Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister whose 15-year tenure played out like a Greek tragedy, stepped down in 1979 with two parallel reputations, each largely corresponding to opinions on his country in general. To some he was a visionary who understood problems outside observers did not, a hero whose Unilateral Declaration of Independence had saved Rhodesia from disaster. To most, however, he was an almost cartoonish figure of derision, a deluded, bigoted racist who had tried to stop the tide of history. The truth, as I hope this article shows, is somewhere between these two extremes.
This long article (around 14,000 words) just passed GA following a review by Lemurbaby (talk·contribs), who was very complimentary of it, describing it as "among the 100 best articles on Wikipedia". I believe it meets the FA standards and am therefore nominating it. I hope you enjoy reading it, and look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian(talk) 13:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know if this is a reason to fail an FAC, but this article seems to be somewhat too long at the moment. I've given it a run through with the User:Shubinator/DYKcheck tool, and it's coming out as 89,279 characters of readable prose. Per WP:Article size#A rule of thumb, that's considerably above the 60k limit at which it "Probably should be divided" and getting towards the 100k figure at which it "Almost certainly should be divided". I'll leave this one out there for the nominator and others to reply to as they see fit - if you have reasons why this needs to be the length it is, or if this is not a major factor in determining FA status then all well and good. I will probably have a read through of this later on as well (might need to set aside an hour for that!) and see if I spot anything else. It looks well written and engaging from a quick glance. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, I know the article is long, but there are similar existing FAs of similar length; Ronald Reagan is only about 1,000 words shorter and Benjamin Disraeli, promoted a few months ago, is also over 14,000. I must admit I modelled the length on these as Smith is a figure of similar historical stature in his country. I would prefer not to split the article if at all possible as I think doing so would cause aspects of his complicated, and often oversimplified, story to be skimmed over somewhat—it should be remembered that many readers will come here not to read the entire article but to read up on a particular aspect (they might be specifically looking for information on what happened to Smith after Mugabe took over, for example). However I'm more than happy for any ideas people might have to be noted and discussed. I hope this is okay and that you found the article interesting. Thanks and have a great week —Cliftonian(talk) 18:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Article have tended to get longer in recent years; when I started on the FAC trail in 2007 a 14,000-word text was pretty well unthinkable. Now they come quite often – I'm not altogether sure that this is a good thing. For one thing, I think there's a danger that articles of this length don't attract reviewers to FAC, or don't get thoroughly reviewed. However, I agree with Cliftonian that splitting the article into subarticles would cause complications, and isn't necessarily the best way forward. It may be possible to reduce the text by removing some detail – I'll have a better idea when I have reviewed the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I share Brian's suspicion that FAs are getting longer, and I am far from guiltless in that matter. But I am agin splitting up a biographical article like this. Better to have a long article to go through than to have one that (say) takes the person to the premiership and then leaves him/her there, with another article to switch to for the rest of the story. Tim riley (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments on prose from Tim riley
Not clear why "premier" is not capped but Prime Minister is.
"premier" wasn't used in Rhodesia at the time as an official title; "Prime Minister" was ("Premier" was used between 1923 and 1933). —Cliftonian(talk) 16:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"Liberal Member of Parliament for Selukwe…Rising through the political ranks with the United Federal Party" – not clear here how the one party ties in with the other. You explain later, but it breaks flow here.
"while Rhodesia did not devise" – until Rhodesia devised?
Yes. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC) I've actually reverted this one as it might create the impression to some that Rhodesia did devise such a timetable, and that talks broke down anyway. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Family, childhood and adolescence
Agnes' – American rather than British form of possessive?
"the qualities that had attracted him most to Janet, who had represented the Cape in hockey, were her intelligence, courage and…" – too much shoehorned in here. Do we mind that she played hockey for the Cape?
Okay, took that bit out; I originally crammed it in to show that she also had a background in sports —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"headed by Prime Minister Sir Godfrey Huggins" – you'll be familiar with my constant plaint that without a definite article before "Prime", this is either tabloidese or an Americanism. I admit my grasp of Rhodesian/Zimbabwean English is slight.
