Talk:No independence before majority rule

Error in article

The article is not consistent. Which is it: "No Independence Before Majority African Rule" or "No Independence Before MAjority Rule". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.223.4 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Majority African Rule", because that makes way more sense. It's incidental in this case though, because the whites were a tiny minority anyway. --Jammoe (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be "No Independence Before MAjority Rule". I am not aware of any sources that use "African". It does not "make way more sense", as it introduces an unintended racial aspect. The principle was "majority rule", i.e. the rule by a government chosen by the majority in an election with universal franchise. Theoretically, the majority could have voted for white people. The principle was therefore not rule by Africans but rule by people chosen by the majority. Regnirts (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It was "No independence before majority rule" at the time (see [1] [2]) and still is for those close to the events (see [3] [4]). So I have moved the article--Rumping (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

POV warning.

Yes, yes, yes, but there is a definite point of view here, barely hidden. The qualified franchise was designed to maintain minority rule. It lacked the honesty of the (otherwise despicable) SA apartheid policy. And so I have removed reference to it here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Date?

The article gives no date for this policy. Without a date, it makes no sense, as clearly South Africa became independent without majority rule. Could someone knowledgeable please add the date and perhaps a list of countries or territories the policy affected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.196.224 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It only affected Rhodesia, and was used as a phrase in the late 1960s 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:E9F3:8518:79E8:CEAF (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)