Talk:Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Template

Template:User memorial Rhodesia For those who wish to memorialize Rhodesia

British High Commissioner in Salisbury?

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesia1.jpg

Image:Rhodesia1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More explanation required

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Note: that current page had quite some history so I moved it to Unilateral Declaration of Independence (disambiguation)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

That would suggest that most such declarations can be considered unilateral. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unilateralism

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

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