. Does anyone mind if I remove/revert the posts? ] 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

	I mind.

	You revert too much. You need to consider editing in a co-operative manner rather than reverting. Please read what you call "spam". It is actually policy.

	In your at ], amongst other ] you
	# re-introduced a redlink of ] ''sic''
	# removed the valid piped link in "the toxin Sodium Coumadin (an anti-coagulant commonly used as the active ingredient in ])"
	# linked (without good reason) ], ], ], ] contrary to ]
	# introduced typos/spelling mistakes (at least in the ] the article is written in {eg replacing "As the Bush War got under way," with "As the Bush War got ''underway'',"})
	# restored the double linking of ZANU and ZAPU as in "the military wing of the ] (]), and ], the military wing of the ] (]),"
	# replaced "The defunct ] was ] and located in ]." with "The country is ] and located in ]." ''Do you not realise that the article is about a political entity that ceased to exist in the last century?''
	# completely lost the explanatory clause "First ''Chimurenga'' " was the name given to the ]that began in 1896)" - not for the first or even second or even third destructive revert!
	# changed correctly italicized quoted speech to plain text.
	# replaced "Rhodesia was known as ], a self-governing colony of the British Empire, prior to 1964." with "The ] ruled over the self-governing colony of ] prior to 1964."

	ALL without consensus or discussion on the article's talk page and all on the day that you returned from being blocked for ] for exactly this type of ignorant, non-consensual revert and with a mendacious edit summary of "(rv. Keeping the few good changes made.)" What exactly were the "good changes made" from "your version" that you preserved?

	When are you going to learn to edit rather than mindlessly and irritatingly revert? ] 09:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
	:No, genius, I undid your ENGVAR violations. There should be a page for Sodium Coumadin. The third bullet is flat out false. The fourth is Wiki policy. Ever seen an FA article? Fifth and sixth are, again, not true. You should never use passive voice and the country still exists. You don't italicize quotes, ever. And lastly, again, you dont use passive voice. ] 10:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

	May I ask you ''again'' to point out my "ENGVAR violations" so that they can be corrected (and subsequently avoided) by me (and others)?

	# I have changed your re-introduced redlink of ] ''sic'' to ] and thanks for starting a stub article
	# I have re-inserted the valid piped link in "the toxin ] (an anti-coagulant commonly used as the active ingredient in ])"
	# You are just plain wrong in thinking that the isolated years ], ], ], ] should be linked (without good reason). Tis ''is'' contrary to ] and if you follow the links there is a clear explanation of our '''''current''''' guidelines at ]
	# Why did you think it should not be "As the Bush War got under way," rather than "As the Bush War got ''underway'',"?
	# Why did you restore the double linking of ZANU and ZAPU as in "the military wing of the ] (]), and ], the military wing of the ] (])," - was it just sloppy reverting rather than careful incremental editing?
	# Please address the question as to why you replaced "The defunct ] was ] and located in ]." with "The country is ] and located in ]." ''Do you now realise that the article is about a political entity that ceased to exist in the last century?''
	# Why did you completely lose the explanatory clause "First ''Chimurenga'' " was the name given to the ]that began in 1896)" - not for the first or even second or even third destructive revert?
	# I concede that there is a valid style that does not italicize quoted speech.
	# Why do you keep replacing "Rhodesia was known as ], a self-governing colony of the British Empire, prior to 1964." with "The ] ruled over the self-governing colony of ] prior to 1964."?
	# Please would you refer us to the (Misplaced Pages) source that states "You should never use passive voice"
	Thanks! ] 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
	:ENGVAR violations: use of recogni'''z'''ed instead of recognition is one but there were several others. You didnt restore BSCar's edits regarding Sodium Coumadin. I did in my reversion. As much as I would prefer not to link the isolated years it is required, if not ''de jure'' then ''de facto''. #4 is irrelevant - it's inaccurate, bad writing either way. #5 is incorrect, there are no double links. I removed the links to the abbreviations. #6 is an issue of passive voice. Dont use passive voice. The # of the Chimurenga is irrelevant - use the most common, internationally-accepted title. The Rhodesia-clause, which you now removed altogether, is another issue of passive voice. The "dont use passive voice" policy can be found ]. ] 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	Your reference to `''The "dont use passive voice" policy''` points to our <nowiki>]</nowiki> article. At the time of your post is the only relevant quote I can find therein:
	{{quote\|At the same time, the language has become more analytic, and has developed features such as modal verbs and word order as rich resources for conveying meaning. Auxiliary verbs mark constructions such as questions, negative polarity, the passive voice and progressive tenses.}}

	Hardly a ringing endorsement for either your position or your reverts. Please would you refer us to the '''''Misplaced Pages''''' policy or guideline source that states "You should never use passive voice".

