Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rhodesian mission in Lisbon: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:29, 11 September 2021 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,249 edits FAR needed: add← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:17, 14 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,692 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Article history
{{South African English}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=00:17, 25 August 2012 |action1date=00:17, 25 August 2012
Line 26: Line 25:
|action4oldid=524641794 |action4oldid=524641794


|action5 = FAR
|currentstatus=FA
|action5date = 2021-12-23
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Rhodesian mission in Lisbon/archive1
|action5result = demoted
|action5oldid = 1060060942
|currentstatus=FFA
|maindate=January 17, 2013 |maindate=January 17, 2013
|dykdate=7 August 2012 |dykdate=7 August 2012
Line 33: Line 37:
|otd2date=2018-09-21|otd2oldid=860575343 |otd2date=2018-09-21|otd2oldid=860575343
|otd3date=2020-09-21|otd3oldid=979603290 |otd3date=2020-09-21|otd3oldid=979603290
|action6 = WAR
|action6date = 02:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|action6link = Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhodesian mission in Lisbon
|action6result = not approved
|action6oldid = 1069313198
}} }}
{{South African English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Africa|class=FA|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|A-Class=pass|British=yes|African=yes|Cold-War=yes}} {{WikiProject Military history|A-Class=fail|British=yes|African=yes|Cold-War=yes|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|class=FA|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=yes|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject International relations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Portugal|class=FA|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Zimbabwe|class=FA|importance=mid|Rhodesia=yes|Rhodesia-importance=high}} {{WikiProject Portugal|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Zimbabwe|importance=mid|Rhodesia=yes|Rhodesia-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject British Empire|class=FA|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject British Empire|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|importance=low}}
}} }}


== Title, proper names and capitalisation == == Title, proper names and capitalisation ==