You're right; I usually observe this but slipped up this time! —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"Many white families were receptive to him because" – is it worth mentioning here or earlier the voting position of non-white families? If you've done so I must have missed it.
I had left this to explain further down, but I think you're right it is worth briefly explain this when we discuss his first election to parliament. I have added a couple sentences here: "The Southern Rhodesian electoral system allowed only those who met certain financial and educational qualifications to vote. This was theoretically non-racial as the standards applied equally to everybody, but since most blacks did not meet the set standards, the electoral roll and the government were overwhelmingly white."
Just what was wanted, I think. Excellent. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Federation; Chief Whip
"Garfield Todd became Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia" – when?
When Huggins changed jobs; I've changed to "replaced Huggins as Prime Minister"; does this make it clearer? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
"As the UK government" – it's been the British government at earlier mentions. Not sure the variation is helpful. I just mention it.
I think we'll keep it for now for variation, but if it comes up again I will not complain about replacing it. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Best way, I think. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
First days; banning of PCC/ZAPU and ZANU
"popularly known in Rhodesia by his former title Lord Graham" – not all that popularly, I suspect.
I have changed to simply "also called Lord Graham" (people I have spoken to who knew him invariably call him "Lord Graham", and he is often referred to as such in sources, so I think this is worth keeping). —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Fallout from UDI
"prompted pandemonium in Britain" – rather strong, I'd say. Front page news here, certainly, but not pandemonium. I mean, it's not as if Coronation Street was cancelled or anything.
Okay, how about "prompted political outrage"? I meant pandemonium in that it caused a great stir in parliament, etc. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
That will do nicely. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Tiger and Fearless talks with Wilson
"Frederick Elwyn Jones" – needs piping: always known as Elwyn Jones. I didn't even know his first name was Frederick. From 1964 he was Sir Elwyn Jones till they kicked him upstairs in 1974.
Thank you very much for the comments Tim, very much appreciated. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Provisional support. My few comments are now dealt with most satisfactorily. Delegate, please note that I have commented in detail on only the first half of the text, having, for this very substantial article, agreed with User:Brianboulton to divide the close reading between us, but I have read through the whole article carefully, and I can conscientiously say that in my view it meets all the FA criteria. I don't imagine I shall have reason to change my mind after BB has added his list of suggestions, but I think I must reserve that option. I have added, above, my two penn'orth about the length, and I don't regard the word count as an obstacle to promotion. Back to convert "provisional support" to "support", I hope when BB has done his stuff. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review Tim! I'm glad you like the article already; I think it has improved however since Brian's input below. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reread the whole article in the light of Brian's comments, below, and Cliftonian's accommodating responses, and I am very pleased to join Brian in supporting the promotion to FA. It is a long article, but it was no hardship to read it a third time, because it is very well written. Fine work. Tim riley (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Tim, for the review and the kind words; I hope you are having a great weekend —Cliftonian(talk) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As Tim indicates, I agreed with him that I would deal in detail with the second half of the article. I'm not finished yet—still have the last few sections to read—but here are my comments thus far. As you will see, I have a slight concern about the neutrality in certain passages. Smith is a controversial figure, tending to evoke extremes of opinion. In a neutral encyclopedic summary it is necessary to tread very carefully, avoiding as far as possible the use of descriptive terms such as "brutal", "atrocity" etc. in favour of less colourful language. It is particularly important that, when using sources such as Meredith's Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe, you attribute to the author.
Wilson and Labour returned to power in March 1974, rather than "meanwhile" which is unnecessarily vague.
"The first sentence of this statement, taken out of context, became commonly quoted as evidence that Smith was a crude racist who would never compromise with the black nationalists..." That first sentence ("I don't believe in majority rule ever in Rhodesia ... not in 1,000 years") contains an ellipsis; should we not know in full what Smith said?
That's a formatting error—it's not an ellipsis but a pause in speaking. I've replaced with an emdash. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Whose wording is "taken out of context"? The statement seems pretty unequivocal, and it is hard to see a context in which it might be considered acceptable. Nor do I see that this explicit wording is mitigated by the suggestion that he only said it to appease his hard-line colleagues
This was an attempt to integrate the assertion of the source (Peter Godwin) that the quote has become "shorn of all context", but I think the meaning is still clear if we lose this and it introduces unnecessary controversy, so I've taken it out. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Internal Settlement and Lancaster House
Recommend delete "more and more"
Yes, agree this is an improvement —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You mention that, in their October 1978 tour of the US, Smith, Muzorewa and Sithole met with Ford, Kissinger and Reagan. You should make it clear that by then, Ford and Kissinger were out of office. Did the party not meet anyone in the Carter administration? Otherwise the purpose of the visit is unclear.
I am away from my books for a few days unfortunately so cannot look this up for now, but my recollection is that the Democratic figures they encountered were not particularly high-ranking and were fairly hostile towards them. The visit was supposed to raise awareness of the Internal Settlement and so forth, and attempt to shift opinion in favour of lifting sanctions and recognising the government. In this they succeeded as the U.S. Senate did indeed vote to lift sanctions and recognise Zimbabwe Rhodesia—though as we say in the article this didn't translate into actual results for the Z-R government. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"Sithole, astounded by his party's poor showing..." What was this showing?
Have put in the article that Sithole's party (which was also called ZANU, confusingly) won 12 seats to the UANC's 51. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"Muzorewa formally replaced Smith on 1 June 1979" Doesn't need "formally", but does need "as prime minister". In fact, I think I would refashion the whole sentence: " On 1 June 1979, the day of the country's official reconstitution as Zimbabwe Rhodesia, Muzorewa replaced Smith as prime minister, at the head of a UANC–RF coalition Cabinet made up of 12 blacks and five whites."
Why did neither Thatcher nor Carter not lift sanctions? A (very) brief explanation would be useful.
Have put in that it was basically because world opinion still backed the guerrillas. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Final paragraph: I think that the statement that "The UK government and the international community ultimately declared the election free and fair" shouldn't be buried mid para, particularly as the preceding sentences tend to imply the reverse. I'd begin the para with this statement, then move to the qualifications.
Okay. Yes, on reflection I agree this is better. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
First years under Mugabe
"Smith vaunted himself as the guardian of what he called Zimbabwe's "white tribe"." I don't think "vaunted" is the right word. It implies boastfulness, self-display etc. A neutral replacement would be "presented himself".
"Police meticulously searched his Harare house and Gwenoro over the next week, confiscating firearms, personal papers and a diary from the latter." The last three words cause confusion (the latter what?), and would be better left out.
"...where it perpetrated a number of brutal massacres and atrocities against civilians accused of supporting "dissidents", far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War.". This needs to be expressed in more neutral encyclopedic language, and the judgement that these actions were "far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War" needs to be specifically attributed to a source, i.e. "according to..."
I have tried to tone this down a little: "where it killed thousands of civilians accused of supporting "dissidents". Meredith asserts that this far exceeded anything that had occurred during the Bush War, an opinion shared by Geoff Hill." —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"The Zimbabwean government bombarded Smith with vitriolic public threats..." Again, too colourful, non-encyclopedic.
I have toned this down to "publicly threatened Smith on a regular basis" —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
""an incorrible racist"? Is this a typo for "incorrigible", or did Mugabe invent a word? If the latter, add (sic)
That's how it appears in the source; apparently he did invent a word. Have put [sic]. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"very much in the twilight of his career" – "very much" are unnecessary words
Thank you very much for the review so far; your comments have been very helpful in trying to tone my writing down a notch! I look forward to carrying on and hope you are enjoying the article. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's the rest
Land reform programme; new popularity
A slightly confusing heading. A reader might think that the "popularity" referred to the land reform programme.
I have tried to make this clearer: "Smith gains new popularity" —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"Governmental mismanagement and widespread corruption within the ZANU–PF order led to Zimbabwe declining economically during the 1990s while Mugabe and others became fabulously wealthy". I have numerous issues with this sentence. First, the language is assertive and far from neutral. Secondly, the statement that Zimbabwe declined economically during the 1990s is itself questionable: this chart, based on World Bank figures, seems to show that Zimbabwe's GDP increased in most years during the 1990s, sometimes by considerable percentages, before a rapid decline after 1999. There are no doubt other economic indicators that can be cited, and mismanagement and corruption in government circles presumably contributed to the economy's erratic performance, but there would have been other factors as well, e.g. drought, harvest failures, adverse world trading conditions particularly at the start of the decade. Finally, the statement that Mugabe and unspecified others became "fabulously wealthy" needs toning down, to something like "enriched themselves", and needs a very definite "according to", and perhaps an example or two which supports the claim.
I have tried to tone this down a bit: "According to Meredith, governmental mismanagement and widespread corruption within the ZANU–PF order led to Mugabe and others enrichening themselves considerably at the expense of the country as a whole." Am away from home so unable to go through the literature in detail but perhaps may expand on this. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
In fact, as I read on, I realise that this first paragraph is not really about Smith at all. I suggest ditching most of it, replacing with something like: "In 2000, hoping to win support from rural blacks, Mugabe introduced a fast-track land reform programme under which groups of ZANU–PF activists, officially referred to as "war veterans", were sent to take over white-owned farms so the land could be split up, without compensation, and redistributed to black peasant farmers. White farmers and their black employees were violently forced out, food production plummeted, and the economy collapsed to half the size it had been in 1980". This would lead naturally to the invasion of Gwenoro, and Smith's laconic response.
"Supporters hailed him as 'a political visionary ... who understood the uncomfortable truths of Africa,' in the words of a BBC report". This statement may have been included in a BBC report, as a summary of Smith's supporters' views, but I don't believe that this wording can be attributed to the BBC itself.
Hmmm. Taking this out leaves open the question of who actually said it, though. I have taken the attribution in the prose out and just put the footnote next to it. Do you think this is better or should we try to paraphrase? —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"...and he often claimed in later life that black Zimbabweans preferred him to Mugabe and had been better off before 1980." Well, yes, I'm sure he thought that, but I don't think this personal opinion can be considered as part of Smith's reputation and legacy. In any case, the point is dealt with in the finalpara of this section.
Yes, I agree no reason to mention it twice —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Second paragraph: this refers to a comment I made earlier. I am not at all clear why interpreting Smith's "1000 years" statement as meaning exactly what it said amounts to a "fabrication". What is it that Godwin is implying was fabricated? Does Godwin provide a context which makes the words more palatable?
The source is here. What Godwin says is fabricated is the common assertion that Smith was actually predicting that white rule would continue for 1,000 years and that shows that he was motivated purely by a cocktail of racial hatred and delusional thinking. According to Godwin, Smith "was advocating, not predicting, the survival of white rule and telling his people that while he was still opposed in principle to black rule, he had not ruled out the possibility of power-sharing in the immediate future. He was actually laying the ground work for compromise." —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Sithole does not need his full "Reverend Ndabaningi", and the wording "who latterly worked alongside Smith following the Internal Settlement" is probably unnecessary, too.
