Talk:Rhodesia Information Centre

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Rhodesia Information Centre spread propaganda about Rhodesia in Australia? Source: Melbourne Law Review states the centre's director's "employment related in effect to disseminating propaganda about Rhodesia" (p. 1) and the High Court of Australia noted that it appeared that the "function of the Rhodesia Information Centre is mainly to disseminate propaganda in favour of the regime in power in Rhodesia" (para 27)
  • ALT1:... that the Rhodesia Information Centre in Sydney was among the targets of United Nations Security Council Resolution 409? Source: Washington Post: "The UN Security Council voted unanimously last Friday for a resolution to block "the use or transfer of any funds in their territories by the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia . . ." The target of this latest squeeze on Rhodesia's white-ruled government was Rhodesian information offices in Washington, Australia and South Africa", The Canberra Times "The Government plans to legislate to cnforcc a resolution of the United Nations Security Council prohibiting the transfer of funds to all but pension-paying offices, outside Rhodesia"

• Reviewed: Franc Pinter

Created by Nick-D (talk). Self-nominated at 23:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Timing is fine (22nd Aug. start), length generously covered, well-sourced, incl. every para. Seems balanced and fair, especially for a tricky topic. Earwig's "violation unlikely" confirmed by visual review. Hooks cited and workably interesting - many general readers will not know about the three prop.-promoting and sanctions-evasion-advising offices. QPQ solid, so all good, approved and good-to-go. SeoR (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P5

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhodesia Information Centre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Anything with "X country Information Centre" is doomed to be a propaganda outpost. Initial comments:

• A sentence or two more in the "Role" section about how Southern Rhodesia was a British settler colony before it declared independence would be nice.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Attribute the claim about the dissemination of "factual information" to the acting director of the centre
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• The centre lobbied members of parliament Members of the national Parliament? If so, link.
  • The source (which had gone missing due to editing) says that it lobbied 'politicians', and provides a range of examples at both the federal and state level - I've tweaked the text to reflect this. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• The section title "Holt to McMahon Governments", while it fits with the theme for the sections, seems wrong considering that these governments aren't mentioned at all in the body text.
  • Good point - I've tweaked the text Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• The Australian Government was one of few internationally to provide diplomatic support the Rhodesian regime What is meant by diplomatic support? They helped arrange meetings and represented interests on its behalf?
  • Added - the government provided passports to Rhodesian diplomats(!) and abstained on some UN resolutions. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• the Rhodesian Government referred to the centre as a "mission", using the same terminology as it applied to its diplomatic posts in Portugal and South Africa. Incorporating a link to Rhodesian mission in Lisbon would be nice.
  • Linked. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting my satisfaction with the above, I think the article meets the GA criteria as it is :

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): . No images, but infobox suffices for such a niche topic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for this review. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Best Article?

There is a mention of a "far right" organisation in the opening lines without stating specifically what organisation.

please stop politicising Wikipedia. This article smacks of leftist group think. Craigkb (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Craigkb: It is explained which organisation it was further down in the article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Canberra Times Wednesday 21st Dec 1966 page 12...."In keeping with the consistent attitude of non-recognition which the Australian Goverment has maintained during the relevant period of office of my predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies, and throughout my own time as Prime Minister...."

Harold Holt Craigkb (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)