I seem to be developing a habit of querying articles that appear as TFAs .. anyway, I am not sure why the title and article text capitalise appointment. I am really not clear at all that this event is referred to or known as the "The Lisbon Appointment" or "The Reedman Appointment", let alone that it should be capitalised as a formal name like this, in both the title and article text. There may be shorthand, casual references to the appointment in sources, but this does not – or should not – create a proper name or quasi-official title known to history. Is this not, yet again, a WP invention? And if it's a bespoke descriptive title, as it appears to be, nor is it very clear, which ] requires such things to be. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I seem to be developing a habit of querying articles that appear as TFAs .. anyway, I am not sure why the title and article text capitalise appointment. I am really not clear at all that this event is referred to or known as the "The Lisbon Appointment" or "The Reedman Appointment", let alone that it should be capitalised as a formal name like this, in both the title and article text. There may be shorthand, casual references to the appointment in sources, but this does not – or should not – create a proper name or quasi-official title known to history. Is this not, yet again, a WP invention? And if it's a bespoke descriptive title, as it appears to be, nor is it very clear, which ] requires such things to be. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
:One of the main sources, Wood 2005 (see the bibliography) refers to it as the "Lisbon Appointment" (with capitalisations) in a chapter title, but apart from that I've seen no "quasi-official" name for the subject. I think the present title is adequate, but my all means don't hesitate to suggest alternatives for discussion (this goes for everybody). Hope you're well, and thanks for the input. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) :One of the main sources, Wood 2005 (see the bibliography) refers to it as the "Lisbon Appointment" (with capitalisations) in a chapter title, but apart from that I've seen no "quasi-official" name for the subject. I think the present title is adequate, but my all means don't hesitate to suggest alternatives for discussion (this goes for everybody). Hope you're well, and thanks for the input. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
::As a general point, which fits in with what ] seems to say, I think we should be very wary of naming pages and things after either one-off chapter titles in books – which can tend to the stylised and quirky; and also capitalise as a matter of routine style – or on occasional passing, casual references in running text. Neither necessarily reflect or create accepted formal or common names for things, and hence end up as a WP invention, especially if presented, as here, as a formal, proper name. If we did rely on chapter titles and casual prose shorthand, we'd easily end up with pages here called "Napoleon's Gamble" – a plausible title of a chapter in a book on the ]) – or "Obama's predecessor as president".<br/> ::As a general point, which fits in with what ] seems to say, I think we should be very wary of naming pages and things after either one-off chapter titles in books – which can tend to the stylised and quirky; and also capitalise as a matter of routine style – or on occasional passing, casual references in running text. Neither necessarily reflect or create accepted formal or common names for things, and hence end up as a WP invention, especially if presented, as here, as a formal, proper name. If we did rely on chapter titles and casual prose shorthand, we'd easily end up with pages here called "Napoleon's Gamble" – a plausible title of a chapter in a book on the ]) – or "Obama's predecessor as president".<br/>
::Here, of course, unlike in those examples, there probably isn't a standard or accepted name, but at the very least, surely "appointment" should be lower case, both in the title and text. I'd also go as far as to say that the opening sentence, rather than asserting and then defining the name at the outset, should simply describe the event, as it does in the second half of that sentence. As for the title, as noted, if we don't have a formal accepted name, we need a descriptive title; which needs to be exactly that, eg something dry and with a bit more explanation, such as (off the top of my head) "Rhodesian mission in/envoy to Lisbon". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC) ::Here, of course, unlike in those examples, there probably isn't a standard or accepted name, but at the very least, surely "appointment" should be lower case, both in the title and text. I'd also go as far as to say that the opening sentence, rather than asserting and then defining the name at the outset, should simply describe the event, as it does in the second half of that sentence. As for the title, as noted, if we don't have a formal accepted name, we need a descriptive title; which needs to be exactly that, eg something dry and with a bit more explanation, such as (off the top of my head) "Rhodesian mission in/envoy to Lisbon". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I think either one of "Rhodesian mission in Lisbon" or "Rhodesian envoy to Lisbon" would be good. Thanks for this. I must admit I settled on the name "Lisbon Appointment" in an attempt to give a definitive name to the subject, which on reflection was not something I should have done. I'll have a look at migrating the article to one of these titles soon. Do you have any other thoughts? Have a nice evening <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC) :::I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I think either one of "Rhodesian mission in Lisbon" or "Rhodesian envoy to Lisbon" would be good. Thanks for this. I must admit I settled on the name "Lisbon Appointment" in an attempt to give a definitive name to the subject, which on reflection was not something I should have done. I'll have a look at migrating the article to one of these titles soon. Do you have any other thoughts? Have a nice evening <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the considered and constructive response. My occasional quibbles and even complaints about article titles usually get drowned in convoluted and spiralling argument and debate, and/or batted away by the page's primary author, who can be (in my view) over-defensive about their chosen title. I'm slightly surprised the point wasn't raised at the FA and TFA stages, but it's definitely clearer – and yet less assertive about a formal title – now. I guess one other thing is, per ], ideally something in the first sentence should be in bold (but I can't think what, and it's not obligatory when we have a formulation like this). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC) ::::Thanks for the considered and constructive response. My occasional quibbles and even complaints about article titles usually get drowned in convoluted and spiralling argument and debate, and/or batted away by the page's primary author, who can be (in my view) over-defensive about their chosen title. I'm slightly surprised the point wasn't raised at the FA and TFA stages, but it's definitely clearer – and yet less assertive about a formal title – now. I guess one other thing is, per ], ideally something in the first sentence should be in bold (but I can't think what, and it's not obligatory when we have a formulation like this). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::No problem at all; I'm surprised too now you mention it. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it is an improvement here and it has also served as a lesson for me. I don't think having anything bolded in the first sentence is really necessary, and like you I can't think of how this would be implemented as we presently have it. I think it is okay now, but as before please feel free to make any suggestions you might have. Thanks for the constructive conversation thus far and I hope you have a pleasant evening. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC) :::::No problem at all; I'm surprised too now you mention it. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it is an improvement here and it has also served as a lesson for me. I don't think having anything bolded in the first sentence is really necessary, and like you I can't think of how this would be implemented as we presently have it. I think it is okay now, but as before please feel free to make any suggestions you might have. Thanks for the constructive conversation thus far and I hope you have a pleasant evening. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—]&nbsp;]</b> 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


