→Survey: oppose
|
→Survey: Oppose
|
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
*'''Include''' per the given sources, which seem to demonstrate academic consensus. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 22:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Include''' per the given sources, which seem to demonstrate academic consensus. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 22:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Weak Oppose''' ... I'm not going to be up-in-arms if this is added to the infobox since it's probably close enough, however, while many sources seem to indicate individual members espoused WS ideas, that it attracted WS members, etc., fewer sources indicate it was in fact white supremacist in its manifesto and platform. I would prefer "[[Racialist]]" be added as an ideology, instead, as there seems to be less disagreement on that term among sources. <ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=xpG90n8YLOwC&pg=PA454&lpg=PA454&dq=%22racialism%22+%22Rhodesian+front%22&source=bl&ots=33_-Z_cbsC&sig=ACfU3U1LyjlORht2IkXinKalovZqDzP0OQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFvY_F9vzoAhVqgXIEHe_fDgYQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22racialism%22%20%22Rhodesian%20front%22&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=FFtEAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA7-PA75&lpg=RA7-PA75&dq=%22racialism%22+%22Rhodesian+front%22&source=bl&ots=j5srwtRf8V&sig=ACfU3U3JIGfnvRiostWBlB-zQwvN-UhQvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFvY_F9vzoAhVqgXIEHe_fDgYQ6AEwBnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22racialism%22%20%22Rhodesian%20front%22&f=false</ref><ref>https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/zimbabwe/1966-04-01/rhodesia-context-southern-africa</ref> Again, however, I'm splitting hairs on this point and I if my opinion is the only thing preventing a close then I ask the closer to reconsider my opinion as an "Include." [[User:DocumentError| DocumentError]] ([[User talk:DocumentError|talk]]) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Weak Oppose''' ... I'm not going to be up-in-arms if this is added to the infobox since it's probably close enough, however, while many sources seem to indicate individual members espoused WS ideas, that it attracted WS members, etc., fewer sources indicate it was in fact white supremacist in its manifesto and platform. I would prefer "[[Racialist]]" be added as an ideology, instead, as there seems to be less disagreement on that term among sources. <ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=xpG90n8YLOwC&pg=PA454&lpg=PA454&dq=%22racialism%22+%22Rhodesian+front%22&source=bl&ots=33_-Z_cbsC&sig=ACfU3U1LyjlORht2IkXinKalovZqDzP0OQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFvY_F9vzoAhVqgXIEHe_fDgYQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22racialism%22%20%22Rhodesian%20front%22&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=FFtEAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA7-PA75&lpg=RA7-PA75&dq=%22racialism%22+%22Rhodesian+front%22&source=bl&ots=j5srwtRf8V&sig=ACfU3U3JIGfnvRiostWBlB-zQwvN-UhQvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFvY_F9vzoAhVqgXIEHe_fDgYQ6AEwBnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22racialism%22%20%22Rhodesian%20front%22&f=false</ref><ref>https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/zimbabwe/1966-04-01/rhodesia-context-southern-africa</ref> Again, however, I'm splitting hairs on this point and I if my opinion is the only thing preventing a close then I ask the closer to reconsider my opinion as an "Include." [[User:DocumentError| DocumentError]] ([[User talk:DocumentError|talk]]) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' - They aren't really white supremacists. They rather simply opposed [[racial integration]], therefore I oppose.. |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More perhaps on its origins from Liberals, the Dominion Party, and of Ian Smith who split from the latter forming the Reform Party, later remerging with the Dominion Party to form the Rhodesian Front (led by former Dominon Party leader, Winston Field, soon to be ousted by Smith).
I see a WikiProject: Fascism tag has been added to this page. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism asking for explanation, since there's no obvious connection. If no explanation is forthcoming, I'll remove the tag.Humansdorpie 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the list of party principles removed without explanation; the principles of the party (i.e. what it stood for) are surely an important part of the article? 82.108.5.59 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what these 15 principles are. If they can not be put in the article, could we have a link to them? 66.201.56.88 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The party changed its name in 1981 - it was not dissolved.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
|
Should "White supremacy" be included in the "Ideology" list of the Infobox? --T*U (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After having been reverted several times in spite of adding gradually more sources in support of the addition, I feel the need to get input from more editors. --T*U (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rhodesian Front was not white supremacist,
calling them "White Supremacists" is misleadingand similar statements. Wikipedia does, however, not base its content on the opinion of editors. but on reliable sources, and there seems to be no lack of sources that describe the party as "White Supremacist". Here are but a few:[1][2][3][4][5]
References