Talk:Rhodie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Rhodie 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Zimbabwe:
Rhodie was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 15, 2007

I added the proposed deletion tag per Wikipedia Official Policy:

  • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge

The only other place online that I could find 'Rhodie' was http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rhodie which allows any user to freely define slang terms.

This appears to be an arbitrary definition. It is not on dictionary.com, nor on www.m-w.com, Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

There are no sources, and the page has nothing linking to it.

Verloren Hoop 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Object The term "Rhodie" is widely used and there are numerous references to it in newspapers and books. I have added one such reference to the article and will add a few more when I have a chance. I have also added Rhodie to the category "English phrases". Bob BScar23625 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) I'd like to know where you found it, since I couldn't. Verloren Hoop 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Verloren. The term "Rhodie" is mainly used in Commonwealth countries, where familiarity with the UDI era in Rhodesia is greater than in the US. If you go to the website of most quality British newspapers and key in a search on the word Rhodie, it will throw up at least a dozen references. I will remove the proposed delete tag from the article. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 06:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] note to User 150.204.218.17

You have placed a tab on the article indicating a lack of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia. I count 5 such links - Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, Whites in Zimbabwe, UDI and Ian Smith. Surely that is sufficient for such a short article?. Unless you object, I will remove your tab after 24 hours. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ps : looking at the article again, I can see another 3 links - colloquial, Cape Town and South African; for sure, that is 8 in total which is plenty; I have removed your tab BScar23625 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is for articles that have internal links to this one. If you check here [1], you'll see that only the article creator's user page links here. Nothing in the actual encyclopedia. The wording in the template is perhaps a little ambiguous, but that is what the template is for.

Nice work on articles about Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, by the way. I find it fascinating that such a place existed. Bnynms 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand and have added links from Rhodesia and Whites in Zimbabwe. Rhodies is a fascinating subject in its own right. You might have got me started. regards. Bob BScar23625 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

I removed it, for a number of reasons. It gives a slanted view of the situation "Ian Smith's killing machine" and unjustifiably seems to designate all ex-"Rhodies" dependant on "extreme religion, alcohol [or] purple pills". We all know where the Guardian sits on the political fence (ironically, the Guardian is the name of the newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia) Bob, I really must know: what was your involvement in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe? michael talk 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael. I am British national, age 54. I paid a number of working visits to Zimbabwe in the immediate post-independence period and have made recreational visits more recently. You can find my biographical details plus some family photographs in my entry on the British edition of FriendsReunited.FR. You should look up my entry under the name Bob Scarlett. If you e-mail me, then I will be pleased to send you a copy of my current cv. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 09:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ps I will get back to you on this matter of the Rhodies soon.

You have a beautiful family. michael talk 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael

Those whites who chose to stay in Zimbabwe after independence tended to fall into two categories : (1) those at the top of the heap, who had capital and/or professional skills that enabled them to survive regardless of who ran the show, and (2) those at the bottom of the heap who had nothing that the Australian immigration service wanted and therefore could not leave. In the pre-independence era there were a variety of formal and informal support mechanisms that enabled a white person to enjoy a good standard of living regardless of how useless they were. And a lot of whites depended on these mechanisms, some of which survived well into the 1990s.

Many of those in category (2) became Rhodies. I remember some woman in the early 1980s saying something along the lines of “I hope to wake up one morning and find that all this independence business was just a nightmare, and life is suddenly normal again”. An awful lot of Rhodies sought solace in booze and pills. I guess some Rhodies are decent enough people, but there is always that element of wanting to get back to a lost past.