== FAR needed == == FAR needed ==


I have some concerns with the article at hand. For starters, I find its prose to be extremely editorializing, and not conforming with NPOV. It utilizes verbs like "knew", "considered", "believed", "thought" and "felt" rather frequently, as if it were an essay. There is also an over-reliance on Wood 2005, with certain pages cited up to nine times. Perhaps some of the judgments come from him? This also opens up the possibility of close paraphrasing in our copy, though I don't know, since I haven't read the book. ]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I have some concerns with the article at hand. For starters, I find its prose to be extremely editorializing, and not conforming with NPOV. It utilizes verbs like "knew", "considered", "believed", "thought" and "felt" rather frequently, as if it were an essay. There is also an over-reliance on Wood 2005, with certain pages cited up to nine times. Perhaps some of the judgments come from him? This also opens up the possibility of close paraphrasing in our copy, though I don't know, since I haven't read the book. ]&nbsp;<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
*Agree—the sourcing is also deficient, missing more recent and higher quality sources<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barroso |first1=Luís Fernando Machado |title=The Independence of Rhodesia in Salazar's Strategy for Southern Africa |journal=African Historical Review |date=23 December 2014 |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=1–24 |doi=10.1080/17532523.2014.943922}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Onslow |first1=Sue |title=The Wind of Change: Harold Macmillan and British Decolonization |date=2013 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-31800-8 |pages=215–234 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137318008_11 |language=en |chapter=Resistance to ‘Winds of Change’: The Emergence of the ‘Unholy Alliance’ between Southern Rhodesia, Portugal and South Africa, 1964–5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=de Meneses |first1=Filipe Ribeiro |last2=McNamara |first2=Robert |title=The White Redoubt, the Great Powers and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1960–1980 |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-44758-6 |pages=33–74 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-44758-6_2 |language=en |chapter=Rhodesia: Rise of the Rebel State}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berry |first1=Bruce |title=Flag Of Defiance: The International Use of the Rhodesian Flag Following UDI |journal=South African Historical Journal |date=22 January 2019 |volume=71 |issue=3 |pages=495–517 |doi=10.1080/02582473.2018.1561749}}</ref> <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 02:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC) *Agree—the sourcing is also deficient, missing more recent and higher quality sources<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barroso |first1=Luís Fernando Machado |title=The Independence of Rhodesia in Salazar's Strategy for Southern Africa |journal=African Historical Review |date=23 December 2014 |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=1–24 |doi=10.1080/17532523.2014.943922}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Onslow |first1=Sue |title=The Wind of Change: Harold Macmillan and British Decolonization |date=2013 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-31800-8 |pages=215–234 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137318008_11 |language=en |chapter=Resistance to ‘Winds of Change’: The Emergence of the ‘Unholy Alliance’ between Southern Rhodesia, Portugal and South Africa, 1964–5}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=de Meneses |first1=Filipe Ribeiro |last2=McNamara |first2=Robert |title=The White Redoubt, the Great Powers and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1960–1980 |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-44758-6 |pages=33–74 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-44758-6_2 |language=en |chapter=Rhodesia: Rise of the Rebel State}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berry |first1=Bruce |title=Flag Of Defiance: The International Use of the Rhodesian Flag Following UDI |journal=South African Historical Journal |date=22 January 2019 |volume=71 |issue=3 |pages=495–517 |doi=10.1080/02582473.2018.1561749}}</ref> <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 02:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
{{talk ref}} {{talk ref}}
Line 68: Line 77:
*Phillippa Berlyn's biography of Smith (cited five times) is also unlikely to be a reliable source given it was published in UDI-era Rhodesia, where the media was subject to extensive censorship. In particular, by the year it was published (1978) Rhodesia was collapsing and the internal repression was nearing its peak. *Phillippa Berlyn's biography of Smith (cited five times) is also unlikely to be a reliable source given it was published in UDI-era Rhodesia, where the media was subject to extensive censorship. In particular, by the year it was published (1978) Rhodesia was collapsing and the internal repression was nearing its peak.
*Regarding content, the article seems to sprawl all over the place and is more a history of UDI-era Rhodesia's foreign relations rather than being focused on this diplomatic mission. ] (]) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC) *Regarding content, the article seems to sprawl all over the place and is more a history of UDI-era Rhodesia's foreign relations rather than being focused on this diplomatic mission. ] (]) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
{{ping|Nick-D|Buidhe|Eisfbnore}} this is one of the oldest at ], so I will submit it to FAR momentarily, ] (]) 03:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:17, 14 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rhodesian mission in Lisbon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former featured articleRhodesian mission in Lisbon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 17, 2013.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
October 4, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 4, 2012WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 25, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
December 23, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
February 8, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 7, 2012.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1965, British diplomacy proved helpless to stop Rhodesia's Lisbon Appointment?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 21, 2015, September 21, 2018, and September 21, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article
This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAfrica Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: African / British / European / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
Additional information:
Note icon
This article has failed an A-Class review.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPortugal Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

  • Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
  • Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

Assess

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Misplaced Pages

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this listEdit this list
WikiProject iconZimbabwe: Rhodesia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconRhodesian mission in Lisbon is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks:
Tasks clipboard
Tasks clipboard
Zimbabwe-related tasks view edit discusshistorywatch
WikiProject iconBritish Empire Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title, proper names and capitalisation

I seem to be developing a habit of querying articles that appear as TFAs .. anyway, I am not sure why the title and article text capitalise appointment. I am really not clear at all that this event is referred to or known as the "The Lisbon Appointment" or "The Reedman Appointment", let alone that it should be capitalised as a formal name like this, in both the title and article text. There may be shorthand, casual references to the appointment in sources, but this does not – or should not – create a proper name or quasi-official title known to history. Is this not, yet again, a WP invention? And if it's a bespoke descriptive title, as it appears to be, nor is it very clear, which WP:TITLE requires such things to be. N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the main sources, Wood 2005 (see the bibliography) refers to it as the "Lisbon Appointment" (with capitalisations) in a chapter title, but apart from that I've seen no "quasi-official" name for the subject. I think the present title is adequate, but my all means don't hesitate to suggest alternatives for discussion (this goes for everybody). Hope you're well, and thanks for the input. Cliftonian (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
As a general point, which fits in with what WP:TITLE seems to say, I think we should be very wary of naming pages and things after either one-off chapter titles in books – which can tend to the stylised and quirky; and also capitalise as a matter of routine style – or on occasional passing, casual references in running text. Neither necessarily reflect or create accepted formal or common names for things, and hence end up as a WP invention, especially if presented, as here, as a formal, proper name. If we did rely on chapter titles and casual prose shorthand, we'd easily end up with pages here called "Napoleon's Gamble" – a plausible title of a chapter in a book on the French invasion of Russia) – or "Obama's predecessor as president".
Here, of course, unlike in those examples, there probably isn't a standard or accepted name, but at the very least, surely "appointment" should be lower case, both in the title and text. I'd also go as far as to say that the opening sentence, rather than asserting and then defining the name at the outset, should simply describe the event, as it does in the second half of that sentence. As for the title, as noted, if we don't have a formal accepted name, we need a descriptive title; which needs to be exactly that, eg something dry and with a bit more explanation, such as (off the top of my head) "Rhodesian mission in/envoy to Lisbon". N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I think either one of "Rhodesian mission in Lisbon" or "Rhodesian envoy to Lisbon" would be good. Thanks for this. I must admit I settled on the name "Lisbon Appointment" in an attempt to give a definitive name to the subject, which on reflection was not something I should have done. I'll have a look at migrating the article to one of these titles soon. Do you have any other thoughts? Have a nice evening Cliftonian (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered and constructive response. My occasional quibbles and even complaints about article titles usually get drowned in convoluted and spiralling argument and debate, and/or batted away by the page's primary author, who can be (in my view) over-defensive about their chosen title. I'm slightly surprised the point wasn't raised at the FA and TFA stages, but it's definitely clearer – and yet less assertive about a formal title – now. I guess one other thing is, per WP:BOLDTITLE, ideally something in the first sentence should be in bold (but I can't think what, and it's not obligatory when we have a formulation like this). N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all; I'm surprised too now you mention it. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it is an improvement here and it has also served as a lesson for me. I don't think having anything bolded in the first sentence is really necessary, and like you I can't think of how this would be implemented as we presently have it. I think it is okay now, but as before please feel free to make any suggestions you might have. Thanks for the constructive conversation thus far and I hope you have a pleasant evening. Cliftonian (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FAR needed

