Talk:Rhodesia/Archive 1

message: The bottom sentences of the The Bush War, or Second Chimurenga section defititely need reworking.  Look and see what I mean.
----
In 1970 Rhodesia declared itself a republic. Until then they had been a sort of rebel Dominion, nominally loyal to Queen Elizabeth II but in rebellion against the British government. The UDI ended with the words God Save the Queen.
Ties were gradually eroded. In 1968 decimal currency was introduced, replacing the Rhodesian pound, formerly at par with the pound sterling. 
In 1969 there was a crisis when the Rhodesian government exercised its sovereignty by executing some black criminals. They has been sentenced to death earlier, while the country was still a colony (and when the death penalty was still the norm). The Queen issued a pardon, but the Rhodesian Front government of Ian Smith went ahead and executed them.
As a result the British Governor, Sir Vickery Gibbs, left the country. He had been holed up in his official residence, refusing to legitimise the rebel state, but unable to oppose it. The Smith government appointed Clifford Dupont as officer administering the government, the normal title for an acting governor in the absence of a regularly appointed Governor. Gibbs had already granted the Prime Minister authority to declare a state of emergency and rule by decree.
Also in 1969 most European countries withdrew their consuls from Rhodesia, leaving only Portugal, South Africa and the United States with a diplomatic post.
The guerilla war increased in the 1970s, especially after 1974 when Portugal began to withdraw from her overseas territories. Rhodesia became the next front-line state and Mugabe's ZANU operated from bases in Mozambique, former Portugese East Africa.
The Internal Settlement was signed in 1977, with Smith sharing power with Bishop Abel Muzurewa, the Rev. Ndabangi Sithole (the original leader of ZANU) and Chief Jeremiah Cherau. In 1979 this led to the transitional regime of Zimbabwe Rhodesia, in which the white interests were protected with a number of reserved seats in Parliament, and control over the Judiciary and Armed Forces. 
The major black nationalist parties, ZANU and ZAPU, were excluded from this. A number of guerillas who changed sides were promoted from `terrorist' to auxilliaries of Muzerewa and Sithole, until Sithole's forces were eliminated in a power struggle. 
Lord Soames restored British rule as Governor in December 1979, and a Commonwealth Ceasefire Monitoring Group supervised the armed groups before free elections led to black majority rule in April 1980.
----
In lieu of repeatedly rediring and un-rediring this article, let's discuss what this article should be. I think it should be relatively tightly focused on the government and aspects of Zimbabwe connected to the name "Rhodesia", so somewhat narrow and in depth. For instance, to pick a topic near and dear to my heart :-), the postage stamps of Rhodesia would be described here, because they were issued by a different postal administration and have a different character than those of Zimbabwe. The broad-brush continuous narrative of Zimbabwean history is better attached to Zimbabwe however. Stan 15:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloquial Text that needs fixing 

message: I don't think this article adequately conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, currently it seems to take a rather sympathetic view, with phrases such as heavy heart and the way the article attempts to explain Ian Smith's policy of disenfranchment is not NPOV either. -- Joolz 19:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV sections appear to have been added by anonymous user 64.30.254.57 in May . I have reverted the article to the last NPOV version: I dont think anything of value has been added in the interim, but if so I appologise! Iain 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been, what, almost a year since I set out to rewrite this article? Isuck. El_C 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, it's looking much better now -- Joolz 15:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs NPOV 

message: Is it a fact that the only "true Rhodesians" were White?  TheUnforgiven 14:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  White only citizenry 

message: The history ends at 1980, is this because the country formally became Zimbabwe at the time? Bastion
:Correct. Or, conversely, it became the history of Zimbabwe at that time. El_C 09:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern History? 