Given what you know about my background and my contributions to Wikipedia, do you believe that I am a communist?. Bob BScar23625 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The communist bit was a poor joke on my part, not an absurd belief that you would be a communist! (Now that I look at it, it is was in bad taste.) Regards the Rhodies, I was (through the literature I have read) under the impression that it was a term for all ex-Rhodesians, not just a poor, socially-maligned bunch, and therefore saw it as somewhat as a slur on all of them. Perhaps the article can be clarified to make this more obvious; the explanation you gave me above explains a lot, and would go well in the article itself. michael talk 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A conflicting diff

It would be great if anybody involved in this article could take a look at diff and separate the wheat and chaff. It has some good content, and a lot of POV. --Auto(talk / contribs) 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

68.230.2.152(Counter-revolutionary?). You write "Rhodie is usually considered derogatory word of contempt" for Rhodesians. That is not always so. As indicated in the article, some people use the term affectionately. You refer to the term being used by "..anti-white racialists..". My own impression is that the term is most commonly used by some whites to refer to other whites.* So, there is nothing specifically racist about it. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BScar23625 00:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Counter-revolutionary??? Funny. I might take it. I wrote "Rhodie is usually considered derogatory word of contempt". You wrote that some people use the ter affectionately. I must reply that you should focus on my word "usually". That is the operative word here. This both continues the word as a term of derision while keeping in mind that not all view the term in the same manner. I've attempted to seal that objective by noting in later paragraph that Rhodesians have for the most part attempted to coopt the term as one of endearment or even a badge of honor in a manner to how similar negative anti-white racist words are coopted by other white primarily British nationalities.

Additionally, it should be noted that a term of pregnant with either positive, nuetral, or negative imagery is not the sole provence of any one group in utilizing it as an effective polemical term. Thus, whites can use terms full of negative connotations for white groups in the same manner as non-whites. Going back to the term nigger, it can still be used in a negative manner by blacks toward other blacks. Paralelling the strategy of cooption attributed to Rhodesians who use the term Rhodie to describe one another, blacks and even races of all types use nigger in street slang in a manner which isn't negative. Nonetheless, the origination of the word since the development sociology is based on negative sterotypes. I would note however that the word nigger has origins which aren't based on negative sterotypes but only became one in the late 19th century. Is it possible the word Rhodie actually originated as a term of endearement before the middle 20th century as referenced? 68.230.2.152

Counter-revolutionary. The term may have been used earlier but was popularised after 1980. The long novel "Hold my Hand, I'm Dying"+ (written circa 1970) is set in Rhodesia in the 50s and 60s, and does not appear to contain one single use of the term Rhodie. As regards this "the term is used by the Mugabe dictatorship to whip up anti-white racist hysteria", perhaps that is putting things a little too strongly?. As regards your references to Zimbabwe being Matabele dominated, are you sure you have your facts right on that?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

+ Note : Written by John Gordon-Davis in 1967. A work of limited literary merit, but of historical interest.

It wasn't me I'm always signed in.--Counter-revolutionary 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary. We had this conversation earlier on Lord Richard Cecil. I believe that someone is impersonating you. It is a good quality impersonation that mimics your manner and style - but contains rubbish. Sorry. Bob BScar23625 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Really, how odd. Do send me an e-mail, which I now have, and let me know who the suspects are. --Counter-revolutionary 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Counter-Revolutionary, please rest assured that I am not trying to impersonate you. I believe Bob's conspiratorial mindset of a counter-revolutionary beneath every bed has gotten to the best of him:-) I believe the changes I made aside from some editing improvements are much more accurate than this current page which Bob has reverted too. Please also see my discussion on the Lord Cecil page for more.--anonymouse user at 68.230.2.152

[edit] Serious unresolved differeinces

BScar23625 and Counter-revolutionary

I believe there are some serious unresolved differences about this page. CR appears to lean toward the opinion that the entire page should be deleted. Bob wishes for the page to remain in it's current edition. I want it to revert to the previous edition.

For myself there are a number of issues including that the term is mostly bandied about in extreme leftist circles which is attributed from the fact that the term Rhodie is solely defined in an extremist dictionary devoted to anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-white, and multicult polemics. However, it is also true that the term does exist as a slang term with it's antonym found in the word Zimbo. Both are used exclusively for white settlers. This in turn proves the logic that the term Rhodesian was one applied to a white nation that no longer exists. Deduction follows hence for explaining the changes I made.

I also put in changes explaining in very general and short terms the formation of Rhodesia as a colonial settlement in Cecil Rhodes grand strategic scheme of "Britannia the superpower." This also provides the cultural backdrop for explaining the division of competing interests underlining the Rhodesian question. Paradoxically, Bob refuses to believe this should be discussed even though it would explain his anti-Rhodesian position of the term Rhodie.