I have cut this down, but I think it is worth keeping "The long-time ZANU leader" just to briefly remind the reader who Sithole was and also to emphasise that this is one of the old guard black nationalists saying this. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Summary: Smith was always going to be a tough subject to get right. I think you have creditably striven to present an even-handed assessment of his life; however, the particular issues of non-neutrality that I have raised need to be addressed. Other reviewers may pinpoint similar concerns – you should be prepared for that. Although the article is long, I found it generally fast-paced, with no areas that obviously needed pruning, not in the half that I have looked at in detail. My position at the moment is similar to Tim's: leaning to support, but I'd like to see your responses to the points I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the rest of the review, Brian; excellent as always. I have replied to each point above and implemented most of the changes you suggested. I hope all this is satisfactory. I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed the article. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Support: I think you have dealt sensibly with the points that I have raised, and have allayed my concerns about neutrality. This is a particularly well researched article. Unlike Lemurbaby I have not read all of the other 4.5 million WP articles, so I can't say whether it ranks among the top 100, but I would rate it highly among the political biographies that I have read (and I wrote a couple myself, you know). Subject to sources and image clearance, this looks a thoroughly worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review, Brian—excellent as always. Thank you also for the very kind words. Have a great rest of the weekend —Cliftonian(talk) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Signature_of_Ian_Smith.svg: this suggests that the PD-signature tag doesn't apply to this image - can you clarify?
Hmmm. Seems the signature is probably not public domain, so we must lose it under the precautionary principle. I have removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion on Commons. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Jock_and_Agnes_Smith,_1935.jpg: when/where was this first published?
It seems to have been published for the first time in The Quiet Man, the Smith biography published in Rhodesia in 1978, but I don't know if it was published before. It is not credited to anybody and it seems probable to me that it is a family photograph Smith allowed to be used in the book. My understanding is that the photograph became public domain on 1 January 1986 as photographs taken in Rhodesia before 1967 do so 50 years after being taken rather than 50 years after being published. See here for more details (Section 60, Part I, Article 2 "Duration of Copyright") —Cliftonian(talk) 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. For this one and the one below, that's fine for the Zimbabwean copyright, but the given US PD tag may not be applicable as it does rely on publication details - can you check that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am presuming The Quiet Man (1978) is the first place the image was published. The photograph is not explicitly credited in the book and no notice of copyright seems to be given regarding the images. The acknowledgements page just refers to pictures being "reproduced with permission of the Ministry of Information, the National Archives, the Rhodesian Army and private sources"; individual credits for each picture are not given. I am no expert on this kind of thing; what do you advise? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What copyright notice, if any, was on the book as a whole? Was the book ever published in the US and, if so, when? (this might apply, depending on answers). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A copyright notice appears on page iv: "This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. No portion may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Copyright Phillippa Berlyn". The book was never republished in any other country; the 1978 Rhodesian pressing is the only one. —Cliftonian(talk) 09:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Same with File:Ian_Smith_RAF_3.jpg
I do not know where this photograph was first published (or if indeed it was commercially), or where or when exactly it was taken. We can see however that it was taken while he was in the Middle East with No. 263 Squadron RAF (this can be easily confirmed by the rank and insignia he is wearing, as well as the absence of his wounds from his crash in Egypt). It seems logical to me in the circumstances to trace back to the photographer's country of citizenship or domicile, which would probably be Rhodesia as this was a Rhodesian squadron. Under this reasoning and the legislation described above the photograph would enter PD in Zimbabwe in 1994 at the latest. I hope this is acceptable. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so assuming this was not published prior to appearing at the given source, it was already PD in the US at that time. I can't find a US copyright template that would adequately account for the situation (the current one does not apply); if no one else knows of one, I'd probably just explain the situation in text under the Zimbabwean tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I have done as you suggest; thanks for this —Cliftonian(talk) 09:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