message: I was not making a personal attack, I was simply stating the obvious. The last time I passed by this article, user Robert I had sorted all the publications into chronological order. Quite amazingly someone has deliberately reverted them to the previous haphazard order. Is there som reason for this sort of anarchic activity? Is this an indication of the mentality of Wikipedians? Isabella84 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the references would be far better in chronological order. I wonder why they have been deliberately altered like that? 213.122.58.36 15:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchists at work 

message: I don't fully understand - perhaps someone wouldn't mind clearly laying out the reasons for the NPOV tag. Is this because of the disagreement between Gregory/213.122.58.36/Isabella84/Christchurch and El C over the use of terrorist -v- guerrilla? Humansdorpie 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I proposed that Isabella84 and Isabella Lauder-Frost are the same person. Humansdorpie 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for NPOV 

message: I've removed the duplicate green/white flag image - the primary source should be the one in the top of the box. Also replaced the UDI image to the left hand side to avoid the huge expanse of white space that otherwise appears. Humansdorpie 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I think that with a fixup of the references to the new style, this could be a Featured article ? Congrats to all the editors. Wizzy…☎ 16:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see about turning my SR draft into a main history of SR article, sometime in this decade, hopefuly! El_C 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article ? 

message: I think it should be mentioned. I've read the article and there is no mentioning of the Portuguese rule of this area nor the British aquisition of the area by a process called the "English Ultimatum", which is an importante part of Rhodesian and Portuguese History.--Ciga 19:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial History 

message: "...The protected villages were compared by some observers to concentration camps..." 
I mean, really, come on?! Concentration camps?? Nice one. Try and make Nazi parallels with the Rhodesians with an unsourced comment. Who is writing this junk?? Encyclopedic?? -yeah right whatever.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.240.211 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: concentration camps are no nazi invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.236.183 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration Camps?? 

message: 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?
image removed
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?. 
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 BScar23625 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canberras 

message: 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 BScar23625 07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  property and education qualifications on the Rhodesian electoral roll 

message: 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 BScar23625 04:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banana Republics 

message: 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 BScar23625 18:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of article 

message: Could someone tell me why this (RHO) is directed to this page?
I was looking for the gene RHO. It sent me here.
SRodgers--65.24.77.104 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that it was Rhodesia's international vehicle designation. I am guessing. Maybe that needs to be made a disambig page. Chris 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps-checked myself, if you type it in lower case, it goes to the disambig page. Chris 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Redirected from RHO) 

message: 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 (Hunyani) 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 (caution, racist website) appears to originate from a fictionalised account of the event contained in the Wilbur Smith 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 BScar23625 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  insertion of POV and error in latest 4 postings 

message: 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 BScar23625 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  insertion of POV and error in latest posting 

message: 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar if that sounds worthwhile. Happy New Year! Chris 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhodesia]] 

message: 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. boy
Call for a deletion vote, then. 150.204.218.32 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes,massa 

message: 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 BScar23625 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  note to Editor 194.133.122.138 

message: 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. Josh 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political divisions? 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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--AssegaiAli 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Jose João 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British colony after 1965? 

message: This article has an identity crisis. The table in the right identifies it as being about the state from 1964 to 1979. The separate Southern Rhodesian article identifies it as being about the state up to 1964. So the two History sections headed 1890-1953 and 1953-1965 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') Rexparry sydney 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three votes on the Talk:Southern Rhodesia 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. Rexparry sydney 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes good sense to me.  Ctatkinson 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Southern Rhodesia article should simply explain the terms for the lands, and when and how they changed. The complete history should be at the Rhodesia article. michael talk 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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:— 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). — 14 August 1891 The Diamond Fields Advertiser (in South Africa) uses the name 'Rhodesia' in a report, the first time it appears in print.— 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.— May 1895: this is put into official effect.— Dec 1895: British postal services directed to use 'Rhodesia' to describe collectively the territories under the administration of the BSAC.— Nov 1898 Southern Rhodesia Order in Council says that territory shall be known as 'Southern Rhodesia'.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).So it is quite clear that from the start, Rhodesia meant Northern and Southern Rhodesia.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.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. Rexparry sydney 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctatkinson (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Origin of the name 'Rhodesia'. El_C 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's right, and the references are there, they are: The Northern Rhodesia Journal online at NZRAM.org: "First Records-No 6. The Name Rhodesia", Vol II, No. 4 (1954) pp101-102, and The Northern Rhodesia Journal online at NZRAM.org: J A Gray: "A Country in Search of a Name", Vol III, No. 1 (1956) pp75-78. Although they are on the web, they don't come up in Google searches because they were scanned in as JPEGs. Rexparry sydney 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move pre1964 history to Southern Rhodesia article 