These and other issues need to be discussed for us to come to a academic conclusion sufficient for keeping this page on Rhodie on wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me at American_Cavalier@yahoo.com

68.230.2.152. Are you sure that Zimbabwe is "...under the Matabele dominated dictatorship of Mugabe."?. This is just one of my concerns about your contribution. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ps : As you haven't responded to my questions after 48 hours, I have reverted your earlier changes. Perhaps you should raise any concerns you have on this discussion page before you make major changes in future?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think, like most terms, that the slang term "Rhodie" can serve the purpose of both degradation and of nostalgic reflection amongst those concerned. I think I am correct in saying this. As a term it is not offensive in and of itself, however, it has, as we have seen, been adopted by those wishing to cause offence.--Counter-revolutionary 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Bob, I referenced my email address (Lord Cecil) as the place to start discussions. I haven't seen any emails from you on this subject at all for the last week.

This is a shameful, degrading, insulting article which is completely biased. It should simply be a redirect to Rhodesia. michael talk 09:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But Michael, even Counter-revolutionary thinks it is OK. And they don't come any more right wing than Counter-revolutionary. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it can be used in an nostalgic-affectionate way, as well as in the derogatory sense; obviously I don't agree with the derogatory sense's content but, yes, I think the article is quite balanced - although I'm not sure where Wikipedia stands regarding colloquialisms--Counter-revolutionary 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
  • The fact remains that it was developed (oddly enough according to the Red dictionary reference) by British colonial officals as a derogatory slang word for Rhodesians who remained anchored in the pre-leftist oriented imperial policies of Rule Britannia. Thus, it is both an ethnic oriented term and one associated in the present ruling class mindset with pre-Communist era notions of colonialism. Consequently it is an ethnically derogatory term. However, it has been coopted in terms as a badge of honor by Rhodesians in a manner akin to other Britannic related groups coopting such initially derogatory terms as Yankee, Wasp, Cracker, Digger, [Rooniek]], Laddie, Tommy, etc. BTW, not only do I make Counter-Revolutionary look positively collaborationist, but I am possibly even to the right of Ghengis Khan. You should look to me as the standard of right-wing polemicists. And there is more of us....many more;-)

[edit] Roy Bennett

In fairness to the regime of Mad Bob, if someone were to assault the Minister of Justice / Attorney General on the floor of either the British or Australian Parliaments, then they would not just walk away from it. Regardless of any provocation. The case of Bernadette Devlin comes to mind, and people were much more tolerant of these thing in the 1970s then they are now. Bob BScar23625 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernadette Devlin shouldn't have been allowed into Parliament in the first place, even though she was elected - the dangers of democracy. The situation with Bennett was different; it was merely an excuse for that racist to get rid of another white MP. --Counter-revolutionary 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Both Bennett and Devlin were elected - and once you start talking about "the dangers of democracy" then you are on a slippery slope. As I have said earlier, I am sure that Zimbabwe is about to turn the corner. Bob BScar23625 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ol Bobby and Devlin. Got to look into that more I do. Maybe I won't. Dangers of Democracy? There is only one danger of democracy, that being it is the last step before tyranny. Zimbabwe about to turn the corner? Hopefully into the trashbin. Rhodesia reborn? Harare fomerly Salisbury maybe to be known as Phoenix-Salisbury? What will happen to all the black nations in Zimbabwe after that dictatorship collapses? If it took a mere 20 years of direct action to genocide Rhodesia, how long will it take to end Zimbabwean supremacy? BTW, I would love to go on a hunting safari to Zimbabwe. Any chances of hooking me up? Maybe good ol Coronet will help out a fellow soldier?

