Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rhodesian mission in Lisbon/archive1

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.

Lisbon Appointment[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)


I know this isn't primarily a military article, but I feel it is relevant enough to come here, and I am getting fairly desperate for feedback on this; both a peer review and an FAC nomination have failed to attract interest in what appears to be a rather niche subject. Perhaps the article's length and attention to detail intimidate some readers. After a lot of work over the past few months I feel that this article is ready for A class and perhaps FA class too, so I really look forward to hearing your thoughts. Please keep in mind that my responses may periodically cease because of my ongoing service in the Israeli Army. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a review of this article, but I may not have time to do so this weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick, I appreciate that. Have a good weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The item is certainly important, relevant, and well-written. --DLMcN (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

  • "This mission would operate independently of Britain's embassy in Lisbon. Whitehall refused to endorse this when asked on 9 June, but Rhodesia continued nonetheless, officially confirming Reedman's appointment" - the tense in these sentences is a bit confusing
  • Rephrased to "Rhodesia intended for this mission to operate independently from Britain's embassy in Lisbon. Whitehall refused to endorse this when asked on 9 June, but Rhodesia continued nonetheless, officially confirming Reedman's appointment". —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ultimate responsibility for foreign affairs had never left Britain" - how about 'remained with Britain"?
  • Presenting white Rhodesian opposition to majority rule as being entirely due to concerns about the quality of the resulting governance seems dubious. Racism played an important part in this (especially with South Africa next door).
  • Certainly there are many people who would say Rhodesia's motivations were essentially racist, but white Rhodesians, while undeniably somewhat wary of black nationalism on racial grounds, always professed to be not against black rule per se, but rather against the destruction of the country and economy, and against communist expansionism, both of which they thought would inevitably result from a black takeover. I always try to be fair and to give both sides of the dispute, but, on re-reading, perhaps in trying to be fair here I was overly sympathetic. I've added a little bit along the lines you described in the background section ("Already wary of black nationalism on racial grounds, Salisbury became increasingly antipathetic towards it as a result of these developments ..."). I feel the South African link you describe was already lightly implied a little bit further down ("... British liberals worried that if left unchecked Salisbury might drift towards South African-style apartheid"). If you think all this still needs to be made clearer, I'm happy to look at it again. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding: "Presenting white Rhodesian opposition to majority rule as being entirely due to concerns about the quality of the resulting governance seems dubious" ... I don't think we can dismiss it as "dubious" (although we could perhaps replace "entirely" by "largely"). Rhodesians had been noting (with great concern) the manner in which so many African states had deteriorated since being granted their 'independence' - staring with Ghana in 1957. The Congo (in 1960) was a particularly vivid example, because of all the refugees which had flooded down into (Northern and Southern) Rhodesia - with some absolutely horrifying accounts! DLMcN (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC) ... See for example Ian Smith's "The Great Betrayal", pp. 107-108. --DLMcN (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all respect, I disagree. It's not a topic for this article though, and the current wording is OK. An article which is focused on the UDI would need to deal with this motivator of white Rhodesian nationalism in depth, but it doesn't need to be noted here except in passing. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, the British Government is presented as being wrong-headed or unaware of public opinion in Rhodesia. While the situation around the UDI was far from Britain's finest hour, this is rather harsh: as I understand it, the British Government believed that white rule in Africa was no longer defensible or sustainable on geo-political and ethical grounds, and was unwilling to grant independence if it resulted in white government being entrenched.
  • I don't think the British government is so much presented as unaware of public opinion in Rhodesia, rather that they were unwilling to listen. I think this was to a large extent the case; again, I've based this on the sources. But I think making the British perspective more clear would be helpful, so I've added "believing colonial rule to be no longer sustainable geopolitically or ethically" to the background section. If you still see issues here, I'll happily look through it again. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of background seems excessive - while this material is generally good (noting the important provisos above), it's not all necessary and could be trimmed quite a bit.
  • Okay, I've looked at this again and have trimmed it down a tad. If you think it's still too long I'll swing through it again. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of something more radical: you could easily chop out about 50% of the background (just focus on the issues directly relevant to this article, and briefly summarise the other issues). Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A week later, Wilson met with Portuguese Foreign Minister Alberto Franco Nogueira, whom he pressed on alleged secret dealings with Rhodesia." - the 'alleged' seems inappropriate given that the article states that such secret dealings were in fact taking place