I have some concerns with the article at hand. For starters, I find its prose to be extremely editorializing, and not conforming with NPOV. It utilizes verbs like "knew", "considered", "believed", "thought" and "felt" rather frequently, as if it were an essay. There is also an over-reliance on Wood 2005, with certain pages cited up to nine times. Perhaps some of the judgments come from him? This also opens up the possibility of close paraphrasing in our copy, though I don't know, since I haven't read the book. Eisfbnore  01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. Barroso, Luís Fernando Machado (23 December 2014). "The Independence of Rhodesia in Salazar's Strategy for Southern Africa". African Historical Review. 46 (2): 1–24. doi:10.1080/17532523.2014.943922.
  2. Onslow, Sue (2013). "Resistance to 'Winds of Change': The Emergence of the 'Unholy Alliance' between Southern Rhodesia, Portugal and South Africa, 1964–5". The Wind of Change: Harold Macmillan and British Decolonization. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 215–234. ISBN 978-1-137-31800-8.
  3. de Meneses, Filipe Ribeiro; McNamara, Robert (2018). "Rhodesia: Rise of the Rebel State". The White Redoubt, the Great Powers and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1960–1980. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 33–74. ISBN 978-1-137-44758-6.
  4. Berry, Bruce (22 January 2019). "Flag Of Defiance: The International Use of the Rhodesian Flag Following UDI". South African Historical Journal. 71 (3): 495–517. doi:10.1080/02582473.2018.1561749.

The FAC is weak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have some further comments, and am leaning towards a FAC being appropriate. I'd be grateful for your views. In particular:

  • Around half the article's sources are from self published books by JRT Wood. Mr Wood has had a couple of works published by Helion and Company, but that's a somewhat marginal publisher for reliability so this level of dependence on these sources is highly concerning - unless I'm missing something, his self published works would not meet WP:RS
  • One of the sources that's cited seven times is called "P K van der Byl: African Statesman" and is published by a small South African firm. As the notorious white supremacist and incompetent P. K. van der Byl was most definitely not a 'statesman' I highly doubt that this is a reliable source.
  • Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith's memoirs are cited seven times, including for statements of fact. This is not an appropriate source for statements on topics other than Smith's views.
  • Phillippa Berlyn's biography of Smith (cited five times) is also unlikely to be a reliable source given it was published in UDI-era Rhodesia, where the media was subject to extensive censorship. In particular, by the year it was published (1978) Rhodesia was collapsing and the internal repression was nearing its peak.
  • Regarding content, the article seems to sprawl all over the place and is more a history of UDI-era Rhodesia's foreign relations rather than being focused on this diplomatic mission. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D, Buidhe, and Eisfbnore: this is one of the oldest at WP:FARGIVEN, so I will submit it to FAR momentarily, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Rhodesian mission in Lisbon: Difference between revisions Add topic