Talk:Rhodesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rhodesia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Rhodesia is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

/Archive 1: June 2004 – March 2006

Contents

[edit] Canberras

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)

That is a Canberra and not a Hawker. The Canberras were old with many hours on the airframe. In fact, the wings had a tendency to fall off and the Rhodesians were unable to get spare parts. --Vumba 22:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is broadly consistent with my recollection. The Canberras never amounted to much operationally. At least two were lost to accidents and one was shot down in the war. Bob BScar23625 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ps the English Electric Canberra was designed to be a high speed, high altitude light bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. It would be very vulnerable if used to attack defended ground targets from low altitude. It would have been of marginal use, at best, in the war

Actually, the Canberras were used in external operations in Mozambique and in Zambia. In Zambia they were used in the raid against Nkomo's force at West Farms and Mulingushi. On the West Farms raid (supported by the Hunters and helio gunships) there was concern about wings falling off when they increased speed for the bomb runs. In a "famous" tape called Green Leader, the Canberra flight leader actual voices this concern>--Vumba 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But if you go to the English Electric Canberra article, you will note that Zimbabwe is not recorded as a user. That leads me to suspect that the aircraft were no longer operational at the time of independence - but that may be wrong. Bob BScar23625 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Canberra's in the Rhodesian airforce were phased out pre the establishment of the independent Zimbabwe and its new airforce.--Vumba 13:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vumba. My recollection is that the Canberras were far from being key assets, although they were used. They were too expensive to operate and too vulnerable to ground fire for a major role. But I am no expert. Bob BScar23625 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the following link will give some insight http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/aa-africa/zim/zim-af-all-time.htm It lists 20 in total (4 were trainers). Agree with their vulnerability, that's why the Rhodesians probably only used them in low-level surprise attacks (eg West Farms and Mulingushi) or with prior Hunter softening up. At lest that is my understanding.--Vumba 23:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vumba - is there an internet link for that Green Leader recording from the Zambian airspace incident?

If you have had no luck, go to [1] and buy a copy of the Rhodesia Was Super CD (approx US$10). BScar23625 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation of racist terms

Is there a standard for black vs Black, white vs White? The article uses them interchangeably and I wonder if it would be worth agreeing a standard? I did a copyedit of it tonight and it is an excellent article otherwise I thought. Guinnog 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] property and education qualifications on the Rhodesian electoral roll

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)

“[the electoral register] effectively excluded blacks from the electorate”

Although technically true this gives quite a false impression considering the racially charged climate in discussing Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa of the time. The electoral register was designed to guarantee a more qualified vote so as to prevent a populist democratic system dragging the country down into banana republic type anarchy or military rule. As already mentioned, internationally it was hardly rare at the time. It ‘effectively’ also meant that poor whites were denied the vote as well as the presumably well educated wives of successful farmers and businessmen. Also, not that there were that many of them, but black doctors, lawyers and some farmers actually would have qualified for the franchise. Considering South Africa, right next door, did disenfranchise because of race, it does seem a bit churlish not to mention the (almost) race neutral characteristic of Rhodesia’s electoral system. Edward Carson 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You make an excellent point, Edward. But for us to incorporate in our article textg that conveys that opinion we need to find sources that state so. Can you help provide any? 222.155.6.202 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banana Republics

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)

ps - I have now adjusted your text to make clear that it is expression of opinion rather than fact. I hope that is OK. Bob BScar23625 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Damon. Thanks for attempting an adjustment - but I am not sure it is much of an improvement. It presents opinion as if it were fact. The obvious reference cases are Kenya and Botswana, both of which had smooth transitions to a relatively prosperous independence without the violent civil war that Rhodesia experienced. Bob BScar23625 07:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ps : I mean, where are all these communist banana republics that bankrupted their treasuries while expelling their White and Asian settlers?. Can you name three?. Take a look at Botswana.

