Talk:Rhodie

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

message: 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)
thread_title: note to User 150.204.218.17

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serious unresolved differeinces 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Roy Bennett

message: Surely it is original research, which Wikipedia prohibits, to call some of these people "Rhodies"?--Counter-revolutionary 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Vermeulen, just a thought, I may be wrong. --Counter-revolutionary 08:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Original Research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA not promoted

message: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Bennett300.jpg

message: The term Rhodie is also used to refer to people in the State of Rhode Island, USA.
No.
 TheChadeditor (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhode Island