Contents

Talk:Rhodesian Front

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Zimbabwe: Rhodesia Start‑class High‑importance Rhodesian Front is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance). WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks: edit history watch purge Zimbabwe-related tasks You can help! Here are some Zimbabwe related tasks you can do: Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more... Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs Category sorting: VerifyorFactual Accuracy: Update: NPOV : Citations: Copyedit, StyleorCleanup: Expand: Related Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project view • edit • discuss • history • watch Africa Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics: Political parties Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance). British Empire Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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]

Keep them in list form, simply because it is easier to read. Why should we tax people's eyes? Putting them together turns them into a mush. michael ^talk 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of Wikipedia policy. In this case guidelines say to use sentences rather than to present information in bullet form. Perspicacite 05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a damn about policy. Does bullet form make it easier to read? Yes. So it should be in bullet form. Common sense should override policy at every single oppourtunity. michael ^talk 05:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, consensus overrides the "ignore all rules" policy. Such passion would be better spent referencing this content and expanding the article. This disagreement is of little importance. Perspicacite 05:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you lack a consensus, and you had no consensual mandate for change, so wouldn't IAR win, then? And, like you said, there are better things to argue over. Time to go purchase Rhodesians Never Die and actually improve articles rather than fiddling with them. michael ^talk 05:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for broad policy does not need to be certified every time the issue comes up. This has already been settled on other pages and is policy for all pages. Perspicacite 06:15, 22 May 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]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should "White supremacy" be included in the "Ideology" list of the Infobox? --T*U (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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]

Survey

• Include: The reasons given for removal has been The Rhodesian Front was not white supremacist, calling them "White Supremacists" is misleading and 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]}

--T*U (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include per the above _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per the given sources, which seem to demonstrate academic consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per the above Babakathy (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. ^[6][7][8] 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." DocumentError (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - They aren't really white supremacists. They rather simply opposed racial integration, therefore I oppose. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include per sources of TU-nor. Behindthekeys (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RfC above was closed with a clear consensus: The consensus is that "White supremacy" should be included in the "Ideology" list of the infobox based on how reliable sources have described the political party. This was implemented 16 May. One month later, two editors again edit to remove it, using edit summaries like the Rhodesian Front is not a white supremacist party. In a last version, they accept including "White interests", which hardly can be described as an ideology.

The outcome of the RfC was clear. I have explained WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUStoNeddyfram in their talk page and given them the chance to self revert, but they have not been active for more than a week after their last revert. Now it is time to implement the consensus again. --T*U (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

There obviously is no consensus above, per the Weak Oppose and Oppose sections. I propose we replace "White Supremacy" with "White Interests" 2001:56A:FA44:C100:B4A7:9202:3268:8A89 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion source on the talk page on the article for Ian Smith (the party's leader) said that Mr. Smith (Of which the Rhodesian Front was largely his party) was not a white supremacist ^[1]. Therefore, on this article, the party (Rhodesian Front) should not be listed as White Supremacist or Far-Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graysonrpollard (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on what published third-party reliable sources have to say on a subject, and not on the opinions of contributors discussing something else on a talk page for another article. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]