[edit] Original Research

Surely it is original research, which Wikipedia prohibits, to call some of these people "Rhodies"?--Counter-revolutionary 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Counter-revolutionary, but which people are you referring to?. Bob BScar23625 08:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Vermeulen, just a thought, I may be wrong. --Counter-revolutionary 08:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary. You have a point here. Perhaps Bennett and Vermeulen can be both be considered as possible Rhodies?. Bob BScar23625 10:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt they are possible Rhodies, but as this is a good article candidate I imagine they require terrific sources. --Counter-revolutionary 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary. Both chaps have interesting histories [cricinfo] but that is not conclusive of anything. I can only hope that the GA review isn't carried out by Perspicacite. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA not promoted

I feel this is a long way from GA status. Although typically I prefer to place articles on hold to allow them to be improved, I do not believe this material can meet the GA standard without a substantial rewrite. All of these refer to criteria at WP:WIAGA.

  • 1b. The lede is probably too short and does not provide an adequate overview of the topic. The article's layout need improvement. Currently, there are a large number of very short paragraphs that make the text appear choppy and disjointed. The embedded list can probably be integrated into prose.
  • 2a. Several paragraphs make claims or conclusions that would require citations, but lack them. This especially applies to the use of the term "throughout the English speaking world", its parallel to "redneck", and the entire brief paragraph concerning "Zimbo".
  • 2b. The quality of references is poor. In particular, the material regarding Vermeulen is sourced only to a blog. This is not acceptable referencing under WP:BLP.
  • 2c. The sources provided, combined with their low number and overall poor quality, raise questions about the article as a novel synthesis or original research. Claims that this term applies to a specific person require a reliable source using the term in connection with the person.
  • 3a. The coverage is not broad. Is there non-derogatory usage of this term (there is a mention of this, but without citation)? Commentary about this term by people stereotypically considered its subjects? Criticism of its use? Any further information about the original British military use of the term?
  • 3b. This article is not currently written in summary style.
  • 4. This article is not neutral. It uses weasel words and poorly sourced generalizations to convey a negative tone, and then applies it to living people without adequate citation.
  • 6. The images used are not appropriately licensed and lack fair use justifications. The first image, in particular, falsely claims to be in the public domain. The second image might be acceptable as non-replaceable depending on Bennett's current politicial situation, but it needs a better fair use rationale. The third image -- to the extent that Vermeulen should even be covered in this article based on current references -- is not accetpable as a replaceable fair use image of a living person.

It might be worth working with the editors of whites in Zimbabwe to improve this article or possibly to consider a merge if there is insufficient reliable material to support the standalone article. However, the serious concerns of sourcing, tone, original research, image selection, and possible BLP violations must be addressed first and foremost. Hopefully once these concerns can be addressed, a Good Article can emerge. Serpent's Choice 14:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Serpent's Choice. Bear in mind that we are talking about a "colloquial term". This is not going to produce a long article. But, thankyou for your time and consideration. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely understandable. Developing broad, neutral, properly-sourced articles for colloquialisms, especially pejorative phrases, is challenging. Length really isn't the biggest obstacle here to GA status (there are some very, very short GAs); the biggest problems are referencing (especially the BLP concern!), style, and image licensing/rationale. To its merits, though, this article is better than most of the rest in the category. Good luck with it. Serpent's Choice 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do Roy Bennett and Mark Vermeulen have to do with this article?

