Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence[edit]

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my article about the Rudd Concession, this article covers Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (generally abbreviated to "UDI") in 1965, another of the most important events in the history of what is today Zimbabwe. The white government ministers who signed it saw themselves as emulating the Americans' Continental Congress in Philadelphia; most of the world, however, saw the Rhodesian UDI as a dreadful, racist, illegal parody of 1776, made all the more bizarre by the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" at the end. Whatever one's opinion on the Rhodesians' motivations, to paraphrase a journalist of the time, one must acknowledge the guts this tiny and obscure country had to pit itself against almost the entire world.

I wrote this from scratch over the past few months, largely in userspace, and today (21 July) it achieved GA status following a review from Lemurbaby (talk · contribs), who considered this well-researched, comprehensive and easy to read and understand, even for those without much prior knowledge. I feel the article is at least close to FA status and so have brought it here for consideration. Like most of my articles, this one is written in South African English, which is in its written form basically the same as British English, but with a slightly expanded vocabulary. A few exclusively local words (such as indaba) are defined inline. I hope you enjoy the article. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see such a detailed article on this significant topic. It's probably going to take me a few goes to comment fully on the article, and here's my first lot of comments:

  • "felt scandalised" is a bit awkward
  • In regards to the first couple of paragraphs, my understanding is that the British placed bounds on the independence of Southern Rhodesia as the colony/country had a very small white population and the British didn't consider that this was a viable basis for a fully independent country. Is this correct? It would be good to explain the British Government's original motivations.
  • This understanding is basically correct, yes. I've added to the opening that NIBMAR was "the result of recent geopolitical and moral shifts on the world stage", does this help? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant the first couple of paras of the 'Background' section: could you flesh out why the British placed these bounds on the Rhodesian Government? (which seem to have amounted to some 'reserve powers' which could - theoretically - have been used if the Rhodesian government went off the rails). Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1923 constitution was drawn up in non-racial terms, and the electoral system it devised was similarly open, at least in theory. Voting qualifications regarding personal income, education and property, similar to those of the Cape Qualified Franchise, were applied equally to all, but since most black people did not meet the set standards, both the electoral poll and the colonial parliament were overwhelmingly white" - surely it wasn't an accident that the franchise conditions happened to exclude the black majority from holding any political power. I'd suggest explaining the racial motivations here.
  • "This economic growth owed little to foreign aid" - I imagine it owed a lot to loans from British banks and investments by British firms (which bankrolled much of the empire), as well as South African sources of finance. I don't think that foreign aid was significant anywhere at this time.
  • You're probably right. Have removed the sentence anyway, don't think it added much. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Black schooling, medical facilities, salaries and lifestyles were very good by African standards" - how did they compare to white standards?
  • It says in the previous sentence that standards for whites were far superior. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Salisbury became increasingly minded that independence had to be secured before Britain went to the polls, and preferably at the same time as Nyasaland" - this is a bit awkward
  • I've changed to "the Southern Rhodesians stepped up the urgency of their efforts, hoping to win independence before Britain went to the polls, and preferably not after Nyasaland". Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest replacing "stepped up the urgency" with just "stepped up" Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the 'British government stance' section, surely public attitudes in Britain also played a part. By this time most British people realised that the Empire was dead and continued colonalism pointless at best, and there was growing opposition to the racist attitudes of the past.
  • I didn't give too much stress to it as this focuses on the government view, but it is referred to; we mention the "moral shifts" of the Wind of Change, and liberals in Britain worrying about Rhodesia perhaps slipping towards apartheid. I'm not sure that most British people had come around to these views quite yet in the early 1960s; I think this came more over the next decade or so, but I might be wrong. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but both sides of British politics were paying attention to domestic views. The Labour Party had a pretty clear position, and the Tories seemed rather conflicted but lacked room to manoeuvre. It would be good to explain why this was the case given that the conditions set by the British, and especially their unwillingness to compromise on the need for majority rule, formed a key part of the crisis. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on this. I'm having real trouble trying to get this in without making it too long and wordy. Something along the lines of British public opinion being basically uninterested in the Empire by 1964 or so, the former line of "British stock" tying the Empire together being abruptly abandoned around 1960 and replaced with the idea of racial equality tying the Commonwealth together, also perhaps mention the UK moving away from Australia/NZ and towards joining Europe? What do you think? Maybe also mention sympathy for the white Rhodesians in the UK was largely based on the former idea of Britishness tying the Empire together, Rhodesians being more British than the British, fighting in WW2 etc —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the 'Southern Rhodesian government view', were any significant elements of the white Rhodesian population calling for black majority rule at this time? (or at least recognising that white rule was unsustainable in the long run). What was the view of the leaders of the black community?
  • Off the top of my head a few prominent whites opposed UDI (Roy Welensky, Ahrn Palley for example), but I cannot think of any who called for black majority rule immediately. Some, such as the former liberal PM Garfield Todd, recognised that white rule was ultimately unsustainable. Among the general public, most whites supported the RF line. Most of the whites who supported the idea of black majority rule also favoured a very gradual transition, so they often ended up voting for the RF anyway. Black politicians such as Josiah Gondo opposed UDI and white rule but still supported black participation in the political system as opposed to the armed struggle advocated by black nationalists. Black tribal leaders supported the government. At this point the black nationalist movement was almost entirely urban; the rural masses began to be politicised in the late 1960s and by the late 1970s much of the countryside supported the nationalists, but in the run-up to UDI this was not the case. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(up to the 'Road to UDI' section) Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's an ""A"-roll seat"?
  • There's a footnote next to that explaining. Briefly, the 1961 constitution attempted to slightly increase black political participation by creating a "B" roll with lower franchise qualifications. The "A" and "B" rolls were superficially a non-racial construct but in practice the "B" roll was about 90% black and the "A" roll was about 90% white. At election time there were 50 "A" roll constituencies and 15 "B" roll districts, with votes in each modestly influencing the other. The RF never contested the "B" roll seats. In the 1965 election, which is the one we are discussing here, the RF won all 50 "A"-roll seats. Somewhat ironically this is why there was now a black Leader of the Opposition, Josiah Gondo—the only opposition MPs following the RF's victory were those holding "B"-roll seats, and if I remember correctly of those 15 all were black apart from Ahrn Palley (who was a white man of South African Jewish stock). —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed the note. I'd suggest including a flavour of this in the body of the article though. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesia was again excluded from the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference in 1965, and growing discontentment over the UK's refusal of aid, the Lisbon mission, the informal arms embargo and other issues combined with this to cause the Rhodesian government's sense of alienation from Britain and the Commonwealth to deepen" - I'd suggest splitting this into two sentences as it's a bit wordy

