Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodesia Information Centre
- 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)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rhodesia Information Centre
- ... 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 |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| 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)