Talk:Ian Smith/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ian Smith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Apoligies for the arbitrary deletion, but I couldn't work out what either version of the sentence was supposed to mean. Maybe it could be explained on this page? DJ Clayworth 16:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've now (hopefully) clarified this sentence. I couldn't see any ungrammatical about the original, but as it now stands I think it's clear.

In short, the point that was being made was that although nothing in the consistution prevented blacks from participating in the political process, this was not the case for terrorist groups. 80.255 17:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm assuming that most Black political parties were considered terrorists under the white regime. This might be worth saying too. Remember that someone might be reading this with no knowledge of the situation at all. DJ Clayworth 17:25, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that this article should mention that Ian Smith flew shot down in Italy and escaped to France. I remember his book saying something about him making the mistake of coming back for a second strafing run on the target by which time the element of surprise had been lost. I found the following snippet using Google: "During the war he was badly injured in a Hurricane crash in 1943 from which he fully recovered, only to be shot down whilst over the Po river in Italy during June 1944. He survived the experience and fought with the Italian partisans, before being able to escape across the border to liberated France. He soon rejoined his squadron and saw active service over Germany up to the close of the war in Europe." (Tim Murphy 22 Dec 2003)

Why is there a neutrality dispute notice on this article? If nobody has posted anything by 12th April I will remove it. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article was initially extremely biased in favour of the terrorist mass murderer Robert Mugabe. However, it seems much improved now, so I will not, at present, object to the removal of the dispute notice. 80.255 09:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who posted the neutrality dispute notice. At any rate, I see little point in keeping it. The first time I looked at the article, there were a few sentences that could have been considered POV (although I don't think they were intended that way, they were just badly written), but several edits by a number of contributors since have rectified that situation. I support your stated intention to remove the notice. Davidcannon 00:46, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)