(up to the 'Draft, adoption and signing' section) Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why did the Minister of Tourism and Information prepare a draft declaration of independence? (was this feasibly within his ministerial responsibilities, or was he acting on the base of his personal views)
  • The source doesn't say. It seems to me that it might well have come within his purview as Minister of Information. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. It also isn't unusual in small British-style parliaments for ministers to personally do things link this which are entirely outside their portfolio. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The court decisions on UDI seem extraordinary: the judges basically ruled that UDI had to be recognised as they couldn't do anything about the government (which seems to be an abandonment of their duty to provide a check on the government). Can anything be said about the judge's personal motivations for these decisions? - I presume that they were all in favour of UDI.
  • I agree that the March 1968 decision was rather odd. I think you're right that a bit of background on this might help, so I'll try to get something in on it. Here's a bit of information, mostly just off the top of my head. The Chief Justice in Rhodesia, Sir Hugh Beadle, actually opposed UDI when it occurred, and was, until 1968, the legal adviser to Sir Humphrey Gibbs, the British Governor (with whom he lived at Government House), and an important mediator between the two governments. When he then announced that he and the other judges recognised Smith's administration as the de facto government, he was summarily expelled from the British fold. Wilson concluded that Beadle had been a die-hard RF supporter all along. This article proposes a theory that Beadle genuinely was trying to mediate at first, but then concluded that compromise was impossible and decided to back Smith. Hector MacDonald, another of the relevant judges, is similarly sometimes depicted as an RF zealot, but again the truth seems to be more complicated (here is his obituary in the Times; I can't read all of it as am not a subscriber). He became Chief Justice in 1977, and came in for scathing criticism in Smith's 1997 memoirs because of his role in the 1979–80 transition period, during which he assisted Muzorewa at Lancaster House, backed the British proposals, swore in Mugabe as Prime Minister and then abruptly left the country. Angered by how Smith had presented him in the book, MacDonald then released a short text in which he damned UDI as an illegal folly. So, yes, as is common in Rhodesian history, the whole thing is pretty convoluted. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems I misunderstood the March 1968 verdict; I've revised it a bit, hope this is better. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reaction from (for example) the British legal establishment on these decisions you could note? I don't want to suggest cluttering the article, but these decisions aren't the types of judgments which British-style courts traditionally make, and seem to be rather political. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will have a look at this, perhaps a sentence or two might fit in well but I agree we risk cluttering. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you be able to add anything here? (this is my only unaddressed comment) Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I was on base without the books and I just got back now. I've added quite a bit more here on the judgements in Britain and Rhodesia and how it all came about; what do you think? I hope it's a bit clearer now. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good to me (and there's no need to apologise!). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the British royals ever respond to the Rhodesians' declaration that Queen Elizabeth II was the queen of their country? (I suspect not). It seems an odd situation. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the very helpful review and the support, Nick! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (all issues Done):