	I'll deal with your other points after we've dealt with that.

	Lastly, please don't take any of this as discouragement. Personally, I'm thrilled that you are beginning to see that this is a co-operative project where we can all educate each other and improve each others' edits rather than just mindlessly reaching for the revert button.
	Thanks for listening. ] 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Hahaha, you misunderstand. The link to the English language article was a joke. I did not expect you to try and search the article for Wiki-policy... hahahaha. Actually it would have made more sense to link ], but hindsight is always 20/20. Passive voice is bad English. This is not a matter of policy but a manner of discourse. Lastly, please dont take all of this as a ''literal'' response to your concerns. Personally, I'm thrilled you would search an article on the "English language" for Misplaced Pages-policy rather than simply accepting bad English as bad English, but it's largely a waste of time. Similarly, dating fact templates thrills me, but SmackBot dates templates for us every 24-hours, so that too is a waste of time. ] 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	This reply above exemplifies my concerns.

	I accept that you may genuinely believe that "Passive voice is bad English." However, unless you can cite authoritative sources (perhaps some of your own books?) to state this, then it can '''not''' be inserted into the relevant article(s) and neither should you pronounce ''ex cathedra'' as it being your policy justification for reverting your fellow editors' English.

	The correct way to proceed might be to try and get your viewpoint crystallized and confirmed at ].

	What concerns me most, however, is your flippant and dismissive attitude on article discussion pages that seems to value my time (and that of your fellow editors) at nought. Please try and help improve our encyclopedia rather than play games.] 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I assure you, I deeply value your input and I wish to address your concerns. Please post all of WP:MoS here so I may reexamine it in the full. I would not wish to take away from your valuable time dating fact templates, using passive voice, trying to argue "uncivilized tribal population" is not vandalism, and ]. Indeed, considering the hours you spend on these endeavors I imagine you have little time for ]. ] 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	If we have now dealt with your reversions because "''Passive voice is bad English''" we can carry on to discuss your reversions allegedly made because of "''ENGVAR violations: use of recogni'''z'''ed instead of recognition is one but there were several others.''"

	If you go to ] (that title says it all - huge grin) you will get a hint that for the Rhodesian/ Zimbabwean/ Non-US variants of English there can be at least two major variations; my spell-checker uses the ] code of ] based on the ] but, unfortunately, convent schools in Singapore tended to use the variant ], used by the Singapore government and the ], ], ] (]), African Union (]), Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (]), International Olympic Committee (]), Fédération Internationale de Football Association (]), ], ], etc, and that is the version that I tend to use when not using a computer.

	What is clear is that your own ] standard, as used by the "U.S. government" is inappropriate for this Rhodesia article.

	That deals with ''recogni'''z'''ed'' - what were my other spelling offences? ] 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Really? That's the type of spell checker you use? Fascinating! ] 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	So, if you are willing to concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of ''either'' a breach of a non-existent passive voice policy ''nor'' spellings that were unacceptable, perhaps we can now discuss your excuse of "Sodium Coumadin". Do you now accept that we had no article on either "sodium coumadin" or "Sodium Coumadin" at the time? (That should be an easy one for you to admit you were wrong on, since you rushed away to start just such an article (using the wrong nomenclature) after I successively and repeatedly edited out the "red link" your successive reverts caused.

	{Please note that we can stop boring everyone else to tears if you will just concede now that it is better to edit and incrementally improve articles rather than just instinctively revert}. ] 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
	:No. ] 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	*No, you won't "concede now that it is better to edit and incrementally improve articles rather than just instinctively revert" ''or''
	*No, you won't "concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of" ... "a breach of a non-existent passive voice policy" ''or''
	*No, you won't "concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of" ... "spellings that were unacceptable" ''or''
	*No, you can't find your rattle and won't agree anything proposed by me or concede any error whatever? ] 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
	:No. ] 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	==More irrational reverts==
	Although ] has been warned many times before (eg: , ) about claiming ownership of articles and subsequently reverting editors without examining the damage he is causing to our texts, he continues to refuse to engage in dialogue on his own talk page.

