Talk:Zimbabwe/Archive 2

Unencyclopedic and POV
How can the economic crisis be mentioned without the expulsion of the white industrial farmers in the late 90's, early 00's? I know it be not be a pleasant topic, but no matter how brutal they were as colonizers their presence was critical to the economy and Zimbabwe has gone under because unlike South Africa they did not come to terms with it.

I have changed some of the language in "White minority rule and civil war" which seemed unencyclopedic and also POV.Peashy 11:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanctions What Sanctions
With inflation anywhere between 2000% and 8000% immigaration of large numbers of their skilled workforce, one cannot point to the 'informal economy as it is just that and will not significantly improve the countrys economy (with no prospects they will migrate to economically more stable areas) and life expectancy plumating the Zanu-PF shrouded in paronoia and its inordinate self-belief knows it cannot blame the countrys ills on internal problems without accepting its own woeful inadequacies. Therefore it targets many outside sources for its ills. Infact their ARE CURRENTLY NO ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FROM THE EU (only sanctions involve not supplying military aid and the fact that no financial institutions are willing to bankroll Zimbabwe, i.e. loans etc. and specific sanctions against the ruling members of the Zanu-PF) infact the EU was the largest donor to Zimbabwe as a Sugar Protocol Country the EU has donated over 190 million Euros in 2006 and over 1.2 Billion since its independance. Their are also no trade embargos by the EU infact many EU countrys are Zimbabwes significant importers. Infact Australia, EU countries, Canada and US have invested heavily in mining in Zinbabwe. While the internal press supports Mugabee there will be little debate and ordinary Zimbabwians (?) will continue to suffer. Also charges that countries wish to recolonise Zimbabwe are laughable, who would want to take on such an economic disaster. I am sorry this is harsh but the article needs to reflect the truth, only last month soldiers trying to flee Zimbabwe were handed back by SA, the soldiers were tortured and murdered!--Philm101 10:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe, Dictatorship or dictatorship
Saying that Zimbabwe is still a Republic is the work of someone with a very active imagination. Get your facts right before making "corrections". Zimbabwe is a one party state with a highly dubious election process and a leader who abdicated any real leanings towards democracy many years ago.

Zimbabwe is a Republic with a viable elections. All the the opposition parties have contested the elections. The losers have claimed that irregularities were present. That is common in Africa, when the loser takes to the guns or opens his mouth. Which contry does not have voting irregularities? The USA, South Africa, UK????Get over it!

True, other countries have voting irregularities, but the USA, multicultural South Africa and the (1960 - present day) UK never sent in crack troops into opposition heartlands to rape, murder and pillage (like Mugabe did with the North Korean trained 5th Brigade in the Matabeleland...and please, don't quote Northern Ireland at me or I will have to scream). Nor have the above countries deliberately held back food, funding and services from opposition areas and nor have the above countries used the army and security services in a way to intimidate, torture and actively suppress opposition while giving the state candidates an assured platform at elections.

The US, UK and SA don't require that reporters be registered with the government, neither do they actively bar news organisations that they don't like (although they do pour scorn on some) and neither do they actively close down newspapers or other media organisations for disagreeing with the government's spin.

The USA gov't has used implanted reporters at press conferences to skew views. The BBC is a state funded media - For all the hype about free press in the western world, a lot still remains - it is not totally free as suggested. Get over lecturing people on free press when yours is not entirely free.

Is Zimbabwe a dictatorship? Of course it is, its elections are far from viable, Commonwealth and EU monitors have proven that. End of discussion. --Pudduh 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pudduk, end of discussion mean absolute British imperial dictorship that once ruled the whole of Africa. Democracy is a process in any country. Also, African countries are moving away to having EU monitor elections. Zimbabwean's neigbors and African Union declared the elections in Zimbabwe as expressing the peoples will, that also counts for something! Being a European is not being "GOD". I hate your self righteous. If Europeans were all that great, how come they never introduced democracy in Africa? Understand most of Africans are skepitcals about "Euros" Zvidzai 01:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, what has Britain's past as a colonial ruler got to do with the current crisis facing Zimbabwe here and now? Democracy is being run down by Robert Mugabe and not by any western government. NGOs are complaining that food aid to Zimbabwe is used to buy favour amongst the people government favours and kept away from the people the government does not. African nations are not moving away from having NGOs and the EU monitor their elections as Kenya, Botswana, Mozambique and others welcome election monitors with open arms. Why? Because they have nothing to hide and genuinely want to progress as truly democratic societies. The only people blocking EU election monitors are the bad apples, and you know it.

And now the African Union and South Africa are talking of Zimbabwe as an "embarrassment" because of the abuse of power that is happening within Zimbabwe itself. Are these imperialists too? What term would you call Thabo Mbeki and Ghanaian President John Kufuor out of your dictionary of outdated 1970s Marxist rhetoric? Lackeys of the European capitalists? Or indeed unscrupulous capitalists themselves?! --Pudduh 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh - Africans, who created democracy in Africa (Not colonialists) are begining to talk and I have no problem with that. I also note that as usual the British are twisting every word that mentions Zimbabwe and spinning, just like they did toward Iraq mass weapons of lies. Yes, they is a move away from NGO observing elections in Africa. Increasingly the comments are not helpful in improving so-called western type of democracy. You may be away that Dr. Leaky another arrogang anglo-white-Brit had a lot of problems with the Kenyan gov't that eventually kicked him out-FACT!!!Zimbabwe, like Ghana, Nigeria, Zambia, Mozambique have all gone thru a post-colonial era and survived. This again NOT WITH THE AID OF EUROPE!!!Absolutely nothing unusual. Interference by USA and EU has actual made things more difficult, than warranted....Keep your long noses out of Zimbabwe!Zvidzai 01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish Zvidzai, you hate it that other Southern African nations are slowly starting to stick their noses into Zimbabwe when they should be minding their own business, you hate it that they are making comments agreeing with the international community and are out of step with that of Robert Mugabe. You want the rest of Southern Africa to be just as hysterically hostile to the outside world as Zimbabwe is and you are dismayed that that is not the case, dismayed that nations like Kenya, Botswana and South Africa only want to look to a prosperous, multicultural, fair and just future rather than look back to the "strong men" of Africa who tore it apart post independence. And who the hell is Dr Leaky? Is that just some guy you made up? And actually governments like Ghana and Nigeria took hundreds of millions of pounds of British aid since they were made independent in the 1960s. And, "long noses"? Oh ho! Is this a clever attempt at anti-semitism now Zvidzai? Who else are responsible for Zimbabwe's problems now? So far we have "evil colonialists", the UK, the USA, the EU, "capitalist lackey dogs" in Southern Africa and now the Jews. When will you wake up and realise that the cause of Zimbabwe's problems are actually closer to home, situated around that grand palace Robert Mugabe has had built for himself on land he stole from the people. --Pudduh 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually Zvidzai, you seem to be pretty close to ZANU-PF and the like, you bang on about "evil white colonialists" and the like and how they should be kicked out or brought to justice, etc, etc. Then why is the arch-white supremacist Ian Smith still living in Zimbabwe, on his own farm, blissfully living out his retirement without any threat of being charged for his obvious crimes during UDI? Doesn't this make a mockery of Robert Mugabe and his usual diatribes? --Pudduh 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh - Any one who disagrees with your skewed views on Zimbabwe is close to zanu-pf. There are a lot of views of Britons and others among Zimbabwean who are not supporters of Zanu-pf. It is just that the Brits are very vocal and self-righteous. By the way, Ian Smith lives in South Africa (has been for some years now). Ian Smith has not violated any Zimbabwean Laws that I know of...In future keep your oppinions about racial issues and who Zimbabweans should support to yourself. Wikipedia is not about opinions...Zvidzai 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Freedom House, which is a fairly unbiased source, Zimbabwe counts as a dictatorship. I have never heard about Freedom House, please provide information in future. Not everybody know anglo-white org. or need to know. Democracy is by the people for the people and for a specific country. Imported democracy, like the one in Iraq, is no democracy - "pudduh get that"

