This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 126.96.36.199 (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. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this article because its title does not represent a global perspective on UDI
The topic of unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) is discussed beyond the topic of the Rhodesian example. The article did not present a global perspective and thus I moved it. If people disagree with my WP:BOLD move, I am welcome to discuss it here.--R-41 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Unilateral Declaration of Independence"—note the capital letters on each word—refers to Rhodesia's UDI. "Unilateral declaration of independence"—without—refers to unilateral declarations in general, as you are describing. I have moved the other page appropriately. Unilateral Declaration of Independence", with the capital letters, should come here, to the Rhodesian page. Please see the discussion above. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That decision is fine with me.--R-41 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hutchinson's Encyclopedia supports Cliftonian - it says that the term "UDI" refers specifically to "Rhodesia, 1965". --DLMcN (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well I can't make the move myself as I'm not an administrator, so I'll list this at requested moves. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The Dictionary of World History published by Chambers Harrap in 2000 also regards "UDI" as denoting Ian Smith's declaration. --DLMcN (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – it is generally frowned upon to distinguish article titles merely by case. The current title seems fine. What is the motivation to remove Rhodesia's from it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Support as proposer. The terms "Unilateral Declaration of Independence" and "UDI" primarily refer to the Rhodesian declaration anyway, so putting "Rhodesia's" is superfluous. The article was previously called "Unilateral Declaration of Independence (Rhodesia)", but was moved along this reasoning two years ago (see above discussion). DLMcN provides two sources above (one in this section, one in the next) which define UDI as denoting the Rhodesian declaration of 1965, and a cursory Google Books search further reveals this to be the case. I'll point out one in particular; in The Declaration of Independence: A Global History by David Armitage, the contents page shows us the full names of many declarations—"The Venezuelan Declaration of Independence; Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand; ... Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel"—and the Rhodesian declaration is finally listed at the bottom, simply as "The Unilateral Declaration of Independence". "(Southern Rhodesia)" is given afterwards to disambiguate, yes, but clearly just for that and not as part of the actual name. We have hatnotes on the articles to differentiate between this article and the one on unilateral declarations in general, and I see no reason why moving this article back to "Unilateral Declaration of Independence", the proper name, would obstruct this. The only potential problem I can see is deploying Wikilinks while writing, but an informed contributor won't make this mistake, and even where it is made it is not difficult to remedy. A parallel that springs to mind is Malcolm Macdonald and Malcolm MacDonald. —Cliftonian(talk) 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I believe the following images need a US copyright tag
File:Harold Macmillan number 10 official.jpg
File:Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home official.jpg
File:Harold Wilson Number 10 official.jpg
They are released by the UK government under an Open government licence, which releases the images worldwide. I think the present tags are sufficient. See here. —Cliftonian(talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Why/how is the image File:Muzorewa 1978 b.jpg in the public domain?
This picture, sourced here, is an image from the collection of the Dutch photographers Anefo that was released under a CC-BY-SA licence by the Dutch National Archives as part of Ga het na, a collaboration between the Archives and Spaarnestad Photo. It is tagged correctly as being under a Dutch CC-BY-SA licence. —Cliftonian(talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two references with Harv format errors: refs 44 and 145
OK, fixed—one was a misspelling of "Schwarz" as "Schwartz" and the other was a missing reference in the bibliography —Cliftonian(talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Really well-researched, comprehensive coverage of an important event in the history of Africa. I have no critical comments on the prose - I found it easy to read and understandable even with limited prior knowledge of the topic. Thanks for your hard work on this. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! I hope my answers above are adequate. Thanks again —Cliftonian(talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks good - great work. I'll give this a GA pass. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)