Talk:Rhodesian Front

message: 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)
thread_title: Fascism tag?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Founding principles

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Background

message: The RfC above was closed with a clear consensus:  This was implemented 16 May. One month later, two editors again edit to remove it, using edit summaries like . 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  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)
replies: text: Why then it had a lot of Black members? --95.24.66.180 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: hi. Do you have a source where we can read that? Babakathy (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  White supremacism