Talk:Rhodesian Brushstroke

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rhodesian Brushstroke. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sadf.sentinelprojects.com/bg2/tickey.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deltagearinc.com/library/camouflage-facts.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Use by private individuals and groups

I do not believe it is notable to include the use of this camouflage pattern by private actors, including individuals and informal groups with all the notability of a local garage band. In accordance with proper summarization style, the relevant section on this article should only include the use of this pattern by major political-military factions and national governments. Katangais (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Atomwaffen Division is an international terrorist organisation, which is indeed a major violent non-state actor no less notable than the ZIPRA or FAPLA (actually even more well-known among our readers due to its international character). And for the readers of this discussion who didn't see the paragraph removed, there was a reliable source. Ain92 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. I question the implication a fringe group like the “Atomwaffen Division” is more well known among our international readers. I grew up in Southeast Asia and have lived in the United States for the past decade, and have once never heard of it. ZIPRA had 20,000 members at its peak, a military presence in three countries (external training camps in Angola and Zambia, plus Rhodesia/Zimbabwe), and formal diplomatic representation through ZANU in at least eight countries, including the UK, Soviet Union, Tanzania, Cuba, and several Warsaw Pact member states. Ditto for FAPLA and the MPLA. The “Atomwaffen Division” has an estimated 80 members in its country of origin - a nation of 300 million people - and has committed maybe a dozen hate crimes. It absolutely lacks the notability of the other non-state actors described in the text. --Katangais (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't dispute that MPLA is better known than anything of the three organizations mentioned by me, but unless you provide a source that the camo was ever used by them, it's fully irrelevant to the discussion. Google Trends demonstrate well that in the US, where the group formed in 2013 and where you live (as well as in Canada and in Europe, where the group is also active), the Internet users' interest to AD is much, much higher then to ZIPRA or FAPLA. If you look up pageviews to English Wikipedia, split by country and combine US, UK, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands (all countries overwhelmingly interested in the AD), they would make 58.1% of all en-WP readers. As for the notability, it is not correlated to the absolute numbers of members or victims but may only be measured by the coverage in reliable sources, which is much better for the Western organizations (obviously I don't claim that ZIPRA and FAPLA are not notable). Ain92 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand the first part of this response. The FAPLA/MPLA use of Rhodesian Brushstroke is properly cited in the article. I disagree that notability in this case should be measured by media coverage, rather than coverage in academic sources or the actual size and impact of said organization. But since it’s not something I’m not the absolute authority on, I’m going to request a third party weigh in. --Katangais (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• MPLA use is actually not cited at all. Ain92 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion would appear to relate to this edit under the section of non-state users and would say:

Along with Flecktarn, Rhodesian Bushstroke camo is popular among white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups (e. g., Atomwaffen).

The source cited would say:

In other cases, users called out the use of camouflage popular within mainstream gun culture for their association with white supremacy, such as Rhodesian Brushstroke or Flecktarn, a pattern popular with neo-Nazi groups like Atomwaffen (as well as several national militaries).

Reading the original source, it is saying Flecktarn is a pattern popular with neo-Nazi groups like Atomwaffen. The proposed edit is actually misrepresenting the source when it would say that Rhodesian Bushstroke camo is popular with Atomwaffen. The quoted text is also the only reference to uniforms in what is a much larger article - a passing comment. Inclusion of the text falls to WP:VNOT: ... not all verifiable information must be included. (see also WP:NOTEVERYTHING) Such a vague passing comment hardly meets WP:DUE, particularly when the source is not being accurately represented. Now, subject to WP:VER, if this were the official field uniform of the KKK (and not just rednecks dressing up in cams), that would be another thing.

That insurgent forces dress in what they can lay their hands on isn't particularly notable nor is using false uniforms as a ruse surprising. But I can live with that passage. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, Cinderella, I'd read the cited source to say that both patterns are popular with white supremacist militias and it's just poorly worded. The popularity of Rhodesian imagery with white supremacists is not exactly a secret (see for instance this NYT article, CSM, the Calgary Herald, hell, they talk about it on arfcom). I wouldn't say it's UNDUE to mention it here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The broad popularity of Rhodesian imagery among modern hate groups in Western countries would merit a mention on broad articles about Rhodesia or the state’s political legacy. What we are doing here is questioning whether the popularity of this particular aspect of Rhodesian imagery among notable examples of such organizations is well-researched and cited enough to merit a mention on this particular article. --Katangais (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, my point is that Rhodesian brushstroke is one of the primary elements of Rhodesian imagery (along with the flag and the FAL) that is popular with white supremacists. It is entirely DUE to mention it here; and it isn't exactly an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is while there are plenty of sources indicating that some Rhodesian imagery is generally popular among some Western white supremacist and ethnic nationalist groups, there are very few sources indicating that this particular camouflage uniform is - and even fewer linking the uniform specifically to widespread (ie notable) use by a single (again, notable) organization. You may consider this is a given, but without the sources to back it up that kind of extrapolation is original research. Furthermore, I don't consider the use of a camouflage pattern by individual members of the public - whether for political purposes, airsoft, cosplay, hunting, reenacting/LARPing, etc to be notable for a mention in any article. For example, MARPAT is used by many private individuals and groups in the US, including individual members of controversial right-wing movements, but nobody has disputed that it would be inappropriate to include that in the article. --Katangais (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The difference between this and MARPAT is it's not simply a camouflage pattern that happens to used by white supremacists and has no intrinsic racist connotations. The Rhodie bros use this stuff because it does have intrinsic racist connotations. The use of Rhodesian imagery by white supremacists in the US (and elsewhere) specifically because of its racist connotations goes back to the days of Rhodesia itself. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

My original comment goes to the particular source which is, at best, ambiguous. I'm not saying it is an exceptional claim but it does need a credible source. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The source in question is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue; I see no reason to doubt its credibility. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Journalists don't usually name the camouflage pattern itself but here are two other sources I found: https://ricochet.media/en/2394/meet-the-canadian-soldiers-behind-a-white-supremacist-military-surplus-store https://unicornriot.ninja/2020/patriotwaves-boogaloo-engineering-an-aesthetic-of-violence Ain92 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)