Talk:Rhodesian Front
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
Supported by WikiProject Rhodesia | ||
|
To-do list for Zimbabwe:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
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).
[edit] Fascism tag?
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)
[edit] Founding principles
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
