Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Rhodesia Flight 825[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)


This just passed GAN following a very helpful review from Nick-D, who was complimentary of it, and suggested that I also nominate it here. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As noted in the nomination I recently assessed this as GA class, and think that it also meets the A class criteria. My only additional comment is that Lockley 1990 should be replaced as it doesn't appear to be a reliable source (though the single statement which is cited to it is probably correct). Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nick. I've replaced the sole reference to Lockley with another to Cilliers 1984 (page 21). Hope you're well. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported at this timeCommentsSupport A couple of minor points initially, but a really major issue overall.

  • vessel? aircraft?
  • Are they not the same thing? Changed anyway.
  • "by ZIPRA guerrillas on the northern side of the Zambezi" perhaps "from the northern side of the Zambezi"?
  • Okay, have changed this.
  • I note that Sibanda is used, but I am very concerned that his claims about the Selous Scouts, Red Cross and UNHCR statements etc aren't even mentioned. Either he is a reliable source, or he is not. I feel it is inappropriate and potentially misleading to use him for some material but not mention his other claims. As a result, I am feeling quite uneasy about this article in its present state, and I am not happy to support it for A Class on that basis, and don't feel that this article describes the issues from a disinterested viewpoint. Very happy to discuss of course. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the gist of his statements about the Selous Scouts, Red Cross and UNHCR? - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a go at putting some more of Sibanda's stuff in. I omitted a lot of his claims before because they simply didn't seem credible to me based on what I know from other sources, the unabashedly partisan tone of much of his prose and the fact that he occasionally makes really rather elementary errors (for example, he renders Ron Reid-Daly's surname "Reidy-Daly"). But I've now put in a lot of the material I believe you are referring to, making sure to qualify most of the claims as they seem rather fringey to me. I'll put here what I have added to save you looking it up:
In "Nkomo claims responsibility, but denies killing survivors"
"According to Eliakim Sibanda, a professor and human rights speaker who wrote a history of ZAPU, Nkomo was implying that responsibility for the massacre actually lay with security force pseudo-guerrillas, more specifically the mixed race Selous Scouts unit, which had been known to brutalise rural civilians with the goal of shifting public opinion. Sibanda blames the massacre on the Scouts, and also supports Nkomo's claim that the Hunyani had been used militarily, suggesting that ZIPRA may have believed there to be Rhodesian soldiers on board: "Rhodesian television, before attacks on ZANLA in Mozambique, had shown Viscounts ferrying paratroopers for the job," he writes, "... [and] ZIPRA intelligence knew there were paratroopers stationed [at Victoria Falls]"."
In "Operation Gatling; the "Green Leader" raid"
"Sibanda describes Freedom Camp as "a refugee camp for boys",[30] and says "351 boys and girls" were killed.[30] He writes that the Red Cross and the UN Refugee Agency "confirmed ZAPU's claim that Smith's forces struck at defenseless, civilian trainees"."
  • I hope this is all to your satisfaction and helps resolve your concerns with the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great response to a curly issue, the in-text attribution and neutral wording are good. I will do another run through. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the controversy about the deaths at the site and the retaliatory strikes should be mentioned in the lead
  • Okay, I've added "The attack on ZIPRA in particular brought great controversy as many of those killed were refugees camping in and around guerrilla positions. Some, including writer Eliakim Sibanda, contend that the massacre at the crash site was carried out by deep cover Rhodesian soldiers rather than ZIPRA cadres"
  • if the aircraft name was Hunyani rather than the Hunyani, suggest deleting the "the" in front of the name
  • In sources it is always referred to as the Hunyani, which also seems to be the name it was referred to by at the time (based on contemporary newspaper reports). I see no reason why we should change this.
  • suggest "spared" is not the right word. Perhaps "a further five lived because..."
  • Yes, you're right here
  • it's not clear how the sources know that the ditch was "unseen" if the flight crew were killed in the crash
  • I imagine Hood still would have had radio contact while landing (we know he had it at 1710), and, even if he had chosen to land on the cotton field having seen the four-metre wide ditch, it seems logical that he surely would have mentioned its presence. Granted, he was being forced to land, and so may have acted in a way he would not have normally, but it still seems unlikely to me that he would have chosen an attempted landing site knowing that such a natural obstacle was there.
  • ok
  • I wonder about the use of Smith. He's hardly going to paint himself badly, and his views on the attitudes of rural blacks are quite self-serving
  • Nkomo's attitudes regarding the crash and massacre are equally self-serving. Why not use Smith also? Even if you don't believe him, I think it helps to see the Rhodesian government's attitude at the time, which did include the belief—probably somewhat misguided in many cases—that the vast majority of rural tribesmen only helped the communists because they had guns to their heads.
  • fair enough
  • suggest "3 September 1978 Sunday afternoon" is unnecessary
  • I don't think so, we should give the date and it's also important to give the fact it was Sunday afternoon, to explain the timing of the weekend holidaymakers' return to Salisbury from Kariba.
  • "nationalist guerillas"? weren't they communists?
  • They were communists and nationalists, but saying "communist nationalist guerrillas" seems superfluous and overexacting. I've changed a couple uses to use communist rather than nationalist.