message: 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? Pitolunt 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the only people advocating for this link appear to spend their entire time on Wikipedia promoting ourstory - and we see that as spam.  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.  -- Siobhan Hansa 02:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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? Pitolunt 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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. 80.43.50.173 11:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted the erroneous 'Afrikaaner' (sic) 

message: :Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 

message: 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. Part 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[University of Zimbabwe]] 

message: :Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 

message: :Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF 

message: I've looked all over the Internet, and I cannot seem to find any of Rhodesia's successive constitutions. I've tried to find the 1961 Constitution, the amended UDI version of the 1961 Constitution, the 1969 Constitution, and even the 1979 Constitution of Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Does anyone know anything that could help me out? 162.39.133.48 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutions? 

message: 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 User:Perspicacite's (now signing himself as "Jose João") 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 recent reversion, User:Perspicacite re-introduced US-English spellings into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English against WP:ENGVAR, 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...". {this diff shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacites simple (but very destructive) reverts.}
For the avoidance of doubt, our behavioural guideline 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 Wikipedia 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 User:Perspicacite's (now signing himself as "Jose João") 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. 
This is the second revert today to this article.
Like it or not, Wikipedia 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 Warfarin, 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 ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (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 Shona) by supporters of the guerrillas  ("First Chimurenga " was the name given to the Second Matabele War(1896)). The war is generally considered to have started in 1972 with scattered attacks on isolated white-owned farms.
ZANU was led by Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet UnionIan Beckett :report on Bush War, para 10. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU claimed to represent the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU claimed the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. 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 'Marxist', 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 ZANLA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (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 Shona) 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 Robert Mugabe, latterly based in Mozambique and was supported by the People's Republic of China. ZAPU was led by Joshua Nkomo, based in Zambia and was supported by the Soviet UnionIan Beckett :report on Bush War, para 10. ZANU and ZAPU together formed 'the Patriotic Front'. Broadly, ZANU represented the 80% of the Black population who were Shona speaking and ZAPU represented the 20% who were Ndebele-speaking. 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 'Marxist', 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 ZANU and ZAPU but not a single link to the Second Matabele War(1896))? Alice.S 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Main article: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
In consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy 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 edit summary, 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 edit warring 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 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions for a fuller explanation.
Please request protection 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 Arbitration Committee.
Alice.S 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss - not revert - good faith edits! 

message: ====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 page history 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 dispute resolution.
====Three revert rule====
:Main article: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
In consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy 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 edit summary, 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 edit warring 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 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions for a fuller explanation.
Please request protection 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 Arbitration Committee.
Alice.S 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert wars considered harmful

message: Edits that don't contribute to edit warring 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 Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions for a fuller explanation.
Please request protection 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 Arbitration Committee.
Alice.S 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions

message: Rather than reply here to the section I started above, Perspicacite, started the thread immediately below at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe. 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. Perspicacite 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Perspicacite 10:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ENGVAR violations: use of recognized 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 here. Perspicacite 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 here, 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 Wikipedia-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. Perspicacite 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 recreating my own talkpage archive. Indeed, considering the hours you spend on these endeavors I imagine you have little time for my flippant attitude. Perspicacite 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That's the type of spell checker you use? Fascinating! Perspicacite 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Perspicacite 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Perspicacite 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum Shopping 

message: A user has posted a lengthy copy and paste of policies on Talk:Rhodesia to a point I would consider spamming. Does anyone mind if I remove/revert the posts? Perspicacite 07:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Perspicacite 10:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ENGVAR violations: use of recognized 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 here. Perspicacite 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 here, 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 Wikipedia-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. Perspicacite 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 recreating my own talkpage archive. Indeed, considering the hours you spend on these endeavors I imagine you have little time for my flippant attitude. Perspicacite 01:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That's the type of spell checker you use? Fascinating! Perspicacite 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Perspicacite 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. Perspicacite 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Rhodesia

