Talk:Harvey Ward

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Marxist terminology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Marxist terrorists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Edit war

message: 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)
thread_title: The End

message: (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)
thread_title: Responses

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Response

message: * 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)
thread_title: Sources