File:College_House,_Rhodes_University.jpg: South Africa does not have freedom of panorama, so licensing should account for the photograph as well as the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand this one. The source for this image is here. The building was completed in 1913 and the photograph seems to have been taken soon thereafter (it certainly was taken before 1935 as this is when the photographer, Duncan Greaves, died). It seems to me that the photograph has been public domain in South Africa since 1986 at the latest. Regarding freedom of panorama, I know very little about this so I must bow to your expertise, but surely the architecture is in the public domain after a century? —Cliftonian(talk) 19:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The architecture is fine as far as copyright; my question was for the photo. So you're saying the given tags apply to both the architecture and the image? In which case we would need to know the publication details for the image...and do you have a source for Greaves' date of death? The source suggests that Cory died in 1935, but doesn't give dates for Greaves. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah! I'm sorry for the mix-up, my mistake. As I say above I am not great on picture licencing, etc. I suspect that Duncan Greaves may not be the original photographer as he seems to still be alive and active as a photographer in the local area (see here). Since the source above describes this as "Photograph of slide no.228 from Sir George Cory's glass lantern slide collection", it seems likely to me that the original photograph was actually taken by Cory in the 1910s, and Greaves more recently took a derivative photograph of the glass slide. I do not know the publishing details of the image; it seems likely to me that it was not published as it is described as part of Cory's slide collection. What do you think? —Cliftonian(talk) 16:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
this seems to confirm this theory. "Collection of 286 glass slides used by Sir George Cory in his Magic Lantern Shows digitized in 2004 by Duncan Greaves of FotoFirst Grahamstown [see link above], including a sample collection of 24 slides [electronic resource] / George Edward Cory." Since Cory died in 1935, the "Magic Lantern Shows" in which this would have been made available to the public must have taken place beforehand (presuming this image was exhibited). —Cliftonian(talk) 16:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. So as a slide is 2D Greaves wouldn't hold any copyright to the derivative, and public exhibition counts as publication. Presuming the image was included in the exhibition, the current tags are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A few comments, not a complete review. Brian and Tim, thanks much for your work on this. - Dank (push to talk)
"In practice, he remained in office until 1979.": I'm not sure what "In practice" means. You might drop it, or say that he held this role within the Rhodesian government until 1979.
Yes you're right, this is better. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"as Prime Minister of Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia) from 1964 to 1979.": How about this? "as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia (1964–65) and
of Rhodesia (1965–1979)." [the "of" is optional]
I understand your idea but unfortunately the case isn't as simple as this. Different people called the same place either Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia throughout his time in office. Moreover the country was renamed (or not) in 1964, not 1965. (A brief explanation of this is given in the article but I will elaborate here to save time—basically when Northern Rhodesia became Zambia in October 1964, Southern Rhodesia's government passed legislation to shorten its name to Rhodesia, but this required British approval, which was not given. Smith's government went on using "Rhodesia" anyway, but the country continued to be officially referred to in many British and international documents as "Southern Rhodesia". This situation continued right up to 1979.) I think the most neutral, least controversial and actually most accurate way to deal with this problem is to leave it as it is. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"agreed the Internal Settlement": This is still informal in BritEng, and often mistaken for a typo outside of the UK. "signed" or "came to an agreement on" (or something else, if something else is meant)
"the international community likewise denied recognition": Something more specific would be better ... perhaps "no country recognised the settlement". - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
... that he retained for the rest of his life.- hmm, funny choice of words. Not sure what I'd have as an alternative striaghtaway. Need to think about this one...
How about "that remained conspicuous for the rest of his life"? The point we're trying to make is that even when he was Prime Minister decades later, everybody could still see the wounds to his face, he walked oddly, couldn't sit for long periods, etc. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Welensky does not specifically elaborate but I would guess it was something to do with his farming. The country did not have daylight saving time (and to this day does not); there was probably some debate over whether to introduce it. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Overall looking good on comprehensiveness and prose..in cases of doubt I think it is probably safer to steer toward hagiography than critique...I don't know enough about Ian Smith to be able to say confidently whether it should be more critical. Wasn't there more criticism about crackdown measures in the 1960s? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the article so far. We refer to this in the legacy section, where Smith is criticised for using "draconian" emergency powers against black nationalists. I have been fiddling around trying to find some way to shoehorn something about this into the biography as well but I can't seem to find a way to do so without going into too much detail. I hope this is all right with you. —Cliftonian(talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah fine. I'll AGF for and support on comprehensiveness and prose (unless someone else queries the balance). A nice read - cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind words and support. Have a great weekend —Cliftonian(talk) 08:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)