If Zimbabwe is a true one-party nation, please explain to me how the Movement for Democratic Change has 41 seats in the House of Assembly? Yes some things are because of Mr. Mugabe, but maybe instead of plotting his downfall, us western nations could consider helping these poorer nations, instead of being pretentious about the fact that we have democracy and other topics like that. Sooner or later, you'll have to get over the fact that there are dictatorships in this world, and when they fall, they'll fall. All countries don't have to be the perfect democracies that we have in the west, and besides, even our western democracy isn't as perfect as people say. And on another note, lets help the poor and inpovershed in our OWN nations before we complain about African dictatorships. --Dofer49-

Land of my birth
I have many things to say about this article, since Zimbabwe is the place of my birth. 1st of all, reading through the archives, is it true that Great Zimbabwe has been destroyed? Is it Mugabe? Why?

And does anyone remember the movie Jit? It was also a novel. It was something of a Zimbabwean Romantic Comedy with a bit of action and the supernatural. It had a good story, and was uniquely Zimbabwean, yet not too unique as to be totally unrelatable to the viewer. I think it deserves a mention. Also, I found a few good links:Unfortunately for you the novel did not contain facts! Recent book movies have shown a tendency to tell stories that are not factual correct. This include the recent King of Scotland. It is mostly an attempt by writers to write what the wish or dream the situation should be. I don't think we need such fantsy on Zimbabwe. Such fantasy tend to be only exclusively "white anglo dreams" which have their own bias. No thanks to that.

[] [] Dessydes 03:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

if by 'destroyed' you mean 'in ruins', nothing has changed. The ruins are ancient. Mugabe did not touch them.140.184.192.117 17:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chief Yero Cakhn
Removed reference to the non-existent Chief Yero Cakhn - I wonder if by any chance the name was included to add verisimilitude to an advance fee fraud e-mail? Humansdorpie 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the template. Your suggestion hadn't occurred to me, but it sounds very plausible. BillC 00:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bantu/Buk Toh
Feb. 1, 2002 --- This is such an awesome page. It helped me a lot, and I got an A+ from this! Seriously, you ALL should use this. The Buk Toh tribes is wrong though??? - Anne Moved above comments by User:Ginaaax3 from article to talk page. Can you provide a reference for Buk Toh? I was unable to find anything. Thanks! BillC 11:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Education
'This is despite the fact that international agencies like the World Bank and IMF in the early 1990's had been calling on government to reduce its spending and reduce the civil service of which the bulk are teachers and health professionals. The literacy rate is higher than most developed countries and this is with the limited resources that the government of Zimbabwe has.'

This sounds pretty biased and somewhat confused (what is the correlation between the IMF's demands on Zimbabwe and literacy rates? Is it suggested that the IMF is trying to keep literacy rates down in Zimbabwe?) and it doesn't add much to the article. Anyone have ideas on how to reword it or should it be removed? --PredatorOC

Remove the role of IMF on education, it is not honest. Most Zimbabweans have found ways to get educated in the USA, SA, UK, Israel, Australia - This inspite of the "evil" IMF.

Cities of Zimbabwe
If you read the article on Gweru it is said to be "the fourth largest city in the nation". If you read the article on Mutare, you learn that it "is the fourth largest city in Zimbabwe". I don't think both can be right. What's the third biggest city in Zimbabwe (after Harare and Bulawayo)? David | Talk 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi David

Mutare (as far as I know) was the third municipality to be declared a City, but I would imagine that after Independence (and especially due to the war in Mozambique), it's importance declined and Gweru took its place as the third big City. If in doubt, I would just say that Mutare is the third big city, and Gweru is the fourth.

Thanks

Skies boy130.117.82.3 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I agree with the classification that Mutare is the third big city, and Gweru is the fourth....Zvidzai 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chitungwiza is third in size, and has been so since its three constituent townships were combined in 1981. Gweru is fourth and Mutare is fifth--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article review
I failed this article on its Good Article nomination, though I was impressed by it and hope it it is relisted very soon. Some of the problems were just minor stylistic glitches which I've tried to fix with a copyedit (I apologise for any typos of my own that I've introduced into the article).

The key problem was that the article deals with a country that has a very controversial history, and high-profile social/political problems. I think that the article needs to back up more of its claims about these with references, and to be more careful not to express views that appear to endorse various sides in the controversies. The section about the economy, in particular, needs a few more good references (including more info about the articles referred to). If these issues are addressed, I will be pleased to support the article next time, because it is otherwise good work. Metamagician3000 11:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
I personally think that someone with some knowledge should expand some sections of the article like eductation, demographics, and economy to be on par with similar country pages. Also I think someone with some patientce should try to remove pov language from both the left and the right in the article.

Independence vs Black Rule
I reverted "Black Rule" on the basis that the Smith regime was illegal. Not only the UK but the majority of the world did not recognise it. I am reverting it again on the additional grounds that:
 * "Black Rule" is not technically correct as there is no racial bar to voting nowadays, in contrast to the illegal UDI regime
 * 'Black' as a racial marker is unscientific and unencyclopedic. Please discuss here before re-reverting. Thanks. Guinnog 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Who could decide what regime is legal and what is not? This is simply not neutral. For the Arabs, Israel is illegal. For the PRC, Taiwan is illegal (and vice-versa). For North Korea, South Korea is illegal (and vice-versa). But if a government exists and is able to entertain undisputable power in its area for years, it cannot be said that a country did not exist just because it was not recognised by the former colonist regime (UK) and other countries allied to it. And the modern elections in Zimbabwe are being rigged; whoever would be eligible to cast a vote it is pre-decided who will come to power. Alcatel 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: if 'black' is an inappropriate word, so too is 'white' -- as in "White minority government", which appears frequently in this articel. Should this, too, be changed? "African" is, technically, awkward, since anyone born in Africa regardless of ethnicity can be called "African". Jkp1187 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of you live outside Zimbabwe and terms like white minority or black minorities are accepted terms, therefore must be used!

Please provide meaningful citation, rather than just the white-minority ratting and crying. Most of the African majority sided with the communist when it served them better. China again is now the biggest foreign aid (loans) to Africa and trade with china is greater than with Europe. Outdated Rhodesian views that will never be accepted in Zimbabwe dominate this section. Citations have been requested, yet nothing has been done....Zvidzai 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Black rule and Independence are both incorrect terms, as for that matter are White or Colonial/Imperial rule when refering to the Smith administration. The terms of the Lancaster House agreement are simple - MAJORITY RULE, this term was used rather than black rule or democracy and is in no small part the source of the Ndebele/Shona conflict in the years to follow. Rhodesia should not be refered to as a white only government because the regeme had such complicated voting laws, Black people could vote for example but only on the "B" roll, and its complicated racial laws e.g. Christian Palestinians immigrants were counted as white while the Muslim counterparts counted as mixed race, Hong Kong Chinese counted as white but mainlanders as black... Settler rule is a more appropriate term (though technically both Ndebele and Shona are settlers as Zimbabwe's indigenous population now lives predominatly in the Namibian and Botswanan deserts, though if either Christian Dogma or evolutionary theory are to beleived, we are all settlers and colonials of one sort or another unless we live in the rift valley or the garden of eden - assuming those are different places). Technically, Independence was won by ejecting the Governor General in 1964 - done by the RF, that is why Britain was so insistant that during the interrim period the Republic of Rhodesia should be desolved and the contry be changed into a normal colony (something it had never been) under British rule from Whitehall. As for legality in these matters, well British rule in Britain is technically illegal (the way the monarchy was resetablished after Cromwell's rule being a constitutional fraud), British rule in Zimbabwe, through the BSAC or directly after bullying the BSAC into surrendering the colony to the Crown were both illegal (one through fraud and invasion the second through insider trading), furthermore, UDI can be see as a rightful and legal act because the British government had renaiged on her legal obligations - to grant Dominion status (like Canada, Australia etc) within the Empire to Rhodesia once she was self sufficent (those were the terms which brought Rhodesia into the Empire in 1927, instead of joining with RSA)- that being that the case, Rhodesia was within her rights to withdraw from the Empire. The US did it for less legally sound reasoning, as did India, Kenya, Malaysia and Ireland and most others for that matter - in fact they were very gentlemanly about it.

