Talk:Queen of Rhodesia

Image
In carrying out the GAN review, I've found the stamp that you just reverted for use in the article is not correctly licenced. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, also a reason why I took it out and restored the one that was licenced.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above, I see your point. I have restored the arms just for the DYK to proceed (they may not even use it after all).  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2021
Monarchy of Rhodesia → Queen of Rhodesia – "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. The actual term used by the sources is "Queen of Rhodesia". DrKay (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the GAN discussion, I did say I was open to a move. And since there seems to have been moves of the Queens other titles to "Queen of...", for consistency I am fine with moving it. I don't think there's a need for RM, you can do it if you feel its needed.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...an entirely made-up term that doesn't exist in any reliable source ...


 * Given the relatively small amount of academic work that exists on this subject, I'm not sure there is overwhelming evidence for either title. FWIW I prefer Monarchy in Rhodesia since this conveys more the constitutional nature of the dispute, whereas as Queen personifies the subject. regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * .  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note the quote marks. My comment stands unrefuted. You seem incapable of understanding the distinction between the concept and the term used for the article title. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , by quote marks do you mean scare quotes? Where exactly? Neither source I've provided does that. The full quote from White (2015:153) reads: The key question of the commission was also its most mechanical: should Rhodesia continue as a monarchy, linked to Britain and the Queen, or should it become a republic? The abstract of Kenrick (2018) reads as: In the aftermath of Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on 11 November 1965, Queen Elizabeth II became a contested icon in a struggle to define Rhodesian nationhood and identity. After UDI, rebel Rhodesians were forced to reconcile an act of treason against the Crown with a monarchism that permeated white settler society. This article moves beyond existing studies that focus upon the Queen as a diplomatic bargaining chip in the negotiations between the British and Rhodesian governments to consider her symbolic position within white settler society in the years after UDI. It argues that debates about the Monarchy were an important aspect of white Rhodesian attempts to define themselves and their nation in a decolonising world. The article also shows how the Rhodesian Front’s changing position on the Monarchy reveals its nationalist project to be essentially reactionary in character, and how the shift over time from settler colonial discourses of ‘loyal rebellion’ to discourses of independent nationhood demonstrates the wider comparative potential of the Rhodesian case study resulting from its peculiar post-UDI position between settler and non-settler colonies. No use of scare quotes anywhere.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I mean the quotation marks in my own comment. DrKay (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I've taken the GAN review of this and the current discussion pertains to whether the article can be considered stable; would you clarify, please: do you see the sources I've provided as indicating (or not) that the phrase "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is based on reliable sourcing? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you've provided do not support use of the phrase, but as the phrase has been removed from both the article title and the article text, and everyone except you has accepted the change, the article will only be unstable, and unsourced, if you intend to reinsert it. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave no indication of seeking to revert the title; please don't project malintent onto my words. I simply expressed a preference given the details of this topic. I raised the question regarding stability since you asserted the article was "a hodge-podge of original research and synthesis", claimed the earlier title was "entirely made up" and then proceeded to seek a name change. It's quite reasonable given those circumstances to wonder about stability and seek to clarify your assertions given the sources show your claims were wrong, Futher to this: Kenrick (2018) p.1079: David Cannadine’s work in particular is salient to the story of Rhodesia’s monarchy p1080: In order to understand the contradictions inherent in Rhodesia’s retention of the monarchy between 1965 and 1970, it is necessary to contextualise the subject both in the domestic context of early UDI-era Rhodesia and a much older international tradition of settler struggles for autonomy in the British Empire. Let's all assume good faith; my interest is in completing the review of this GAN, constructive contributions are more than welcome. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My claims are not wrong. My claims stand totally unrefuted. You still fail to comprehend the objection and continue to talk about unrelated issues. "Please don't project malintent": I never did so. "Let's all assume good faith": I wasn't doing anything otherwise. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you wrote "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is an entirely made-up term". Given that the term remains in use in multiple sources, your claim is objectively untrue.  If you are asserting its lack of existence constitutionally, well, that's a moot point, but then you are not talking about a *term*.  Moreover, if you are taking the position that the Monarchy of Rhodesia lacks constitutional existence, then its axiomatic that the Queen of Rhodesia does as well. Perhaps best we agree to disagree and move on. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have shown no sources where the term "Monarchy of Rhodesia" is in use. DrKay (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I may be late to the party here. It appears that there are indeed no references to a "monarchy of Rhodesia" in published sources, but when I reviewed the article for DYK I found that the term "monarchy in Rhodesia" is used in, among other instances, the titles of two papers. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was shown three weeks ago. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You're requesting the article title be changed to Queen of Rhodesia, when it's already at that title? GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the article was moved after the opening comment was posted. DrKay (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen of Ghana which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of Veiled Sceptre / claim that ER2 herself refused title
Twice I've removed assertions inserted into the text that ER2 refused the title. The first time it was in the article it was cited to pp79-80 of Anne Twomey's The Veiled Sceptre (cough, not Spectre...!). The second time it was added to the lede without reference to sourcing. The closest Twomey's text comes to mentioning a refusal is around the attempt to appoint Clifford Dupont as GG in 1965. Even here there is no explicit refusal, ER2 was simply advised not to even consider the request. The text goes on to state that in October 1964, before UDI, the British government made clear it would advise the Crown not to accept any request to become a separate sovereign, but mentions nothing to do with an action by ER2. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)