message: Although User:Perspicacite 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, Charles Patrick John Coghlan." 
#incorrect cite template usage: it is unnecessary to include (just) the "accessyear" if you have already included the full ISO format "accessdate".
#changing Central Intelligence Organisation (spelled correctly according to our article and that organisation) to "Central Intelligence Organization (spelled incorrectly with a z according to our article and that organisation)
#replacing the disambiguated Consulate-General with just the redlinked Consulate-General
? Alice.S 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have examined both versions and I think that user Alice.S's is more appropriate. JRDarby (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More irrational reverts 

message: Guys. I appreciate that this may be irritating. But let us not stir these people up, because of possible breaches of copyright on various material linked into Zimbabwe articles. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see what you mean, I think that's shortsighted. We're not supposed to actually have copyrighted material in the first place--not just for the legal aspect of it but because it's Wikipedia rules. Therefore, we should delete what we need to delete (advertising) and if something is contested, we will remove it--as we should. JRDarby (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lekkerwear advertising 

message: Notice this quote:
:It was essentially a power-sharing arrangement between white and civilized blacks which did not amount to majority rule.[34]
Please.  Let's do something with this, huh?
DiagonalArg (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Civilized Blacks"??  This Needs to be Changed. 

message: Under this heading in the infobox, it simply says "English". Should we not include Shona and Ndebele as well? The vast majority of Rhodesians, as with Zimbabweans, do not speak English as a sole first language. Yes, it certainly was the official language of Rhodesia, but that does not mean that we should ignore the other languages. After all, on the Russia page, we do not simply have Russian but several languages (as recognised regional languages), despite the fact that the vast majority speak Russian.--86.162.64.27 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  language(s) 

message: "The British government adopted a policy of no independence before majority rule, dictating that colonies with a substantial population of white settlers would not receive independence except under conditions of majority rule, regardless of whether the population had advanced sufficiently into the modern world to take part in it"
This is obviously a racist interjection. Even if you accept the premise that certain populations are "backward", whether people should be free to govern themselves has nothing to do with whether they are "sufficiently advanced into the modern world". There are lots and lots of examples of peoples who aren't "modern" but have governed themselves very successfully.
The meme this interjection is clearly referencing is that Rhodesia's black population was not modern and therefore incapable and undeserving of self government. When you think about it this is the classic defence of imperialism - "the natives are too backward to govern themselves, therefore we must magnanimously govern them for their own good!"
- Lexington50 (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advancing into the modern world 

message: Lexington50,
I'm amazed at your inability to look at the facts of what's happened to Rhodesia since "majority rule". Let me phrase it for you in terms that even you can probably understand: Rhodesia: bread-basket of Africa. Zimbabwe: 2,000,000% inflation, poverty, oppression and violence.
'Even if you accept the premise that certain populations are "backward"?' Incredible. How do you then characterize the people that have driven Zim into the ground?
'There are lots and lots of examples of peoples who aren't "modern" but have governed themselves very successfully.' You are right. Like the ancient Roman, Egyptians and Greeks. Modern Zimbabweans are not part of those people you are talking about.
The Internet has allowed a voice for every idiot with a computer and basic language skills. I would suggest that you buck the trend and READ MORE AND POST LESS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.48.100 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Advancing into the modern world 

message: "...No significant state ever granted recognition to Rhodesia..." -thats a wee bit subjective don't you think? -Define "no significant state" without offending someone -I dare you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.240.211 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, Canada.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.75.109 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Totally agree. The wording is highly subjective. In international affairs it is often claimed that states meet as equals. Going to remove that paragraph or at least adjust it. --Assarbad (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Significant State?? 

message: 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..
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Information about Rhodesia. 