Damon. I was waiting for you to name Uganda - but you cannot describe Idi Amin as a communist. How about this, as a compromise text :

Until well into the 1990s, many Rhodesians sought to justify UDI on the ground that it had delayed independence by 15 years. They claimed that this delay enabled Zimbabwe to avoid some of the economic and political problems suffered by many other newly independent African nations. (justification of UDI)

This line (and its modern variants) is essentially an "ex post" justification of UDI. At the time of UDI, I do not recall anyone saying that it was intended to promote a 10 or 20 year transition period leading to majority rule. But, I do accept that it was a line that some people took many years later. Bob BScar23625 09:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of article

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)

As nobody has commented, I have removed the Publications section. Perhaps others would care to contribute more internet accessible material including audio and video by way of references?. Bob BScar23625 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Redirected from RHO)

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)

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)
ps-checked myself, if you type it in lower case, it goes to the disambig page. Chris 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhodesia's vehicle designation was RSR--AssegaiAli 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] insertion of POV and error in latest 4 postings

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)

[edit] insertion of POV and error in latest posting

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)

Bscar23625, the problem is that other states did not. The ones you named were more the exception than the rule. Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda were more typical examples of what Rhodesia wanted to avoid becoming. Smith's autobiographies bore this out. Expatkiwi 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Damon. Africa is a very big place and comparing Zimbabwe to Nigeria is rather like comparing the UK to Turkey. Valid comparisons for Zimbabwe are neighbouring countries like Botswana and South Africa - which have similar economics and demographics. As an aside I don't accept that even the history of Nigeria indicates that black people are incapable of modern forms of government. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 11:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhodesia

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)

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Rhodesia, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Rhodesia. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

[edit] yes,massa

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)

It doesn't matter if you like the country or not, it's enough that it's notable.

To the contributor under the heading (with no date); just listen to yourself, you are describing 90% of all the states that have ever existed! To try and justify leaving out this article because you don't like it is just blatant POV. And as for 'certain types of users': well that's just life isn't it? There are quite a lot of articles in WP that attract people with extreme views and that is no valid argument for wiping them all is it?--81.101.253.108 19:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note to Editor 194.133.122.138

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)

[edit] Political divisions?

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)

I also remember military operational areas, but can't remember how they were used or what they were called. No luck on the internet so far and all my other resources are limited right now. Don1730, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking, I think of the Operation Zones. They were set up over a period of several years and broadly coincided with provincial boundaries. They were Operation Hurricane (the first) in northern Mashonaland, then Operation Thresher in north Manicaland, Repulse in the south-east (roughly Victoria province), Tangent (roughly Matabeleland) Grapple (the Midlands). The last was Splinter which was only set up around mid-1978 for the area between Chirundu to Victoria Falls. Perhaps someone who got one of those copper plaques would confirm this. I was only about 10 at the time.--AssegaiAli 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British colony after 1965?

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)
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)

[edit] Move pre1964 history to Southern Rhodesia article

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)

I say leave it, it gives context. Mike Gale 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rex / Mike. The reality is that the history of Rhodesia did not start in 1964 and it is very difficult to separate the R and SR articles. The present messy compromise seems OK to me. I suggest 'leave well alone'. Bob BScar23625 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
This makes good sense to me. Ctatkinson 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
See Origin of the name 'Rhodesia'. El_C 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] External Links

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)

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)
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)

Pitolunt. Perhaps you are being too unselective in just inserting the site as an External Link?. It contains a lot of dross but some excellent material. Perhaps you should pick out a few good items and insert them as individual References?. I took one item and inserted it as Reference 43 in the P. K. van der Byl article. Bob BScar23625 09:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and you make a good point. Out of respect to the administrators, I am encouraging other contributors to add to the page rather than doing it directly.Pitolunt 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted the erroneous 'Afrikaaner' (sic)

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)

[edit] Expanded Information about Rhodesia.

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..

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF

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)

[edit] University of Zimbabwe

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodesiancoatofarms.GIF

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)

[edit] Administrative divisions?

What were the administrative divisions of Rhodesia? Josh 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They were very similar to the present divisions, except that Mashonaland and Matabeleland were not divided as they have been since 1984 (I think). This gave five provinces: Matabeleland, Mashonaland, Manicaland, Midlands and Victoria (renamed Masvingo in 1982). There were no metropolitan divisions as these (Harare and Bulawayo) were introduced in the late 80s--AssegaiAli 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Josh (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...are you sure?

According to http://www.statoids.com/uzw.html

"The 1957 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas lists five provinces of Southern Rhodesia: Bulawayo, Gwelo, Salisbury, Umtari, and Victoria. It gives no details of area and population. Judging solely by the names, I would guess that Bulawayo corresponds to Matabeleland, Gwelo to Midlands, Salisbury to Mashonaland, Umtari to Manicaland, and Victoria to Masvingo... ~1974: Matabeleland split into Matabeleland North and Matabeleland South... ~1981: Mashonaland North split into Mashonaland Central and Mashonaland West (part); Mashonaland South split into Mashonaland East and Mashonaland West (part). Part of Matabeleland South around the city of Zvishavane annexed to Midlands. ~1997: Bulawayo city split from Matabeleland North province; Harare split from Mashonaland East."

