Talk:Rhodesian mission in Lisbon

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 ^(会話) 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree—the sourcing is also deficient, missing more recent and higher quality sources buidhe 02:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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)