  • File:Rho-udi.jpg has 2 problems: "Source of this particular image unknown" - images don't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Additionally the uploader was recently banned for alleged copyright violations. Is it possible to upload a new image of this document with a clear and untainted source history? Note: The fair-use argument itself is OK.
  • I've found what seems to be the original source at the website of Rhodesians Worldwide, which is a monthly journal distributed internationally and currently based in Arizona. The link's here. I'll upload a new version of it momentarily. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ian_Smith_1950s.jpg - source info "Cropped from scan of Federal-era group photo, circa mid-1950s" should be more detailed - where does the original group photo come from? Please provide either a link or some more background details. (replaced)
  • Okay, finally sorted this. I'm sorry to have taken a long time over this. The image that was there before I found online, and I haven't been able to find it again so I had to try to find another one. I've now found an image that is both better and of more certain origin. The new image is an official photograph of Smith as a Federal MP, published in 1954 in a journal called Federated Rhodesia-Nyasaland. I hope that this is satisfactory —Cliftonian (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for searching for a better alternative - old photographs are often tricky. The source information is fine, PD should be OK. Updated status accordingly. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • proclamation box - a mere formality, but should have an immediate source as (kind of) quote. I am also not sure the complete text is really needed here, maybe some excerpts and a link to Wikiquote or Wikisource would be better.
  • I see no reason not to have the full text there. The document and its text are ultimately the subject of the article, after all. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave the quote length to other content editors for more input, but please add an immediate inline citation to the "quote". GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coat of arms and flags - i'll ask for some help about those. They seem to lack basic copyright tags, but i'll have to check the exact background rules (ignore for the moment).
  • Fixed those myself, the PD-status should be clear enough for FA now. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images OK, fair-use for infobox and newspaper OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few passing comments, none of which detract from my support:

  • You sometimes use the formula (characteristic of tabloid newspapers) "British colonial Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs", "Rhodesian Cabinet Secretary Gerald B. Clarke" and "scientist Jacob Bronowski" and at other times use the traditional construction, "the historian Robert Blake" and "the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Duncan Sandys". The second is recommended by the style guides I regularly use, and is, I think, clearly preferable.
  • Full stops in people's initials: "R A Butler" but "J. R. T. Wood". Modern British practice would be the former (and has been for decades), though I have no idea what modern practice in southern Africa might be.
  • Final steps to UDI
    • "rumours of an upcoming Rhodesian UDI – "upcoming" suggests a routinely scheduled event; perhaps "impending" or "imminent"?
    • "Smith travelled to meet Wilson personally – not sure the adverb is wanted here
  • Replacement of national symbols
    • "the London Times" – italics noted but this is still iffy. Better to say "the London paper The Times."
  • I think just to put "as The Times put it" is good enough; I think most will realise from the context we mean the London paper. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't comment on images (not my strong suit) but the text of the article is balanced, well written, throughly referenced with a good range of sources, and full without being overfull. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for this very helpful review Tim, and for the kind words and the support. I hope my changes to the article are to your satisfaction. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Quite impressive. Some few suggestions on Domestic Reactions:

  • You have captured the African nationalist reaction, what was the reaction from (white) political opposition to the RF?
  • I've added a bit about Ahrn Palley's angry protests in the Legislative Assembly at its first post-UDI meeting on 25 November. Does this help? —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth giving more details on the church reactions - for example the Anglican bishop of Mashonaland (Ken Skelton) denouncing UDI from the pulpit of Salisbury cathedral, some three days later? Did any major church leaders back UDI? Babakathy (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so far as I know. The Dutch Reformed Church, which as you probably know had links with the South African government of the time, did not protest and helped Smith with petrol and the like, but I don't think they ever publicly endorsed it. I've added the denouncement from the pulpit as I think it's a quite impressive image to include, though according to Wood it was Cecil Alderson, not Ken Skelton, who made this speech—Skelton was Bishop of Matabeleland, not Mashonaland. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and the kind words. I'm glad you like the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why do some newspapers/journals/magazines have both location and publisher, others only one, and some neither?
  • Not sure the Wood source qualifies as a newspaper or journal article, unless that's a republishing? BBC probably not either
  • Don't italicize chapter titles
  • Check consistency of wikilinking - for example, Clarendon is linked in Palley but not Morgan. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments, leaning to support: A very well-written and clear account of a largely forgotten piece of Commonwealth history that threatened to tear Britain apart during the late 1960s and early 1970s (and was much debated at that time in student circles by, among others, the very youthful BB). I assume that this is part of a series of related articles; we have recently had the Smith biography, and I sense others in the pipeline. I have only a few points and questions, and a few suggestions:

  • Many readers won't be familiar with the Latin term sui generis
  • Use of obscure term – "metropole", even with a link – does not make for easy reading
  • I think in the background section you need to emphasise earlier than you do how small the white minority was, numerically - around 5 percent of the population. This puts into better perspective the inequalities in the society.
  • Federation - referendum: who was entitled to vote? I suspect an overwhelmingly white electorate, but this needs to be clarified.
  • As Welensky was knighted in 1953, he should be referred to here (in 1956) as Sir Roy Welensky. Likewise Whitehead (knighted 1954)
  • It's "Macmillan", not "MacMillan" - needs amending throughout
  • I am unhappy with the assertion that, in the early 1960s, the bulk of the British Conservative Party was "generally also in favour of decolonising". It was more a case that Conservative governments had no alternative but to go along with decolonisation - the party rank and file, however, hated it.
  • OK, I've reworded to say just that the party was following a decolonisation policy —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere in the summaries of the respective stances of the British and Rhodesian government it should be mentioned that the basis for the apparent inconsistency in giving independence to the relatively inexperienced Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia governments was the principle of majority rule.
  • "Malvern dismissed the indaba as a 'swindle'"; this could do with a word of explanation. Why was Malvern suddenly sounding like a liberal?
  • He was becoming unnerved by the RF's direction; he said they were "dangerous" and "getting totalitarian with everybody". He called the indaba a "swindle" because he said the chiefs no longer had any real power. I've put this in the article.
  • I don't think "escapade" is the right word in the context you are using it.
  • When you record that the RF won all 50 A-roll seats, it would help to know how many seats there were in the parliament (I apologise if this information has already been given).
  • It's in the footnote next to it. There were 50 A-roll seats and 15 B-roll seats. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodesian unworkability" - I can guess what is meant by this, but it's an odd way of putting it. Is it part of a quote from Wilson?
  • I don't think Smith asserted that UDI "defended Christendom", which would have been excessive even in those times. You quote him earlier a saying that UDI was "a blow for the preservation of justice, civilisation and Christianity" – a somewhat more modest claim.
  • I don't think that "flabbergasted" confirms to the norms of encyclopedic formality.
  • "This breach of the UN sanctions, passed by the U.S. Congress on the back of anti-communist Cold War considerations and Southern white supremacist leanings..." - are you sure of your grounds for the latter part of this statement?
  • Actually no I'm not. The source says that the bill was proposed by "segregationist Senator Harry Byrd" and that it was "a law grounded apparently in anti-communism [that] bolstered the forces of white supremacy, to the delight of several white Southerners in Congress"; but it doesn't explicitly say that it was passed on the back of white supremacist leanings. I'll leave it in for now, but what do you think? —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present wording rather implies that the US Congress approved this breach of the UN sanctions policy because of its white supremacist leanings. I don't think this is the case. That the move pleased Byrd and his group of white supremicists is more or less incidental; I believe that Congress would have approved the measure had there been no racial dimension. I suggest you amend to something like: "This breach of the UN sanctions, passed by the U.S. Congress on the back of anti-communist Cold War considerations, was warmly welcomed by Byrd and other Southern white supremacists. It aided the Rhodesian economy until 1977..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think you're right, this is better. Thanks for this. didn't include "Byrd and other" as we didn't introduce Byrd himself, only the amendment. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to add my support when these few issues are settled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the review and the kind words, Brian, they are very much appreciated. I hope my replies above are adequate. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have upgraded to full support. I think the article now is fully deserving of promotion, and congratulate you on a clear and comprehensive account of this interesting bit of postcolonial history. It is surprising how strong was the "kith and kin" aspect among British Conservatives, almost to the extent of trumping all other considerations in terms of Rhodesia's future. That phrase occurred again and again in the debates of the 1970s, and Smith's name was cheered to the rafters at every Conservative Party conference. I'm glad to have been of some assistance. Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the review, the support and the very kind words and encouragement, Brian, as always. I'm glad you like the article and found it interesting. As I have told you before, if ever there is something I can lend a hand with, please don't hesitate to let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is an excellent article - informative, fully cited, and well written. Ctatkinson (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support and the kind words CT! —Cliftonian (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been reserving my opinion on this one until I was able to read over it several times, checking some of Cliftonian's facts against other research. This article has been structured remarkably well, the writing exceeded initial expectations, and (fortunately) I couldn't quite find any factual trivialities to nitpick! Excellent work. --Katangais (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support Katangais! I'm glad you like the article. Keep well now! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rhodesia%27s_Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence/archive1&oldid=568055173"