more to come. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look forward to it. Thanks for the helpful comments and a fine, thorough review. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • all external links ok.[2]
  • no dablinks [3]
  • Reflinks check out [4]
  • "respectively" is unnecessary regarding the girls ages, you haven't named them so there is no need to differentiate
  • OK
  • there are a few WP:CLICHEs I suggest you replace. "hail of automatic gunfire", "almost unbridled fury", "redoubled his efforts", "hurtled towards the ground"
  • OK. "by a sustained burst of automatic gunfire"; "with caustic fury"; "Smith again worked to bring Nkomo into the government ..." Hope these are better
  • Thank you for the pleasant review, Peacemaker, which I think has been very productive. I look forward to interacting again —Cliftonian (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Images all have Alt Text [5] (no action required).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all public domain or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation [6] (no action required).
    • Is there a word missing here: "the Rhodesian Air Force took control of airspace over Zambia during the raid...", specifically should it be: "the Rhodesian Air Force took control of the airspace over Zambia during the raid..."?
      • Yes
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherclown (talk • contribs)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Shootdown": Agreed that this section title is a tough call. Oxford Dictionaries says it's "shoot-down", but only in North America, and this article isn't AmEng or CanEng. Neither Cambridge Dictionaries nor Merriam-Webster lists "shoot-down" or "shootdown" as a word. I get your point that we don't want to obscure what happened with the section title. I'll ask Ian and Nick for help, they should know. (Some journalists say "Downing", but that has always felt a bit made-up to me. "Missile attack and crash"?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a fan of 'shootdown' (which always seems a bit colloquial and informal), but I can't think of a better word to use in this context. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Shootdown", for better or worse, is pretty common (and, Dan, most places I've seen it eschew the hyphen). "Downing" is often used as well but rarely on its own. "Such-and-such and crash" sounds a bit clumsy to me, and "shootdown" implies a crash anyway, so I'd go with the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I'm trusting you guys on this, SOED also doesn't have "shootdown". It's odd; there ought to be a standard word for it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "cadres" is the wrong word throughout, for a variety of reasons. (Readers are unlikely to suspect that it's meant in some technical sense; a "cadre" is a group, not a person; and the link suggests the word is non-neutral in this context.) "Members" would work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Many, many sources (many of them anti-Rhodesian) describe the ZANLA and ZIPRA fighters as "cadres", which in this context refers to their being both guerrilla combatants and political commissars; in effect, vanguard revolutionaries. See Sibanda 2005: p. 9, "... ZAPU nationalists and military cadres during the war."; pp. 96–97, "China accepted both ZAPU and ZANU trainees. However, Algeria, Cuba, Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, and North Korea took only ZAPU cadres for training until 1966 ... Training for the ZAPU cadres who went to Russia was very comprehensive ... before the High Court on 13 August 1968[, a] cadre told of how he and his eleven comrades were flown to Moscow via Tanzania for training." The Road to Democracy in South Africa, South African Democracy Education Trust 2004: p. 495: "The success of the crossing greatly contributed to building morale and bringing the MK and ZIPRA cadres closer to one another." War Veterans in Zimbabwe's Revolution: challenging neo-colonialism & settler & international capital, Zvakanyorwa Wilbert Sadomba 2011: many uses throughout, see for example p. 39 and p. 48 —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I see "Mphoko, one of the senior ... cadres"; If Mphoko is a person and not a group, then that writer doesn't know that a cadre is a "a cell of indoctrinated leaders active in promoting the interests of a revolutionary party" (M-W), and similar descriptions in other dictionaries. In one of your other links, ZANLA is said to be made up of 200 cadres; they don't mean 200 men. The other potential problem is: the links you're giving are talking for the most part about cadres in general; that's different than saying that any particular person was a member of a cadre. Using a gun in a thuggish way doesn't prove you're a revolutionary, interested in advancing the goals of the party; it only proves you're a thug. If a credible source has evidence that a particular group of men were revolutionaries, then sure, feel free to call the group a cadre. When you're talking about the actions of cadres in general, you're on firm ground, the best I can tell. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the dictionary definition of a cadre is a group of people, but based on what I have seen in sources it seems to be used in the Rhodesian context to mean a single man. Mphoko is a person, yes. If you are referring to Sibanda p. 224—where he says they had about 200 cadres sometime in 1971—I believe he is saying they only had 200 men. The rest of the paragraph uses words liked "armed men" and "soldiers" as if they are similes. Fay Chung, a ZANU official, is quoted here saying that at some point "ZIPRA had 800 soldiers and ZANLA had 12". This isn't a typo, as Sibanda writes a short time later that ZANLA then had "212, a gain of two hundred". I'm not questioning your reasoning regarding whether a particular group were revolutionaries or thugs, or what the definition is in the dictionary, but it seems to me that the word "cadre" is used correctly in this context, based on what I have seen in sources on the Rhodesian conflict. A Very Merry Christmas, by the way. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, SOED does have that definition ... an official or a member of a group. So I can't insist you remove it, but I can't support either, because the word is likely to lead to confusion among readers who aren't well-read in the literature on communist insurgencies. I'll move on. Best of the season, and best of luck - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, this won't do, particularly at this time of year. Perhaps a footnote might be helpful, making clear how the word "cadre" is used in this context? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Snoopy; Rhodesia hits New Chimoio", and several other subheadings: Per WP:Heading and WP:MOS#Article titles, headings should be nouns or noun phrases.
  • Okay, I'll look at fixing this
  • "whites became resentful and wary towards blacks in general", and other statements regarding emotions: See WP:Checklist#mindreading and the last 3 bullet points at WT:Checklist. Descriptions of emotional states should be rare ... it should be possible to give readers a clear picture by describing what people did. Describing mental states carries a lot of different risks, including the risk of non-neutrality: we don't want to say in Wikipedia's voice that blacks were the cause of all white resentfulness and wariness. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right. I've rearranged this in an attempt to show this was Nyarota's personal interpretation: "Geoffrey Nyarota, who was then one of the few black reporters at the Rhodesia Herald newspaper, says that many whites became resentful and wary towards blacks in general, believing them all to be 'terrorist sympathisers'." —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend deleting the paragraph that begins "At the end of the service"; angry, grieving crowds aren't reliable sources for anything.
  • Okay, thanks for the great review so far Dank! —Cliftonian (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825&oldid=647937299"