Talk:Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland/Archive 1

Expansion/rewrite
A decade is indeed a short-lived period for a nation state, but in many ways it was a very eventful decade for the inhabitants of the CAP. Significantly, the territorial armies, existed as the hand of territorial governments (and, of course, decidedly in terms of scope in Souhtern Rhodesia) - and it was these, or this, viz. federal forces, which held military power. This is to prove significant during several uprising, one of whom saw the detention and expulsion of a British MP from Nyasaland by terriotrial forces. My memory is not going to carry me through this one, so I will revisit this subject later. That, and more, though could become a subsection of the main CAF entry, as can the Stamps category. But as for how many people (per racial category) lived in the CAF, in each territory, I have these figures here, also economic data, et cetera, etc., I just have to dig for it, it seems. Hah. Thanks for bearing through my ramblings. El_C (August, 2004)


 * Finally, long overdo rewrite/expansion. I welcome any and all reasonable comments, questions, criticisms, etc. El_C 06:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stamps
The Stamps category should get its own article ASAP; no other nation article, current or historical, has such stamp info on it (AFAIK). Radagast 04:43, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Look a little harder, I've added dozens like this; Tahiti, Cameroons, German East Africa, Stellaland, Danish West Indies, Antioquia, and more. Stan 04:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quote>The federation issued its first postage stamps in 1954, all with a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II in three kinds of designs, and inscribed "RHODESIA & NYASALAND". The first to appear was the 2 1/2p, on 15 February, with the remainder, 15 values ranging from 1/2p to one pound, coming out on 1 July. <Unquote

Are you saying that they had decimalized sterling before the United Kingdom? Sure the stamp denominations should be 2 1/2 d and 1/2 d or better still (for clarity) call them 2 1/2 pence and 1/2 penny. "p" as an abbreviation for pence or penny only applies to the new penny/pence after 1971 which is 100th of a pound. Previously it would have been Pounds, shillings (20 to a poubd) and pence (12 to a shilling) i.e. £,s,d or L,s,d. I have not ammended this in case I am to be told something different in the comtext of the CAF or Rhodesia. Dainamo 16:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Changing it to "d" is fine with me; some references, such as Scott, use "p" pre- and post-decimal, presumably for simplicity and/or intelligibility to non-Brits, and I've just aped them without thinking too hard about it. Stan 01:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm changing it to pence and halfpenny.as it is the clearest way and "d" may not be undertood by non Brits  I am most suproised that the "p" has been used in a predecimal context, but I would put it down to editorial error or ignorance. It is like using "p" for pounds in weight Dainamo 12:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV corrections
It is POV to exclusively focus the article on the post-federation history of Southern Rhodesia. The histories of the other two members of the federation must also be discussed. And if a paragraph is allowed which offers opinions of the federation as paternalistic, other opinions must be allowed as well. The original article suffers from the fault of reducing african history to a history of europeans bickering among themselves in africa. 168.127.0.51 20:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but here we have rules of WP:NPOV; and expessions like "violent nationalist dictatorship", "failed states", let alone your masterpiece, "While the creation of the CAF might have been a naive paternalistic dream, it might have also led to a stronger and more politically stable entity in south-central Africa", tendentious and partisan to the core. Not everything in the article is perfect, but it's sourced, which is the main thing. As for the focus on Southern Rhodesia, as there was a degree of continuity there, but also the other states development is described; and if you find it do mild because it doesn't use the words "tyranny" "dictatorship" "infamous", then you clearly don't have a clue of how wikipedia works.--Aldux 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to use NPOV to support your own delusional opinions about the governments of Zambia and Malawi. No person with any sense considers either state in the 1960s to be anything other than a) dictatorships, b) sustained by violence (how long did the state of emergency in Malawi last?) c) lead by nationalists. Your arguements would work on the foolish and the ignorant, but NPOV does not imply accepting the propaganda views of dictatorships about themselves as if they were truth.


 * As far as the quote you reference, if it is "tendentious and partisan to the core", please explain your view on: "this reformism in itself stands as an anachronism. A paternalistic, mild racialism as exhibited by Huggins which had more in common with the late 19th than the mid-Twentieth Century." Please explain why that quote is allowed and accepted by you while mine is "tendentious and partisan". Your championing of NPOV somehow doesn't seem to extend to blind accusations of racism and parternalism.


 * As far as sourcing, there are no source referenced items on the page. A long list of books does not provide anyone with a right to create a POV page full of their own opinions.