But then, according this http://www.bsap.org/images/Rhodesia%20Provinces.jpg there seven provinces: Matabeleland, Mashonaland, Manicaland, Victoria, Bulawayo, and Salisbury. 162.39.133.196 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome you casting an eye over the fork of the article I intend to restore in the New Year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alice/Rhodesia
Alice✉ 02:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha good luck with that. Jose João (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutions?

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)

[edit] Please discuss - not revert - good faith edits!

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 Union[1]. 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 Union[2]. 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?
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)

Here's a reminder of our policy:

[edit] When to revert

[edit] Do

  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

[edit] Do not

  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

[edit] Revert wars considered harmful

[edit] Reasons

Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:

  1. 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"
  2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
  3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
  4. 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Forum Shopping

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)

[edit] Talk:Rhodesia

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)

I mind.

You revert too much. You need to consider editing in a co-operative manner rather than reverting. Please read what you call "spam". It is actually policy.

In your latest revert today at Rhodesia, amongst other ignorant edits you

  1. re-introduced a redlink of sodium coumadin sic
  2. removed the valid piped link in "the toxin Sodium Coumadin (an anti-coagulant commonly used as the active ingredient in rat poison)"
  3. linked (without good reason) 1969, 1965, 1979, 1987 contrary to WP:MOSNUM
  4. introduced typos/spelling mistakes (at least in the WP:ENGVAR the article is written in {eg replacing "As the Bush War got under way," with "As the Bush War got underway,"})
  5. restored the double linking of ZANU and ZAPU as in "the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU),"
  6. replaced "The defunct State was landlocked and located in southern Africa." with "The country is landlocked and located in southern Africa." Do you not realise that the article is about a political entity that ceased to exist in the last century?
  7. completely lost the explanatory clause "First Chimurenga " was the name given to the Second Matabele Warthat began in 1896)" - not for the first or even second or even third destructive revert!
  8. changed correctly italicized quoted speech to plain text.
  9. replaced "Rhodesia was known as Southern Rhodesia, a self-governing colony of the British Empire, prior to 1964." with "The British Empire ruled over the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia prior to 1964."

ALL without consensus or discussion on the article's talk page and all on the day that you returned from being blocked for WP:3RR for exactly this type of ignorant, non-consensual revert and with a mendacious edit summary of "(rv. Keeping the few good changes made.)" What exactly were the "good changes made" from "your version" that you preserved?

When are you going to learn to edit rather than mindlessly and irritatingly revert? Alice.S 09:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

May I ask you again to point out my "ENGVAR violations" so that they can be corrected (and subsequently avoided) by me (and others)?

  1. I have changed your re-introduced redlink of sodium coumadin sic to Sodium Coumadin and thanks for starting a stub article
  2. I have re-inserted the valid piped link in "the toxin Sodium Coumadin (an anti-coagulant commonly used as the active ingredient in rat poison)"
  3. You are just plain wrong in thinking that the isolated years 1969, 1965, 1979, 1987 should be linked (without good reason). Tis is contrary to WP:MOSNUM and if you follow the links there is a clear explanation of our current guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking
  4. Why did you think it should not be "As the Bush War got under way," rather than "As the Bush War got underway,"?
  5. Why did you restore the double linking of ZANU and ZAPU as in "the military wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and ZIPRA, the military wing of the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU)," - was it just sloppy reverting rather than careful incremental editing?
  6. Please address the question as to why you replaced "The defunct State was landlocked and located in southern Africa." with "The country is landlocked and located in southern Africa." Do you now realise that the article is about a political entity that ceased to exist in the last century?
  7. Why did you completely lose the explanatory clause "First Chimurenga " was the name given to the Second Matabele Warthat began in 1896)" - not for the first or even second or even third destructive revert?
  8. I concede that there is a valid style that does not italicize quoted speech.
  9. Why do you keep replacing "Rhodesia was known as Southern Rhodesia, a self-governing colony of the British Empire, prior to 1964." with "The British Empire ruled over the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia prior to 1964."?
  10. Please would you refer us to the (Wikipedia) source that states "You should never use passive voice"

Thanks! Alice.S 08:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your reference to `The "dont use passive voice" policy` points to our [[English Language]] article. At the time of your post this is the only relevant quote I can find therein:

At the same time, the language has become more analytic, and has developed features such as modal verbs and word order as rich resources for conveying meaning. Auxiliary verbs mark constructions such as questions, negative polarity, the passive voice and progressive tenses.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for either your position or your reverts. Please would you refer us to the Wikipedia policy or guideline source that states "You should never use passive voice".