(up to the 'Rhodesia seeks British endorsement for a Lisbon mission' section - I'll complete the review tomorrow). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I think you're right here. I originally had "alleged" in there as Britain didn't know for sure the situation (hence asking the question), but on re-reading I think it's a bit misleading. Thanks for the review so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (I'll keep going, and then revisit my comments above a bit later):

  • "Britain was desperate to avoid the international humiliation that would accompany the organisation's break-up, he reasoned, and was therefore attempting to hold it together by appeasing the less prominent members." - 'reasoned' seems a odd word to apply to this ('claimed', perhaps).
  • "Salisbury's resolve for UDI was quickly steeling as a fortress mentality set in. " - this is a bit unclear
  • How about, "a fortress mentality was developing in Salisbury, propelling it towards unilateral action." ? —Cliftonian (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the UDI and subsequent events is very good, but seems largely out of this article's scope: I'd suggest moving it to separate articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick, yes, I'm afraid I have to run right now but I'll look at all this when I get back on Friday. Thanks again for the great review so far and I look forward to continuing on my return. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I may add a few more comments between now and then, but they're unlikely to be substantial. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick, I'm back now but I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do this today. I'm intending to migrate a lot of the less relevant material to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence article, and I think this will take me a while, longer than I have right now. But I have been thinking a lot about how I will proceed with this, and I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thanks again for your comments and your patience. Keep well now, —Cliftonian (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again Nick, I've trimmed down the background and post-Appointment sections a lot to remove much of the less relevant stuff and I think the article's in much better shape now. I'm intending to integrate the removed material into the UDI article at some point, but haven't had time right now. What do you think of how the article looks now? —Cliftonian (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm off to work again early in the morning, but I should be back on Friday. Have a good Sunday and a pleasant week and I look forward to continuing this then. Thanks again and all the best, —Cliftonian (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length now looks pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an additional comment, what are you getting at with "In London, ordinary Britons came out to support Smith in such numbers and with such vigour that even the Rhodesians were surprised"? As I understand it, many Britons opposed the actions of the Rhodesian government while others supported it (which helps explain the rather confused actions of the British government). If you want to discuss British public opinion, it needs to be rounded. I imagine that there are specialist works on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was paraphrasing from the source (Wood). I think it's worth mentioning that some people came out to support Smith in London, and did so with great enthusiasm. I had a bit in there before, that was cut, which discussed this in more detail, by an Irish historian, Donal Lowry, which discussed how officers in the British forces were very much opposed to attacking Rhodesia, while an opinion poll in the UK returned results of 27% in favour of invading Rhodesia, 60% against (here's a link for an older revision including this). While this isn't quite the same thing as supporting or opposing the actions of the Salisbury government, I think it does show that there was support for Smith in England. I feel British public opposition to Smith is also discussed in the article (see the bits discussing Rhodesia possibly slipping towards apartheid, also Brockway's comments), but perhaps you are right that the two sides could be made less ambiguous. To make clear that not all Britons were supporting Smith, I've changed the relevant sentence to be "In London, ordinary Britons who sympathised with Smith came out to support him in large numbers, surprising both the British and the Rhodesians." Is this any better? —Cliftonian (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me (though I'd suggest tweaking this to avoid the term 'ordinary Britons', which isn't very meaningful (who was an "extra-ordinary Briton'?). Note that the journal article "Wilson and Rhodesia: UDI and British Policy Towards Africa" (published in Contemporary British History Volume 20, Issue 3, September 2006) states that the British Government never seriously considered military intervention in Rhodesia on the grounds that it would have been politically contentious (especially given the government's small majority in the House of Commons) and very difficult to execute, especially allowing for the military's opposition to such an operation; this article provides a good summary of the Cabinet discussions and planning of the topic if you're interested. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tip, I'll probably come back to this as a reference in another article, but don't think it's really needed here. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've got a few more comments before supporting:

  • "Majority rule—as it was being implemented in post-colonial Africa—became derided by many in the Rhodesias as "majority ruin"." - who were these 'many'? I imagine that if this view wasn't restricted to the white minority, it was by far the strongest there.
  • Yes, have changed to "many in the Rhodesias (mostly whites) as 'majority ruin'." —Cliftonian (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Car stickers marked "obrigado moçambique"—"Thank You Mozambique"—quickly became popular with Rhodesian motorists." - likewise, I presume that this mainly reflected the view of White motorists
  • I'd suggest trimming the material on the post-UDI Rhodesian economy in the final article, as it's not terribly relevant.
  • In particular, and writing as an economist, Moorcraft & McLaughlin's comments on the Rhodesian economy look questionable. Having a faster rate of economic growth than Britain did in the 1960s and 1970s was no great achievement given that the British economy was struggling for most of this period (data here if you're interested), and the claim that the sanctions helped develop the economy can't be right; while they would have have forced diversification, this would have come at the cost of a considerable loss in efficiency as Rhodesia had to set up small and relatively inefficient cottage industries and/or import stuff from South Africa rather than larger producers. Selecting 1974 as the cut-off is also questionable given that Rhodesia entered a severe recession in 1975. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must admit I'm not a great expert on economic matters, but I think what you say is right. I was already aware that the Rhodesian economy's growth during the early 1970s was sharply reversed following Mozambique's independence in '75, but I didn't make this clear in the article. In any case, it's not very relevant here so I've trimmed this down a lot. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now all been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images have Alt Text [3] (no action required).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals an error with reference consolidation:
      • "mobley" (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Images are all public domain or licensed and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [4] (no action required).
    • "...empowered to run its own affairs in almost all matters, including self-defence...", self-defence or defence?
    • "Southern Rhodesian Citizenship and British Nationality Act 1949" should be in italics per WP:ITALIC
    • wikilinking here seems a bit off" "in favour of pursuing an initially semi-independent Federation with", probably should just pipe "Federation" rather than "Federation with" per WP:EASTEREGG.
    • "and under black majority governments" or more simply "under black majority governments"?
    • this seems redundant: "intensified strongly during mid-1964", perhaps just "intensified during mid-1964"?
    • The abbreviation NATO needs to be written in full at first use.
    • these seems poorly worded to me: "that Rhodesia might make UDI on its main national holiday", in particular I'm not sure about using UDI here as a verb. Perhaps consider something like: "that Rhodesia might declare independence on its main national holiday..." There are several other instances of this.
    • Language here seems informal: "neither Britain, Portugal nor Rhodesia would cave...", perhaps "neither Britain, Portugal nor Rhodesia would back down..." or something similar.
    • Not sure "The Lisbon Appointment" is a valid section heading as it is the title of the article itself (per WP:HEADINGS).
    • A number of references lack ISBNs, perhaps you could add OCLCs using Wordcat? Anotherclown (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown, thanks for the review! I've resolved everything you pulled up except for the ISBNs, I'll look into this later. Keep well, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OCLCs now given. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gday again Cliftonian. The changes look good to me - I just want to read through it again in the light of day as I finished my review quite late last night. Got some errands to run today so I hope to come back to this either this afternoon or in the next few days (depending on work next week). Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anotherclown. I've got to run now and I'll only be back on Friday, so no rush. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gday. Back again. A couple of additional points from re-reading:
  • I'm a bit uncertain of this in the lead: "Rhodesia's disillusionment regarding Britain and staunch opposition to immediate black rule propelled it towards Portugal". Do you mean "Rhodesia's disillusionment regarding Britain and its staunch opposition to immediate black rule propelled it towards Portugal."
  • How about "Disillusioned regarding Britain, Rhodesia's staunch opposition to immediate black rule propelled it towards Portugal"?
  • I've rephrased again to "Rhodesia's staunch opposition to immediate black rule and its disillusionment regarding Britain propelled it towards Portugal."
  • This seems a strange construction: "This formed a new seat of government in the Southern Rhodesian capital...", specifically "this formed", what did?
  • I've changed this to be simply "The Southern Rhodesian capital, Salisbury, was henceforth empowered to run its own affairs in almost all matters, including defence."
  • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me and I have added my support. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again Anotherclown, and sorry for the delay! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: fascinating article. I didn't find much to pick fault with. I only have a couple of suggestions:
    • the table of contents is quite large and might be better displayed with a limit, e.g. {{TOC limit}}, but this isn't mandatory;
    • in the Bibliography, consider using title case for published works, e.g. "So far and no further! Rhodesia's bid for independence during the retreat from empire 1959–1965" would be "So Far and No Further! Rhodesia's Bid For Independence During the Retreat From Empire 1959–1965". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rupert, thanks for the very kind words about the article. I have implemented your suggestion regarding the contents table, which I think improves the page layout, but I've refrained from changing to title case in the bibliography section; I think it's best to present the titles as they appear on the book itself, and that's what I've done on the Wood books, which (for some reason) do not use title case on their covers. Thanks again, —Cliftonian (talk) 18:43, 3 November 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/Rhodesian_mission_in_Lisbon/archive1&oldid=1075714200"