 * As far as the focus on Southern Rhodesia, I point back to my original comments. The continuity you refer to is POV continuity. The other states development is not described and you seem to have a vested interest in seeing the fall of those states into dictatorships (within the same timeframe as other events dealt with) mentioned on the page. 168.127.0.51 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above user/ lack of footnotes/ bald assertion/ POV/ 78.146.190.228 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Split?
I suggest that we split this page, so we got a separate "History of the Federation..." page wich delas with the details of the history, and a general review of it on the "Federation of..." page, as it is with most existing countrie (i.e. Zambia).

The reason for doing so is that I am constructing a serie on the History of Zambia, and relevant subpages for it is needed.

Good or bad idea? Discuss it on Talk:History of Zambia.

--Screensaver 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm currently writing the history section on Northern Rhodesia - it may make sense to compare notes. Personally I would say report all discussions on Federation here, together with the history of Federal government; but all territorial history should be at the territories concerned Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. History of Zambia should concentrate on the post-independence history. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Distinguish2 template
I've added "" to the top of the page, seeing as the alternate name, Central African Federation, sounds very easy to confuse with the Central African Republic. (Yes, I'm quite aware they're quite a distance apart, but I'm talking names.) If anyone thinks that this is unneeded, and that confusion is unlikely, feel free to remove it. Picaroon 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I think this is a great idea. The names are confusing. -Pgan002 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate on dissolution
The article says (after my copy-edits):
 * "S. Rhodesia’s Europeans were unwilling to give Africans the same rights territorially (and in-practice) as Africans enjoyed federally (and rather theoretically). This soon led to political crises which eventually resulted in the rise of African nationalism and the end of Federation and the independence of Zambia and Malawi.  These developments involve an account of S. Rhodesia's territorial politics, which is beyond the scope of this article."

It said something with the same meaning before I copy-edited it. I think that the mentioned developments should be described in more detail. Can someone please elaborate? -Pgan002 04:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Irony in Nyasaland
At the end of 'Constitutional Origins': "Ironically, it was to be largely Nyasaland and its African population where the impetus for destabilization of the CAF arose, leading to its dissolution". I can't quite pinpoint the irony here. The article sets the tone (though doesn't deliver the details of how it happened) for it being natural and logical that it should be Nyasaland where the destabilization would start. Replace 'ironically' with 'naturally' and it makes better sense to me. My main point though is that if the Nyasaland unrest was the tipping point for dissolution, the article doesn't really get to grips with it: what happened, when, who were the instigators, to what extent was is spontaneous or organised, why were SR troops required. It doesn't seem to be covered elsewhere; the articles on the history of Nyasaland/Malawi are very scanty on the period. Rexparry sydney 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Need sources for the economic section!
The economic section looks good, and I have no doubt that it is accurate, but we definitely need sources here. Chattanoogan (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fed-money.jpg
Image:Fed-money.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How independent was it?
Exactly how much independence did it have in regards to the Commonwealth and Britain? The article refers to it as "semi-independent" but doesn't really note the limitations of said semi-independence. Apparently Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were British protectorates within the Federation, whereas Southern Rhodesia was a unique sort of self-ruling colony that apparently participated in Commonwealth conferences and such (though that was possibly pre-Federation). It'd be nice if the article could make its politics and international relations a bit clearer. --Mrdie (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dodgy chronology in lede
Quoth the article:

"The Federation was established on August 1, 1953, with the goal of creating a middle way between the newly independent and socialist black independent states and the white-dominated governments of South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1953 there were no independent socialist black-led states in Africa. The only black led states at that date were Ethiopia and Liberia, neither of which were socialist or newly independent. Can someone explain what exactly this sentence is getting at? --Jfruh (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a dubious tag to the article to this sentence. I hate adding these things, but as noted above the sentence makes no sense with the real-world chronology. If anyone could explain what the intended meaning is -- maybe they assumed that any black-led republics would be socialist? -- to fix this, that would be great. --Jfruh (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the wording so it now simply distinguishes black governments that subsequently became the norm. Can we remove the tag?--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?
The following sentence occurs in the paragraph "Constitutional origins."

"How much so defined much of the lengthy constitutional negotiations and modifications that followed."

As far as I can tell, the sentence has no subject and is unintelligible. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this article not include "all significant viewpoints?"
This article has multiple cleanup tags, but the reason for these tags is not clear. What other viewpoints should be included in this article? Jarble (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know what I was thinking when I put that tag - it may have been an accident! However, I standby the point that this article seems like a personal reflection on the topic by someone with knowledge of the subject, with large chunks missing citations. --Barbicanf (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)