message: The part about biological warfare is pure and inaccurate speculation. The article that is cited, cites another study that speculates that the rhodesian government *may* be responsible for an antrax outbreak. 
The web is large enough to find a lot of crazy speculation - there is no need to include it in an "encyclopedia".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.8.175 (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This part should either be dismissed or rewritten pointing out that this is an allegation.--41.151.79.189 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The part about biological warfare 

message: Are there any plans to add the text of the republican constitution to Wikisource? I would do so, but I'm not familiar with editing Wikisource. Josh (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: The entry on Rhodesia is missing crucial historical context, without which understanding is likely to be highly skewed.  It also has some part truths which are highly misleading.
Britain, for example, never "ruled" Southern Rhodesia, which became Rhodesia.  Its control was, at best, largely nominal.  S. Rhodesia was colonised, financed and administered initially by a chartered company and then governed by Rhodesian white settlers.
The British Governor who was in Salisbury ( now Harare) prior to the unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 had almost no effective power.  He was a symbolic representative of the crown.  Southern Rhodesia was seen as a future dominion and its prime ministers attended Commonwealth conferences in that understanding.
Some context will be useful.  The country which became Rhodesia for some 15 years was never a conventional colony.  It was entered in 1890 by the Pioneer Column, then governed by Cecil John Rhodes' British South Africa Company as Southern Rhodesia.  Rhodes was a magnate who had made his fortune in South Africa in diamonds and gold.  The Company had a British Charter which Rhodes wangled from a reluctant British government.  At the time the Matabele, the Zulu offshoot warlike minority tribe which comprised about 15% of the population, dominated and terrorized the majority Shona whom they treated as vassals.  The overall population has been estimated as being about 500,000 at the time.  
Rhodes had also obtained the reluctant agreement of the King of the Matabele, Lobengula, to settle Mashonaland, ostensibly to prospect and mine.  Once his well- 
armed Pioneer Column had entered Mashonaland the whites began farming as well as prospecting.  Within a couple of years an impi ( regiment) of Matabele entered Mashonaland, raided, murdered Shonas, and decamped with their cattle.  The Company went to war with Lobengula - something Rhodes had looked for a pretext to do because he felt that whites would not be safe until the power of the Matabele was broken.  At the same time the Shona rose to throw out the whites, because they were intruders and the opportunity had presented itself to do so while the Company's resources were stretched fighting the Matabele.
The Company then took the country by force.  It, and subsequently Rhodesian whites, considered that they had a right to it by conquest - aside from the view by most of them that they had brought peace, order, enlightenment and prosperity to the country.
The British Government never paid a penny toward the settlement, development or governance of the country.  Neither, by the way, did the Company ever pay dividends to its shareholders.  What the settlers built up, with the contribution of the blacks, was done by themselves alone, often by raising capital in Britain and South Africa. 
In the 'twenties a referendum was held, for whites only, as to whether the country should join South Africa or become a "self-governing" colony.  The Company, with the agreement of the British government, was to relinquish power - although it continued to own mines and land and commercial enterprises. The British government encouraged the Rhodesians to join South Africa. The white Rhodesians voted to become a self-governing colony.  Britain retained legal so-called reserve powers, to protect the interests of the black inhabitants and to represent Rhodesia overseas. Those powers, affecting the wellbeing of the black population, were effectively never exercised.  The reality was that Britain lacked power to exercise them because it had no practical means other than persuasion, sanctions, or imported force to do so.  The Southern Rhodesians ran the country.  They had a small army and air force.   The police force was Rhodesian.  They had a government elected largely by whites, with no British appointees  They taxed, made laws and ran their own courts.  
The British Government, in the 'fifties, agreed to a Central African Federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia ( now Zambia), and Nyasaland ( now Malawi). It saw the leadership which could be provided by the much more advanced S. Rhodesia as potentially advantageous to the northern territories.  It continued, as before, to administer the two northern territories, Northern Rhodesia as a colony and Nyasaland as a Protectorate ( whites could not own farmland).  There were few whites in the northern territories. The terms of allowing blacks to vote for the Federal Parliament were agreed upon.  There were two voters rolls for Southern Rhodesia.  They were not explicitly racially based but in reality functioned to ensure continued dominance over power by the whites in S. Rhodesia.  They were set up on the basis of educational qualifications, property ownership, and hereditary chieftainship.  Some 10% to 20% of the MPs in S. Rhodesia were black, and the concept was that this proportion would steadily increase over time. The laws discriminated against blacks, primarily in assigning land to white or black ownership and in not allowing the franchise on a "one man one vote" basis, although it was argued that the country was very lightly populated in the early years and that reserves for blacks were to prevent whites from taking it all over.  Similarly it was argued that the blacks had no tradition of democracy and needed to become educated to it before they could responsibly participate. These were self-serving arguments, but there were many whites at the time of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965 who had clear memories of the disparities in culture between the whites and the iron-age and violent culture of not long before which they had encountered and changed.  The Rhodesians did not anticipate majority rule for many decades.  This was something which black nationalists did not accept.  Initially the black nationalists wanted a faster timetable, then as time went on they wanted immediate majority rule.
