Talk:Harvey Ward

NPOV

Following the long and deadly struggle with Marxist terrorists in Rhodesia, and what Ward called "the betrayal of western Nations to their own kin", Rhodesia fell.

<understatement> I think this article might be in need of some rewording </understatement>. CJCurrie 19:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here. That is what Harvey Ward actually said at a committee meeting. It is surely not in dispute that the Mugabe's groups were Marxist. If you are saying they were not terrorists, how do you account for the thousands of blacks murdered by them? Why not consult the Anglican Rev.Arthur R. Lewis, a kind and gentle man who gave the best years of his life to these communities. He authored two books with some awful pictures of the 'work' of these terrorists. 213.122.139.176 20:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

That is what Harvey Ward actually said at a committee meeting.

Not quite. Ward might have used the words "betrayal of western Nations to their own kin", but he didn't say "long and deadly struggle with Marxist terrorists in Rhodesia". The latter quote was written by a Wikipedia editor, and is POV.

I suspect that we both despise Mugabe's government (if not for precisely the same reasons), but this isn't the point at issue. CJCurrie 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

For those who were about to lose their livelihoods, their homes and their country, it was a long and deadly struggle. Had Harvey Ward been alive today he would endorse that absolutely. I think it is important that each individual biographical entry reflects the individual, notes some of their comments and feelings. Otherwise a reader who does not know anything of the individual and their relevance will not have the full picture. I can only refer you again to my posting above. Regards. 81.131.152.222 08:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Marxist terminology

I have just noticed references to "liberation" etc., had been inserted in the main article and I have re-edited it back to the correct historical connotation. Harvey Ward would have been outraged at such an entry in his biography. It is a tragedy for Wikipedia that the Left appear to be taking it over with such terminology. Another example is the widespread use of the term 'guerillas' instead of terrorists. Anyone who seeks political ends by means of violence has always been referred to as a terrorist in civilized society. Glorification of such murderers should be against the Wikipedia rules. I propose to contact the Wikipedia Foundation directly on this subject. Otherwise its reputation will simply dissolve. 81.131.152.222 09:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Harvey Ward would have been outraged ... - wikipedia doesn't care what Harvey Ward would have thought, nor what Mugabe thinks of his wikipedia page. (I presume you are the same anon. that has been on Talk:Rhodesia with a similar anti-Red agenda). Good luck with the Foundation.. Wizzy…☎ 09:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cut and pasted your comment as your arrogance is staggering. You clearly see youself speaking for Wikipedia and you have contempt for any complaint to the Foundation. I do not have an anti-Red agenda. What I have is a fairness and accurate agenda which accurately refers to matters rather than one which has an obvious left-wing political slant. 81.131.152.222 09:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an anti-Red agenda myself, but "Anyone who seeks political ends by means of violence has always been referred to as a terrorist in civilized society"?? That would make every army in the world 'terrorist'! Including George Washington's rebel army in the American Revolution.

It is possible to be in rebellion without attacks on non-combatants - a more reasonable definition of 'terrorist'. Though the nationalists were both guerillas and terrorists, I think. 66.201.56.88 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

It is obvious that there is left wing interference in these re-edits. Speaking of 'liberation' when Mugabe's murderers slaughtered tens of thousands of the defenceless indigenous black population shows a clear bias. Any violence against established governments, whether you approve of them or not, is still internationally recognised as terrorism for political aims. It is not civil war. Robert I 21:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

It's now described as a civil war. Does this satisfy all parties? CJCurrie 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

No, because it was not a civil war at all. Just what is your obsession and interest here? I think it should be declared. Robert I 22:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

My interest is in removing an obviously POV phrase. "Marxist terrorists" is an opinion, not a fact.

