Talk:Rhodesian Front

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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).

Fascism tag?[edit]

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]

Founding principles[edit]

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 founding principles state explicitly that the Rhodesian Front was a white supremacist party. While this was not contentious at the time, the references to furthering domination of the European race in Rhodesia at the expense of Native races is making some contributors nervous. MTM-2k (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved[edit]

The party changed its name in 1981 - it was not dissolved.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about "Ideology" list in Infobox[edit]

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.

Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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]

References

  1. ^ Leaver, John David (2006). "Multiracialism and nationalisms: A political retrospective on 1950s Southern Rhodesia ('Colonial Zimbabwe')". Journal of Third World Studies. 23 (2): 167–188. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  2. ^ Donal Lowry (2009). "The impact of anti-communism on white Rhodesian political culture, c.1920s-1980". In Onslow, Sue (ed.). Cold War in Southern Africa: White Power, Black Liberation. New York: Routledge. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-415-47420-7. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
  3. ^ Cilliers, Jakkie (April 17, 2015). Counter-Insurgency in Rhodesia (e-Book 1st ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315713854. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
  4. ^ Loney, Martin (1975). Penguin (ed.). Rhodesia, white racism and imperial response.
  5. ^ Meredith, Martin (2014). Simon and Schuster (ed.). Fortunes of Africa: A 5,000 Year History of Wealth, Greed and Endeavour.
  6. ^ 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
  7. ^ 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
  8. ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/zimbabwe/1966-04-01/rhodesia-context-southern-africa
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.

White supremacism[edit]

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:CONSENSUS to Neddyfram 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]

The Rhodesian Front was a self proclaimed white supremacist organisation, this view was unambiguously espoused within rank and file of the party and existed in the Rhodesian Front's own Principles and Policies (1962) manifesto. Why is this being contested? MTM-2k (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MTM-2k: Why then it had a lot of Black members? --95.24.66.180 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi. Do you have a source where we can read that? Babakathy (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesian_Front&oldid=1196058523"