I'll deal with your other points after we've dealt with that.

Lastly, please don't take any of this as discouragement. Personally, I'm thrilled that you are beginning to see that this is a co-operative project where we can all educate each other and improve each others' edits rather than just mindlessly reaching for the revert button. Thanks for listening. Alice.S 23:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

This reply above exemplifies my concerns.

I accept that you may genuinely believe that "Passive voice is bad English." However, unless you can cite authoritative sources (perhaps some of your own books?) to state this, then it can not be inserted into the relevant article(s) and neither should you pronounce ex cathedra as it being your policy justification for reverting your fellow editors' English.

The correct way to proceed might be to try and get your viewpoint crystallized and confirmed at WP:MOS.

What concerns me most, however, is your flippant and dismissive attitude on article discussion pages that seems to value my time (and that of your fellow editors) at nought. Please try and help improve our encyclopedia rather than play games.Alice.S 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

If we have now dealt with your reversions because "Passive voice is bad English" we can carry on to discuss your reversions allegedly made because of "ENGVAR violations: use of recognized instead of recognition is one but there were several others."

If you go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#International organizations (that title says it all - huge grin) you will get a hint that for the Rhodesian/ Zimbabwean/ Non-US variants of English there can be at least two major variations; my spell-checker uses the en-GB-oed code of Oxford Spelling based on the Oxford English Dictionary but, unfortunately, convent schools in Singapore tended to use the variant en-GB, used by the Singapore government and the EU, OECD, Commonwealth Secretariat (Commonwealth of Nations), African Union (AU), Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), International Olympic Committee (IOC), Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Transparency International, Greenpeace, etc, and that is the version that I tend to use when not using a computer.

What is clear is that your own en-US standard, as used by the "U.S. government" is inappropriate for this Rhodesia article.

That deals with recognized - what were my other spelling offences? Alice.S 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's the type of spell checker you use? Fascinating! Perspicacite 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if you are willing to concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of either a breach of a non-existent passive voice policy nor spellings that were unacceptable, perhaps we can now discuss your excuse of "Sodium Coumadin". Do you now accept that we had no article on either "sodium coumadin" or "Sodium Coumadin" at the time? (That should be an easy one for you to admit you were wrong on, since you rushed away to start just such an article (using the wrong nomenclature) after I successively and repeatedly edited out the "red link" your successive reverts caused.

{Please note that we can stop boring everyone else to tears if you will just concede now that it is better to edit and incrementally improve articles rather than just instinctively revert}. Alice.S 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Perspicacite 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you won't "concede now that it is better to edit and incrementally improve articles rather than just instinctively revert" or
  • No, you won't "concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of" ... "a breach of a non-existent passive voice policy" or
  • No, you won't "concede that you had no good reason to successively revert other editors good faith edits because of" ... "spellings that were unacceptable" or
  • No, you can't find your rattle and won't agree anything proposed by me or concede any error whatever? Alice.S 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Perspicacite 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More irrational reverts

Although User:Perspicacite has been warned many times before (eg: [2], [3]) 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: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) 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:[10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14]) to versions of our article which have errors such as:

  1. "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."
  2. incorrect cite template usage: it is unnecessary to include (just) the "accessyear" if you have already included the full ISO format "accessdate".
  3. 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)
  4. replacing the disambiguated [[Consul (representative)|Consulate-General]] with just the redlinked [[Consulate-General]]

? Alice.S 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have examined both versions and I think that user Alice.S's is more appropriate. JRDarby (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, with the many irrational reverts it has become quite difficult to maintain our Rhodesia article in an error-free state, I have begun to maintain a fork in my user space: User:Alice.S/Rhodesia.

You and any other editor are very welcome to edit that fork (with the sole exception that all changes to the fork must be made by editing the forked version and not by using revert or undo tools or substituting the entire fork). The current forked version, at the time of making this comment is this, and I intend to substitute this better version for Perspicacite alias Jose João's version during the next few hours next year - obviously I will update it with any appropriate edits made there (and/or to the main article) in the meanwhile. Alice.S 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lekkerwear advertising

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)

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)