Talk:Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet

Untitled

Please find references to Sir Harry Smith in reference to Xhosa Chief/King Hintsa ka Phalo

NPOV

"Kaffir" is viewed as an offensive term by black South Africans. Too Old 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and having looked into the history of Smith in South Africa have found that we can use tribal names in place of that particular word. His action were mainly against the Khoisan people, I will do some editing when i have time.Tristan benedict 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have changed offending terminology to tribal names and added source for information. Cannot change Kaffir War as that seems to be it's Anglo historical name! Why this has not been changed I don't know. Tristan benedict 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Loved and admired by all?

This article proposes that Sir Harry was widely loved and admired in South Africa. Certainly, citizens of Grahamstown seemed to have a soft spot for him. Not everyone else though, notably the Boers and the Xhosa. For example, see
Harington, A.L. 1974. Sir Harry Smith. Military History Journal 3 (1)
Halfsnail 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably a hangover from copying the Britannica 11th ed text. David Underdown 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the phrasing does say widely, which is not the same as unanimous..... certainly not all the Boers or Xhosas hated Smith... even Florence Nightingale was hated by the British Military. Raasgat 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Image on Left

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images

• Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race).
• Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements. In such cases it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using ((TOCright)). Raasgat 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is on my list of articles to add an Infobox Military. Not sure whether it would be sensible to use the aligning for the whole infobox? Kernel Saunters 09:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that this chagne does interfere with navigation and other elements, both the TOC and picture now span more than one para, which looks horribly messy. David Underdown 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the infobox - I would suggest that it would be better to source a new picture rather than change the toc for the infobox as no other infoboxes have this alignment to my knowledge Kernel Saunters 11:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep....that portrait in the infobox sure does look peculiar staring out of the article....If the ToC and the infobox were swapped it would look a lot more aesthetic Raasgat 11:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not looking out of the article, he is loking directly at the artist. His body is tilted slightly to the right. I don't see any pressing need to change the orientation here. It looks fine to meKernel Saunters 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it again his eyes are looking straight forward, despite the angling of the head and body to the right - it's not look it's a full on profile. When it was chagned previously it really did make a mess of the article as I said above. David Underdown 12:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any doubt that his body is facing out of the article. Full on profile?? The real mess is cramming the image in the infobox....Raasgat 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Marriage?

When did he marry? "a few days" later is not a proper line in an encyclopedia... In a story it could be, but not in an Encyclopedia, googling it I see an entry that pointed out 9th day of April as the proper date and it would be reasonable due to what I see but I couldn't open the pdf to read it fully... And pdfs rarely come with a cache...Undead Herle King (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well much of the text in that section seems to be verbatim from the 11th edition Britannica, so it was once deemed proper encyclopaedic style. Wihtout better sources, we can't do any better. David Underdown (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GCB ?

The UPenn version of Smith's Autobiography (In the tabled overview) lists him getting a GCB for Aliwal in 1846. Any other sources for this beeing ccorrect or not? Wefa (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A search of the London Gazette certainly seems to support the fact that he was a GCB, though I haven't found the original award, so I'm not 100% sure it was specifically for Aliwal. David Underdown (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay White People!

Just wanted to point out the glaring colonial pov in this article. Certainly the British Empire saw him as a hero - he was an agent of their colonialism. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to present him uncritically as a hero - he's certainly not a hero to the majority of South Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.102.116 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

... kiss his feet???

This strange and out-of-context sentence was inserted into the article 5 years ago: "His reputation now is of someone who behaved autocratically and oppressively towards the Xhosa, and did a great deal of harm. It is said he insisted chiefs kiss his feet, for example.". It was inserted by an IP, was not accompanied by any talk, and is not supported by any (given) source. Barring good arguments to the contrary, I intend to remove it. The Brendon quote ("half-mad Harry Smith") seems similarly suspicious to me; I can't shake the suspicion Brendon plucked it from a contemporary political speech or philippic. I have yet to read Brendon, though, so I'll wait until I did :-/ Wefa (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As there seems to be no objection, I will remove the unsourced claim.

As for the Brendon quote, Brendon, it turns out, quotes that thing from another book. His footnote ascribes it to "Frontiers: the Epic of South Africa's Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa People" by Noel Mostert, a Journalist by trade - which seems to be out of print, not available electronically, and by the descriptions looks like more of a historic narrative claiming to "reinterpret South Africa's History" than an actual work of a historian. Does anyone have that and can look into it?Wefa (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)