Talk:Rhodesian Front: Difference between revisions
→Dissolved: new section |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
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? [[Special:Contributions/66.201.56.88|66.201.56.88]] ([[User talk:66.201.56.88|talk]]) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
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? [[Special:Contributions/66.201.56.88|66.201.56.88]] ([[User talk:66.201.56.88|talk]]) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Dissolved == |
|||
The party changed its name in 1981 - it was not dissolved.[[User:Royalcourtier|Royalcourtier]] ([[User talk:Royalcourtier|talk]]) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:10, 16 November 2017
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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).
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)
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)
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)
Dissolved
The party changed its name in 1981 - it was not dissolved.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Start-Class Zimbabwe articles
- High-importance Zimbabwe articles
- Start-Class Rhodesia articles
- Top-importance Rhodesia articles
- Rhodesia task force articles
- WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
- Start-Class Africa articles
- Unknown-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- Start-Class political party articles
- High-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Unassessed British Empire articles
- Unknown-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages