Talk:Harvey Ward (director-general)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]