Talk:Denis Walker

Untitled
Denis Walker is still running the Rhodesian Christian Group, with Father Lewis. 81.136.138.184 14:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Honourable
W D Walker is an Hon., please use my TALK pages if you require further proof. Do not edit this without agreement again, I don't want an editing war. (Couter-revolutionary 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC))


 * I believe that is questionable. Commonwealth practice varied, with some countries granting 'the honourable' to Ministers in perpetuity, and some only while they held office. Even if the Rhodesian practice was to have the title for life, then whether or not it currently applies would also depend on the present government of Zimbabwe deciding to continue - and I somehow doubt that they would be willing to do that. David | Talk 15:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He is an Honourable, I know this for certain, and it will be recorded somewhere, but where? (Couter-revolutionary 16:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC))


 * As it happens I do now know the answer. The normal situation in Rhodesia was that Ministers had the title "the Honourable" while in office, but not out of it. However, they could make a request, on leaving office, to retain the title for life. Such a request was, it seems, invariably granted. A notice to the effect was placed in the Rhodesia Government Gazette. However the request was only likely to be made if the Minister concerned knew he would not be returning to government, and following the return of administration of Southern Rhodesia to the UK in December 1979 no more requests were made. As I had guessed, the Zimbabwe government never entertained the prospect of granting such a title of honour to members of previous white governments.


 * I have checked through every issue of the Southern Rhodesia Government Gazette (1962-65), the Rhodesia Government Gazette (1965-1979), the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Government Gazette (1979), the Southern Rhodesia Government Gazette (1979-80) and the Zimbabwe Government Gazette (1980-85, where I stopped) and have found no such request from W. Denis Walker (I was looking for other things, but kept an eye out for this). As he was still a Deputy Minister when the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government handed back control in 1979, he would not really have had the opportunity.


 * It is possible (though unlikely) that a general proclamation was made allowing all to retain the use of the title. If so, then there would no doubt be a reference to this effect somewhere, waiting to be found. I have yet to find it, however. David | Talk 10:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I happen to know W D Walker to some extent and he refers to himself as the Hon. He is not the sort to do this unless it were official. (Couter-revolutionary 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC))


 * If you could mention this to him then perhaps we could clear it up definitively. David | Talk 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to call yourself, 'couNter-revolutionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.104.19 (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you'll note I now am Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)!

"prophetic" quote, bias
read very carefully what BRD is, and is not, jon c. you could have started discussing as well instead of reverting again. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. and: If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.

the article is written from a pov sympathetic to it's subject. for example, the repeated characterization walkers as "anti communist" is an euphemism for more accurate ones. i think about flagging the article "not neutral". we must not allow bias being accepted in articles which draw less interest.

at the very least the characterization of the quote in question which is inadequately emphasized anyway is inappropriate. even if the prediction was true (it contains appraisals which are subjective), calling it "prophetic" is definitely unencyclopedic and pov.--Severino (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Anti-communist is not a euphemism for anything; he is one. What are the descriptions you consider more accurate? 'Robust' is arguably pov, though I have seen 'strong' used for various positions in Wikipedia without complaint, and 'robust' is about the same thing. 2.28.140.30 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denis Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021145443/http://www.europeanfoundation.org/personnel.html to http://www.europeanfoundation.org/personnel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Respect
I would ask people to be respectful of Mr Walkers passing and his family's grief.. Footnote.mark (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Has something in particular been problematic? Babakathy (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

POV deletions
This article is about a man who was a Rhodesian politician. It makes no sense to leave out or delete his record as a minister - the racially segregated nature of Rhodesian public education was the key feature of the system - we'd hardly accept removing reference to Covid from an article on Hancock as health minister. (Reverted edit also deleted a brief reference to his deputy minister position).

If the subject's time at the Monday Club is notable, and his dinner with the El Salvador president at the club is notable, so is his and the club's engagement with Treurnicht. The article is by a named reporter in a newspaper that is widely respected in South Africa.

If the subject's involvement with the Good Hope Christian Group is notable, and the group's charitable work is notable, so is who they chose to lobby for.

To maintain bland or generally positive references to the ministry a man headed, and the groups he was a leader of, while leaving out aspects of the work of that ministry and those groups that are more controversial creates bias. If the article is to mention the ministry and the groups, it should state relevant facts about them. Babakathy (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect in stating that the racially segregated nature of Rhodesian public education was "the" key feature of the system in relation Mr Walker's role as Minister for Education as this was not setup by Mr Walker and is not fundamental to his biography. I could also source that the Rhodesia had the best literacy rate for blacks and whites in Africa at the time however I do not think it is necessary to further describe the education system given he was only head of it for a year and all credit cannot be given to him. You Riff982 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the segregated nature of the education system was not set up by Walker, but it was one of the best known things about it, especially as that started to change under his successors in the next cabinet. I've looked extensively for any changes during his tenure - I would expect a number of schools would have been built for example, or there may have been an improvement in literacy during his tenure. Either of these would be worth mentioning. However I haven't found any sources to cite on that.Babakathy (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I went to school in Rhodesia in the 1970s and 1980s and it wasn't segregated. Sure there were areas and schools that were predominately white and predominately black however it wasn't a racially segregated policy as it was in South Africa . The education system in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was the best in Africa and indeed why all educated in this period had such a high level of education cf. other African nations.
 * Denis Walker went to South Africa as a Methodist missionary and worked in Soweto - so by inference to suggest he was a racist and presided over a racially segregated system is factually and wholly incorrect.
 * The article you refer to was fabricated and was put out by a well known left wing paper for propaganda purposes against a conservative organisation.
 * The group you refer to a were pardoned by both Mugabe and Nelson Mandela - to reference this supporting evidence that the GHGC were somehow therefore involved in supporting killing people is wholly unacceptable given the christian work they did, your dead link 12 supporting The Rhodesia Christian Group was originally a pressure group supporting the Rhodesian government is false. Riff982 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is referenced info that shouldn’t be removed for partisan reasons. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that edits by The_C_of_E have resolved much of the debated text, so I see no need to debate issues on those further. What remains is the half sentence characterising the public educational system that Walker was minister. As I have said above, saying something about the department a politician was minister of is relevant, and one of the most notable aspects was its segregated nature. As we have discussed above, that was the nature of the system Walker inherited, and as Atkinson explains in the referenced article which we agreed was a valid source, changing this was begun by his successors in Zimbabwe Rhodesian government, so that from 1979 many children, especially in the towns began attending unsegregated schools. I did think more on his role as minister is worth having, as his cabinet position is the main thing that makes Walker notable. I have looked, for example for number of new schools opened, or wartime emergency provisions or something similar, but so far had no luck. Babakathy (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with in that it was cited to an RS and was what he presided over as he inherited it, even if it was only briefly. I'm afraid that WP:IKNOWIT doesn't hold as much sway unless you can provided a reliable 3rd party source to back it up. In the meantime, the cited information should be retained given there aren't many sources around about Walker himself.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 13:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have located a source for his (short) term at Internal Affairs. Babakathy (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing reliable about the source you provided. "CHANGING THE SCHOOL STRUCTURE: THE EXPERIENCE OF ZIMBABWE RHODESIA N. D. ATKINSON". Riff982 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The schools were not segregated. This source is attempting to rewrite history. Riff982 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is contemporaneous: not only he was there, he published it at the time, not years later. If you have a reliable source that contradicts Atkinson, please add it. Otherwise, do not delete properly sourced text just because you disagree. Babakathy (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is an article in a peer-reviewed journal, by Norman Atkinson, who was a professor of education at University of Rhodesia (and of ZR and of Zimbabwe) from 1971 until the mid 1980s. He's written extensively on the topic, including also this paper for example. In your edit summary of this edit you said it was a valid source. Babakathy (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the quote describing the system as "racially segregated". In the journal quoted, the terms "racial divisions", "racial integration", "non-racial lines" has been inserted surrounded by what can otherwise be described as unintelligible obfuscated jargon. This supposed racial segregation cannot be proved in this source and it simply suggests that finances were distributed by the government to white areas without any clear explanation. Different areas in Rhodesia had different ethnic make ups and hence different schools had predominantly white, black or asian pupils. It would not be correct to describe the system as "racially segregated". Riff982 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not even explicitly mentioned in the source that the system was "segregated" as in different ethnic groups could not attend certain schools or ethnic groups were separated from one another. Riff982 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)