The British government changed its mind about continuing the Federation and regarding self government.   Successive Labour governments in particular were disposed to rid the UK of African colonies.  After about 10 years it dismantled the Federation.  It announced that it would give the two northern territories the independence for which they were agitating.  Black nationalists had never been happy about the dominance of S. Rhodesia in the Federation and wanted the tie cut.  The UK pressed the Rhodesians to give up power to the majority.  Zambia was given independence in 1964 and Malawi at much the same time.
Britain and other European powers had begun giving independence to their colonies in 1960.  Rhodesians had witnessed chaos and dictatorship or at the least a deterioration in the quality of services and standards to the north of them in many of those former colonies.  The most notable was the former Belgian Congo.  
The Rhodesian government's position was that it had run its own country's affairs since the 'twenties with admirable success and with ever-increasing standards of living, education and health for blacks.  The British had never run Rhodesia or contributed to building the country, so had no legitimacy in attempting to dictate to Rhodesia.  Rhodesians in very high proportions had fought for the British against Hitler.  None of the other colonies being given independence had run their own countries.  Further, they considered that they had been betrayed by the British government in agreeing on conditions for a path to eventual majority government in S. Rhodesia, and that the British had then reneged on the terms. S. Rhodesia was by far the most advanced of the three territories. Blacks in Rhodesia had the highest standards of living and of education in black Africa at the time.  They believed that if the black nationalists were to gain power the country would become communist and that what had been built up would be severely damaged or destroyed.  Most Rhodesians believed that whites would lose what they had and that the country as a whole would be much worse off.
They demanded independence from Britain under franchise terms agreed for the Federation.  The zeitgeist was no longer with them. 
At the same time black nationalists in S. Rhodesia agitated for majority rule.  They pressed Britain for similar terms to those in the two northern territories.  The most prominent among them, including Robert Mugabe, were imprisoned by the Rhodesians.  
The seeds were sown for the scene that then played itself out in the Rhodesian government's unilateral declaration of independence in 1965, of the bush war which followed, of the eventual emergence of the majority-ruled Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, and of the breakdown of the country and present virtual dictatorship in Zimbabwe.
I think, personally, as someone who was there, that pain in transferring power to the majority had little chance of being avoided. The unilateral declaration of independence was not necessary because Rhodesians were largely autonomous.  But the transfer of power was inevitable given the forces at play.  Whether UDI had been declared or not there would, perhaps a little later, have been increasing pressure for majority rule.  What was not inevitable was the slaughter of civilians in Matabeleland in the early '80s by Mugabe, the degree of breakdown of democracy, the economy and all services in the late '90s and the suffering subsequently endured by the population. Different leadership after independence in 1980 could have made for a much more successful transition and for a continued good standard of living.
A more enlightened leadership by Rhodesians might also have led to a more peaceful evolution.  There was a crucial turning point shortly before Ian Smith became Prime Minister, when the white electorate nearly voted for a more progressive path toward majority government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.85.100 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. Rhodesian history is something of a hobby of mine so I found your comment above interesting and helpful, even though I was already aware of most of the facts. I am presently working on the improvement of a number of Rhodesian articles (mostly military based) but this one I have not yet started work on. If you wish you can make the necessary edits to the article yourself – you need not register to do so – or, if you prefer, you can wait and I will do them at a later time. Thanks again, —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  > [My comment on: "After about 10 years [Britain] dismantled the Federation"] > In his autobiography, "The Great Betrayal", Ian Smith argues that Britain did actually not have the constitutional right to unilaterally break up the Federation - and therefore a stronger stand by Welensky could have insisted (as part of a 'deal') on full independence for Southern Rhodesia under its existing government - i.e., that could have been the 'price' for winding up the Federation.--DLMcN (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context for the Rhodesia entry