	Instead, he just removes without adequate and appropriate reply (eg: , , , , , ) or comment (apart from mendacious edit summaries) relevant questions, which is why I am asking other editors here if there are any reasonable justifications for continually reverting (eg: and and and and ) to versions of our article which have errors such as:

	# ''"Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923"'' rather than the more correct text ''"Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, ]."''
	#incorrect cite template usage: it is unnecessary to include (just) the "accessyear" if you have already included the full ISO format "accessdate".
	#changing ] (spelled correctly according to our article and that organisation) to "<nowiki>]</nowiki> (spelled incorrectly with a '''''z''''' according to our article and that organisation)
	#replacing the disambiguated <nowiki>] with just the redlinked ]</nowiki>

	? ] 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:I have examined both versions and I think that user Alice.S's is more appropriate. ] (]) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:26, 24 July 2024

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Rhodesia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 2, 2007, March 2, 2008, and March 2, 2010.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Zimbabwe: Rhodesia Top‑importance

Rhodesia is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance).

WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks:

Tasks clipboard

Zimbabwe-related tasks

You can help!

Zimbabwe

Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more...
Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs
Category sorting:
Verify or Factual Accuracy:
Update:
NPOV :
Citations:
Copyedit, Style or Cleanup:
Expand:
Related Wikiprojects: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project

view • edit • discuss • history • watch

Former countries (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during the "African 10,000 Challenge", which started in 1 September 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

British Empire High‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Unnecessary quotation marks

The quotation marks around the Phrases “incompetent insurgents” and "superbly professional government troop's” aren’t need, the PF forces where extremely incompetent and the Security Forces where extremely skilled and beat the PF in every battle during the bush war. To keep these quotation marks in useless. TheChadeditor (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

By the nature of insurgency, it is expected that insurgents will lose actual battles against nation-state forces. ForeverStainedWithAutism (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Article's Map

i hate to nitpick, but shouldn't this article's map show Sudan as a unified state? similarly to South West Africa's map. Dawnslayer (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

South Africa in the first paragraph

Why is South Africa called "Apartheid South Africa" at the end of the first paragraph as if it was country's official name? Wouldn't it be better to keep it at a neutral "...the other being the Union of South Africa"? 91.231.66.254 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the naming front. However, the Union of South Africa came to an end in 1961, so linking to that is also anacrhonistic. Have corrected. Mangwanani 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Country area

Why is the stated area of Rhodesia 177 km less that the stated area of Zimbabwe? Was there some sort of territory change/gain in 1980? --24.80.199.58 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This article isn't protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. If you are still having problems editing it, please ask for advice at WP:TEAHOUSE.

What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

The music file for the anthem "God save the Queen" is named "God save the King.ogg" and the subtitles are also in the masculine form.

Why it should be changed:

Since the anthem was removed in 1970, the music file with subtitles should match what the title accurately describes.

Additionally, the usage is inconsistent across the three pages "Rhodesia" "Southern Rhodesia" and "Rhodesia (1964-1965)", with two different music files and all subtitles in the masculine form. I also question (for lack of a better word) the Daseinsberechtigung of the article "Rhodesia (1964-1965)", but that may be due a different discussion. 2A02:8388:1AC6:E580:5905:A23A:8F00:9BA9 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

References

History Seems Incomplete

This article, and the history section in particular, seems to exhibit a particular slant by focusing extensively on the white minority's economic and political history while minimizing broader historical context and the experiences of the black majority. The history section starts relatively late, omitting significant early figures like Cecil Rhodes, and heavily emphasizes the economic activities and political maneuvers of the white population. This selective historical narrative may give an unbalanced view of Rhodesia's history, glossing over the impact of colonialism and the black majority's struggle against racial discrimination and for independence.

I would politely request a review by someone with scholarly credentials and specialization in African history. 217.180.214.108 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: