User talk:Edit1k

Rhodesian Ridgeback
"We need to represent facts right the palce of origin is now called Zimbabwe. It was once called Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in 1979, Republic of Rhodesia 1970 to 1979 and since the UDI 1965 Rhodesia before it was the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland ( Zimabwe been refered to as Southern Rhodesia) since 1923. Just because the dog is commonly refered to as Rhodesia ridgeback does not mean it originate in the times of Rhodesia but just a Western name to simplify the breeding processes and its acceptability to those communities to be honest it must be called its native name if it is an African dog. The same with all other dogs just beacuse a club recognize it as such does not me thats that remember these times people where undermining native cultures. If you really intend to use names that where used in the 1922s then you should establish consistence and do the same for South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bulawayo and Plumtree all those names are recent names including Rhodesia."


 * We both know the history of Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, or whatever anybody wants to call it. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the article on a dog which, despite the change in the country's name, is still called a Rhodesian Ridgeback. The name "Rhodesia" is used in the article for historical context. Whether we like it or not that was the country's name at that time. It is made perfectly clear throughout the article that the present-day name is Zimbabwe. There is no need to make it any clearer. Thanks. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is the Historical referal does not refer to the names according to the times then it was a province called Southern Rhodesia not Rhodesia so why not refer to it as such why Rhodesia which came to be used since 1965.


 * "Rhodesia" was used colloquially, but the official name was "Southern Rhodesia". Either is accurate. "Zimbabwe", even though it is the present-day name, is not, I'm afraid. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 16:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

well the way it is used in the article and the changes been continuously made refer to Rhodesia official not as you point out, anywhere whats wrong with using Southern Rhodesia which is the name then not Rhodesia since this article is based on facts

Eh, I give up.
Do what you like. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * do not blame yourself or me it is the facts. just because ZAPU hard majority support from Ndebele does not mean in Zambia that was the representation of ZIPRA. The page 34 from the 'Mining and Structural Adjustment: Studies on Zimbabwe and Tanzania' is talking about the political parties not the freedom fighters and no mention of 80% nor 20%. what you might reason does not mean it is the facts. the truth shall set you free :)


 * I wasn't referring to ZANU or ZAPU, but thanks for that anyway. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 12:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)