Talk:Malawi (1964–1966)

File:EscudoMalawi.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:EscudoMalawi.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this a separate article?

Why is this not part of the Malawi article? Sure, it wasn't officially a Republic yet, but there's no indication this was a major difference in post-independence politics currently. This seems like spinning off a separate article for United States (1781-1789) because it was under the Articles of Confederation at the time rather than the Constitution. But it's the same country. SnowFire (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@HaT59: Are you willing to *explain* your opposition at all? In a manner that discusses the article, not the editor (aka me)? The closest you come up with in your edit summaries is "like other Commonwealth realms." But that's nonsense for a number of reasons. Starting with that it isn't true (we don't have a separate South Africa (1910-1961) article, and if we did split off a South Africa article, the relevant split would have been 1994, not 1961.) Even if leaving/joining the Commonwealth was such a momentous event it did require a separate article for some nations, there is absolutely zero evidence currently this is true of Malawi (and, if anything, evidence against that - Banda became autocratic immediately in 1964, kicking the Governor General out two years later was just one of many opponents he dispensed of). Put things another way, if Jamaica becomes a Republic after the referendum, we are probably not going to act like this was a total revolution and separate out an old-Jamaica and a new-Jamaica article. The reason why we do separate out, say, the Irish Free State isn't so much Ireland leaving the Commonwealth as the fact that there was a substantial revision in government structure, and historians treat that period as separate. There needs to be a case here for why Malawi is closer to Ireland than it is to South Africa.

Finally, as a procedural note, editors can perform bold redirections if it improves Wikipedia. It's not a "power grab" which is nonsense. "Nobody responding to a very clear talk page message in a week" is more notice than many editors give when doing noncontroversial redirections. If there had been any content here that was worth saving, I'd have merged it somewhere, but there isn't. SnowFire (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

So it's you who sets the rules for redirects, obviously. First, I invite you to read the article on the Union of South Africa. Then, all former Commonwealth realms are covered in a separate article (see Template:Commonwealth realms), why should Malawi be an exception? I struggle to understand. Only two items are redirected : Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, but this can easily be corrected... This does not include all Commonwealth member countries, but only the former Commonwealth realms that have changed regime (because yes, moving from a monarchy to a republic is a momentous event). The number of interwikis speaks for itself. So there is an opposition and the fact that the proposal remained unanswered meant that it was not approved. In this context, any forcing attempt is inappropriate. HaT59 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'easily corrected'? We can't just undo something decided by discussion/consensus because we don't like it. DrKay (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see the separate article for Union of South Africa. I don't think that's a wise split-off, but there's at least more to recommend one in that situation than in Malawi's. (To editors reading my above comment, my earlier link was a redlink at the time, Hat59 promptly added a redirect there.)

Re "why should Malawi be an exception? I struggle to understand." Maybe read my edit summaries and what I wrote above? I don't see how repeating this helps, but what the hell. There's two prongs here: your entire argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is weak. Wikipedia can be wrong (I cannot begin to mention the numberless, uncontroversial examples of poor article structure that has lasted for over a decade on Wikipedia). So I'm contesting the idea that changing from a constitutional monarchy to a republic means it's a new nation that requires a separate article. Two, even if there is a consistency argument that this is the "default", I believe that I already have made a case why Malawi qualifies as an exception. Historians simply don't treat it that way. Malawi's substantial change came with independence in 1964, not in 1966. 1966 was just some ceremonial rearranging of the curtains. The article on the Governor-General makes it very clear that he did not ever exercise substantial power, so removing him did not change much. So yeah, this is an exception, because historians don't treat this as a different polity in the same way they do the Irish Free State. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this being a separate article. --StellarNerd (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

People have created many splits over the years. That does not mean they are all well thought out, or reflect usual historiography. CMD (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)