And I've already said that I'm not a supporter of Robert Mugabe, if that was your implication. CJCurrie 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Marxist terrorists

Returning here I am shocked at this discussion and CJCurrie's assertion that Mugabe's "Marxist terrorists" is an opinion. It is fact. Mugabe never made any secret of this, and the overwhelming numbers of people murdered by them in Rhodesia were black men, women and children. By affording this murderous scum some dignified reason for their atrocities you defile the dead. Maybe CJCurrie needs to do a little homework. I support Robert I in what he has said. Isabella84 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Did Mugabe describe his forces as Marxist Terrorists ? 'Terrorist' is a weasel-word - it means 'the bad guys'. That is POV. Do you think that, at that time, there was no justification for their 'Insurgency' ? How about the ANC while they were banned by the South African Government ? Were they also terrorists ? What would you call their forces ? Wizzy…☎ 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

murdered by them ... women and children. and murderous scum ... defile the dead are phrases that are calculated to evoke strong reactions. Life is unfair, and I sympathise. But we have to move on, and put perspective on history. The winners sometimes get to rewrite history, even. The only way to prevent that is to phrase things in a non-judgemental way that even the victors can agree on. Wikipedia is in a unique position to do this, and we take the responsibility seriously. WP:NPOV means that one of Mugabe's cadres will be satisfied with the article, and you, Isabella, can read sufficiently between the lines to understand what happened. Wizzy…☎ 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists are bad guys. They kill innocent people for political ends. How on earth can that description of them be POV? So what are you going to call them? Nice guys who thought their reasons were good enough to go out and murder people? What other title do you give such people? Why do you wish to appease the 'victors'? It is an established fact that Mugabe is a Marxist. He is on record as saying that he wanted Zimbabwe to be a Marxist one-party state. His followers were, according to several clerics (Rev.Arthur Lewis for one), all given Chairman Mao's 'Little Red Book'. Wikipedia can be neutral but it should still give a factual history, not one designed to pacify those who committed crimes against humanity. I have not read any of the pages on Nazis here yet but I bet they're not very neutral! Isabella84 17:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We know, and do not dispute, the Marxist moniker. I am not appeasing the victors. Did I mention Nazis ? I spent a lot of effort explaining myself. Please read what I said. Wizzy…☎ 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Edit war

I'm going to request further information concerning Ward's quote. Was he specifically referring to ZANU, or also to ZAPU and UANC? CJCurrie 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC).

I did not write this article but have followed it with interest and the fanatical obsession with it by user CJCurrie who has, by anyone's standards, deliberately engaged in an edit war. You would not need to understand much about politics to see where he is coming from on the political circuit and what his objectives really are.

I am currently writing a book about what could be termed the respectable Right in Britain (as opposed to the National Front, BNP, etc). I have had access to the archives of the Monday Club and the Western Goals Institute, including minutes of meetings where Harvey Ward was present. I can confirm that many of his utterances or quotes appear in them. They are very thorough. I have also interviewed a number of people including Denis Walker and the Rev.Arthur Lewis. Mr Walker also claims he was on the same Death List as Harvey Ward and to this day refuses to divulge his home address, and has an exception from the British Electoral Authorities regarding the Electoral Roles. He gave me a list of others also upon it.

Wikipedia in being unable to deal with people such as CJCurrie show that they have failed those who spend time researching and writing articles, and they have faield the general public who are being presented with a perverted view of history. Robert I 14:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The End

I attended a well-known left-wing university. I had to work hard at remaining neutral. I therefore know exactly how these people operate, how they use a scattering of words and terminologies to change meanings entirely and to present people in a different light. I must have been a bit stupid to think that something like Wikipedia would ultimately be dominated by Leftists with their usual agendas.

I originally researched and placed this article on Harvey Ward, whom I thought was a rather interesting character (without resorting to such scummy publications as the 'Irish Times') who had played a part in the old Rhodesia, the land of his birth, and most of his life. Yes, his "homeland" (I note this too has been deleted).

One of the notices on Wikipedia stated that if you don't want your article constantly changed by others, don't put it up. I am therefore taking it down. I am also making a formal complaint about CJCurrie. Isabella84 18:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Responses

(i) I do not have a "fanatical obsession" with Harvey Ward. I didn't even know who he was until a few days ago.

(ii) My concern with this article results from an obvious bias in the original text, which was extremely skewed toward the legacy of white-rule Rhodesia and (if you'll excuse the pun) seemed to be a whitewash of Ward's more questionable attributes.

(iii) If consistently deleting biased edits qualifies as an "engaging in an edit war", then I suppose I would have to plead guilty. I cannot see how any action I have taken on this page would qualify as inappropriate, however.

(iv) A guiding principle of Wikipedia is that the information provided on its pages be both accurate and verifiable. So far, I have only the word of another contributor that a "Death List" exists, and that Ward believed he was on it. If a verifiable source can be provided which confirms either point, I will not object to the information being returned.

(v) Editors do not have the right to "take an article down" if they no longer agree with the information it conveys.

(vi) If Isabella84 wishes to register a complaint, that is her right. I have little doubt of what the outcome will be.

I will also note that I have not descended to the level of personally abusing anyone else in this discussion. CJCurrie 20:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Response

Your abuse is your obvious arrogance that you are right and that others are wrong, and demonstrated again by your clear assertion that you cannot do wrong and that no complaint against you would be upheld. Just fantastic. Isabella84 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand by what I said before: I cannot see how any action I have taken on this page would qualify as inappropriate. As an extension of this, I am inclined to interpret the threat of a complaint as frivolous. This isn't personal abuse, it's my legitimate right to criticize another contributor's statements on a discussion forum.

In any event, all Wikipedians are required to provide a reason for adding an NPOV tag to an article (as I did at the start of this page). If you do not provide a specific reason, based on the article's current content, I am well within my rights to remove the tag. CJCurrie 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think you are the only person with rights. Your obvious bias against the Europeans and Rhodesia under their government is painfully evident by your variety of edits. For instance, you deleted the mention of 'homeland' as regards Ward and Rhodesia, as though it could not be his homeland even though he was born and brought up there. Also, the Europeans who went into Africa saw themselves as pioneers and this term can be found in hundreds of books. Your deliberate change of this term to the ANC?PAC's insulting "settlers" shows your position all too clearly. History should be chronicled as it was and as it was seen at the time, not as lefties would like it to be seen in 2005.

You may think that your edits etc., are clever but they are not. Your personal requirement for the slightest item, however obscure, to be verified means that virtually every article in Wikipedia could be questioned.

There is sufficient discussion on this talk page for the article to be flagged up as NPOV. Isabella84 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(i) My request for verification is limited to a single point: is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Ward was on a Death List (or believed he was)? If evidence can be shown, the point can be returned.

(ii) "Homeland" and "pioneers" are slanted terms, given the historical disputes over land ownership in the region (and I should reiterate at this stage that I do not support Mugabe's government, nor his specific land reform policy). How the British Rhodesians saw themselves is not really the point at issue. "Settlers" is a neutral term, not an insult.

(iii) An NPOV notice must refer to a specific passage in the article. The fact that the article has provoked discussion is not sufficient grounds, in itself. If you cannot point to a specific instance of POV language in the article, I will remove the notice. CJCurrie 22:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Are blacks who came to Britain over the last 30 - 40 years from Africa called "settlers"? When, exactly was the term "White minority government" first applied? I suggest this is part of the anti-European liberal-left malaise of the post-war era and as so I for one find that offensive. Why not just call it the European government? Much of the verbiage in this article is wrong and designed to put Mr.Ward in a bad light. 213.122.58.36 15:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My family knew the Wards, and Harvey. Its a disgrace how you people are tyring to blacken his name. I concur with the first line of the paragraph above. Only white-hating western liberals and communists would use the Pan African Congress term 'settlers'. 81.136.138.184 14:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

• This page has been systematically attacked by user CJCurry. Any objective person going through the umpteen 'edits' he has made will see endless standard left-wing terminology, words, and phrases. It is not possible to list them all here. Its just a bad day for Wikipedia. 213.122.127.25 19:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections? If not, I'm within my rights to remove the NPOV tag. CJCurrie 20:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Isabella, specifically what passage in the text do you object to? Please give us a specific quotation?

"Its a disgrace how you people are tyring to blacken his name"

The sad thing is you say that without the slightest hint of irony. Homey 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

• I want a verifiable official source (not a left-wing journalist's fantasies) that Harvey Ward worked with the South African government to produce criminal disinformation or I am going to remove that. 213.122.67.71 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Irish Times article is a verifiable official source, not a left-wing journalist's fantasies. CJCurrie 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Irish Times is not "official" its just another lousy newspaper. Much of what is in that article does not add up. I suspect its a compilation. I read with disbelief the comment further up this page that "homeland" is regarded as "slanted". 86.140.102.10 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to these comments, but I'll note that your speculation on the article page was inappropriate (for reasons noted in my revert). CJCurrie 22:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)