Talk:White Zimbabweans

White Zimbabweans

The current name of the state does not change the fact that if the white population of the former country of Rhodesia identifies as Rhodesians, it's not wikipedias place to change that. Unless the majority of Rhodesians identify as Zimbabweans, the title should be Rhodesians Kepsalom (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It is what they are called by reliable secondary sources that matters. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess it's so blindingly obvious that they should be called Rhodesians or white Rhodesians the historical name of the country and the focus of the article is on Rhodesians every link to this article is labelled Rhodesian it's a lazy change that just confuses and hides the history of these people. White Zimbabweans would by definition include non Rhodesian whites living in Zimbabwe. It's a politically motivated change that's confusing and makes it difficult to understand what the subject matter is actually referring to. 2A00:23EE:1300:6A3F:4958:4B22:7FC8:7C59 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/assets/icbh-witness/rhodesia2.pdf

https://rhodesians-worldwide.com/about-us/

Its not the Rhodesian Ridgeback Dog anymore its the "White Zimbabwean ridge back"

There are 164 sources attached to this article the majority of them use Rhodesian the only ones that use White Zimbabwean refer to whites that live in Zimbabwe right now at a minimum there should be 2 articles. one for White Zimbabweans and one for the historical and existing ethnic group known as Rhodesians.

I'm a Rhodesian; I'm definitely not a Zimbabwean, insisted Robin Ross, a farm machinery salesman.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/15/world/to-white-exiles-there-ll-always-be-a-rhodesia.html

Rhodesians Reflect on the Elections of 1979 and 1980

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17532523.2017.1357323 176.250.84.93 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

looking forward to the renaming of the Prussians article to White Germans. 176.250.84.93 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No reliable sources have been provided to suggest the majority of white Zimbabweans currently self-identify as Rhodesians. This is an especially bold claim to make, considering that "Rhodesia" hasn't existed in over forty years. Outdated sources from the 1980s and the opinions of a few very elderly people who can remember the Rhodesian era well are not sufficient to support that claim. --Katangais (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Total Population

Neither the 2023 number of 55,000 (which was 50,000 a week ago also) or the 2023 number in the historical population column have any sources, where does this number come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.218.10.149 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Figures varying from 100,000 to 200,000 for the number of white Zimbabweans in the UK have been circulating on this article for a long time. Lately, figures varying from 30,000 to 55,000 have been circulated for the number of white Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe. This information is usually added with no sources, unreliable sources like blogs, or bogus sources that don't reflect these claims at all (particularly in the case of the UK figures). It's almost always original research or perhaps even deliberate misinformation to conflate the real numbers. --Katangais (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Copied from another talk page

You have repeatedly added the unsourced figure of 55,000 white Zimbabweans residing in Zimbabwe to the White Zimbabweans article. This is not backed up by the footnotes provided, one of which cites a ~30,000 figure and the other of which is the 2012 Zimbabwean census which cites a similar number of 28,000. In the past, you have mentioned a 2024 Zimbabwe Population Survey by NANGO as the source for your revised figure. Please link this survey directly in the article as a footnote so the number has a verifiable source. Without it, the figure is unreferenced and frankly quite dubious, as it implies the white population of Zim almost doubled between 2012 and 2024. Katangais (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you been to Zimbabwe? We are barely able to upload anything and are still a paper dominant society. All references are hard copies in physical paper form which is kind of hard to upload. The population didn't double because the figures from 2012 were never correct and intentionally underrepresented our population in an attempt to minimise and further fuel illegitimacy of my people. Any census statistics collected from 2000-2017 by the Zimbabwean government must be viewed with the knowledge there is a high chance they are incorrect or manipulated. Please do not insult my ability or right to put the record straight on my culture unless you too belong to the White Zimbabwean/Rhodesian community within Zimbabwe. Unless you are, I reserve the right to continue to correct the errors. Good day. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see you’re citing research conducted by telephone interviews. Have your findings been published in an academic journal, or perhaps a book or newspaper? --Katangais (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Telephone and door-to-door in person interactions were the most common methods of conducting research. The findings to my best knowledge are not in any academic journals, it is been acknowledged in media with stories on TV of farming increasing in productivity. Many of the farmers who went to Mozambique are back and so to are some from Zambia too. Quite a few farmers still active have moved back if they have children. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have a standing policy here which prohibits the use of sources such as telephone calls and door to door interviews, unless the results are published either in print or online by reputable third party. The dilemma is that if your findings are unpublished, they cannot be cited as a source. --Katangais (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the people's encyclopaedia sir. Everyone who has value to add knowledge that simply isn't available in most circles has the right to add that and this is exactly how encyclopaedias were built when in print edition. You're acting as though you own the platform and I for one will not be talked down to by an autocratic voice. You should stick to your subjects of interest and knowledge while I will stick to mine. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic and assuming good faith, but you cannot continue to add information to the article without any other source other than your word that you conducted phone and door to door interviews. Where is the proof? Healthy skepticism cannot be equated with autocracy.

In any case, I'm aware that I'm only one voice, so perhaps we should have a third party weigh in. If you feel that I'm being autocratic or prejudiced on this topic, would you be willing to continue this discussion on the Wikipedia page for editing disputes? I'll open a topic there and an administrator or somebody else can offer their input on this dilemma. --Katangais (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer questions in regard to my knowledge of my own people and any research undertaken. I have included a recent article from a reputable UK-based newspaper on the resurgence of white Zimbabweans and while it doesn't contain an exact figure, it does go toward the point.

Perhaps we should declare who were are and what specialties of knowledge are ours. I don't know you or what interest you have in this very specialised topic but it clearly has your interest. It feels to me like you have an entitlement complex toward to page specifically and I cannot figure out what rationale is behind that. Jamessumnergoodwin (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion that was on the user talk page here, in case other editors comment: Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Jamessumnergoodwin