I have to say that I'm surprised this article was ever considered for "good article" status. Perhaps it was a good article at some point, but now it seems to be a hodgepodge of contradictory and meandering statements, especially the "Current usage of the term" section. That said, my specific concern is the inclusion of the two pictures of Roy Bennett and Mark Vermeulen, with no reference to them in the text or explanation of how they might be related to the article. (I hardly think that the rather obtuse reference to Bennett in footnote 4 justifies the inclusion of his picture based on that alone, or even that his action is somehow illustrative of what a Rhodie is.) Why are they there? --Craig (t|c) 08:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the images considering the apparent lack of objection to my point or arguments against it. --Craig (t|c) 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Craig. Bennett and Vermeulen are both capable of being described as Rhodies. Although, I am not saying that is a fair description of either of them. Please feel free to enhance the article's text if you feel it is presently inadequate. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 13:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for your response. Let me see if I have this straight. Someone (I haven't checked who) adds pictures of two people to an article, but doesn't add any text to explain how they are related to the article. Apparently one is supposed to infer why they are related. At best it could be considered a point of view that they are related to the article. Someone else (me) comes along, thinks this odd, posts a suggestion on the talk page that the pictures be removed unless someone can justify their inclusion. A week later, after no response from anyone for or against, the images are removed. The very next day someone (you) comes along and, ignoring the reference in the edit summary to the attempted discussion on the talk page, puts the images back. Then, only after being specifically invited to comment on their inclusion, you suggest that I add text justifying the inclusion of images that I think are not necessarily relevant to the article.
Can you explain how this logic makes sense? Thanks.
--Craig (t|c) 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I confess I am not familiar with the term 'Rhodie', but as it is described as "occasionally derogatory" I do think we should be careful of whose pictures are here. I don't know him, but I would not think that Roy Bennett "is nostalgic for the pre-independence era in Zimbabwe". Wizzy…☎ 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Andy. The term Rhodie "is typically applied to a white Zimbabwean ... who is nostalgic for the pre-independence era in Zimbabwe". Perhaps the context is given by the words "typically" and "applied". I am not calling Bennett a Rhodie, but others may have applied the term to him.(Newsnet) Bob BScar23625 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob, you're still missing the point -- one made by two people now. I don't necessarily object to the inclusion of the pictures of anyone in this article, just that there is nothing in the article to explain or justify their presence. Instead of making a half-arsed attempt at justifying the inclusion of Bennett's picture here on the talk page, at least have the courage to make that attempt in the article where it can then be expanded upon! But it is still, at best, an opinion that Bennett (or anyone else) is a Rhodie, unless you can reference a quote in which Bennett himself (as a white Zimbabwean) states, "I am 'nostalgic for the pre-independence era in Zimbabwe'", or simply states, "I am a Rhodie" -- or something reasonably similar. Unless you can come up with such a quote, it's simply your opinion that Bennett can be described as a Rhodie for the convenience of putting pictures in an article that simply doesn't need them. (And please, if you're going to quote sources, please pick something better than Newsnet which, according to its own "about us" page, is nothing more than a government mouthpiece: "Newsnet (Private) Limited is a subsidiary of Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings, a Government of Zimbabwe wholly-owned Company." Besides, the word "Rhodie" does not appear anywhere in the article that you claim "applied the term to him." The word "terrorist" does though; are you implying that Bennett is a terrorist? Are Rhodies also terrorists? Your logic is becoming more and more confusing.) --Craig (t|c) 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig. See reference to Bennett being described as an "unreformed Rhodie" herein :Sokwanele, 2004 Bob BScar23625 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob, you're beyond the pale! The full and exact quote is, "He is not - NOT - an unreformed 'Rhodie' as the Mugabe regime would like to paint him." But still, before this gets off track and we debate whether or not Bennett is a Rhodie (I have no opinion on the matter), that is not my point. Add your explanation (or justification) for the inclusion of the images to the article, for goodness sake, or consent to their removal. --Craig (t|c) 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig. I am not saying Roy is a Rhodie, the point being that some people have characterised him as such. Ditto Mark Vermeulen. Bob BScar23625 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob, I am not saying that you are saying that Bennett is a Rhodie. I am saying that you are insisting on illustrating an article with pictures, without offering an explanation to the reader. If you say that "some people" consider Bennett (or anyone else) a Rhodie, please add that information and provide the appropriate citations of those "some people". --Craig (t|c) 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig. The article (picture caption) now contains a statement that Roy has been described by his opponents as an "unreformed Rhodie", with a reference. As an aside, Roy's personal history includes a period with Rhodesian special forces and membership of CAZ. He has been linked (correctly or otherwise) with the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement. I think none the worse of him for any of these things - but that is neither here nor there. Bob BScar23625 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bob, appreciate the effort; it's a start. However, as I pointed out above, the full quote does not call Bennett an "unreformed Rhodie". It speculates that the mugabe regime "would like to paint him" as an "unreformed Rhodie". Now, if you can at least cite someone in the mugabe regime (although a more balanced source would obviously be more appropriate) instead of citing speculation or hearsay from third parties, that would certainly meet any reasonable criterion for attribution. Would you agree? Then there's still the inclusion of Vermeulen's picture to deal with. --Craig (t|c) 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bennett300.jpg

The image Image:Bennett300.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)