Sorry, I just don't care that much about the Brits - Black majority rule is a proper reference as opposed to white-minority rule. Both terms have been used repeatedly. You seem to be too much into the British empire, I think in todays world it is irrelavent!Zvidzai 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Zvidzai (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)==Political Correctness Run Amok==

"'Black' as a racial marker is unscientific and unencyclopedic." (see above)

I think most people are able to distinguish a white person from a black person! I also think that the terms convey a clear meaning to most people who encounter them. If this article does not use the terms "white" and "black," then how is the issue to be discussed?

Attempting to classify a government as legal or illegal is similarly unproductive. If Ian Smith's government was "illegal" merely because it was not recognized by the United Kingdom, then what about the United States? When we declared our independence in 1776, the British did not recognize us either. Of course, the difference between us and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is that we fought a war and won! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.1.111 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are out of your mind Rhodesia was not accepted by almost the entire× world. Rhodesia to most new Generation in Zimbabwe is now forgotten and with the dying of Ian Smith, it was kissed goodbye!!!

Nonsensical statement
Someone destroyed something, I think -- this makes no sense as it stands: "In 1888, British imperialist Cecil Rhodes King Lobengula of the Ndebele, who succeeded Mzilikazi. "

Role of Britain in demise of Rhodesia is disputed
The role of Britain in demise of Rhodesia is pictured rather benign in this article. It seems that most of the blame lies with black population of Zimbabwe, in particular black guerillas supported by the communists. The most outrageous inaccuracy is the following From History of Zimbabwe:Britain declared Smith's actions illegal, and the Commonwealth imposed economic sanctions. From encyclopedia: When negotiations in 1966 failed to produce an agreement, Britain requested UN economic sanctions against Rhodesia. From this article: When negotiations in 1966 and 1968 proved fruitless, economic sanctions against Rhodesia were suggested, but were blocked by the UK in the Security Council. From this article (in 1979) They selected Bishop Abel Muzorewa to become the new leader of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia with assistance from Ndabaningi Sithole. Muzorewa had the support of Smith and the South African government, but lacked credibility among significant sectors of the African population. What the article failed to mention was that Britain and USA opposed to lifting the sanctions in 1979 contributing to the lack of credibility of Muzoreva.

Britain is pictured as some kind of sweet heat. The British imperial gov't was brutal, murderous, racists, idiots and caused most of the current land issues in Zimbabwe.

History of Zimbabwe also has this pro-Britain bias, as seen, in particular in this qoute:  Finally in 1979 under the Lancaster House Agreement, its legal status as the British colony of Southern Rhodesia was restored, in preparation for free elections and independence as Zimbabwe. History of Zimbabwe did not mention that Britain largely failed to organize free and fair elections. They also failed to disarm the guerillas in 1980, while at the same time disbanding the Rhodesian Armed Forces.

White Rhodesia was a small very misguided group that lacked credibility as a nation all the way. The Majority of Zimbabweans know that, and in the near future will continue to rewrite white Rhodesian history. White Rhodesia is now a non-existant nation. We need to focus on Zimbabwe.

(Igny 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Hallo Igny. I've removed the dispute template for the time being, since it is for factual inaccuracies rather than cases of perceived bias in wording. Perhaps you could give a suggestion for specific changes to the wording of the section to make it more neutral? Humansdorpie 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IPA Spelling?
Can someone cite the spelling? It was zɪmˈbɑbwi and now it is zɪmˈbɑbweh in a revision by user:203.206.250.154

--Thefirechild 14:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've altered it to the former. The final /h/ in the latter was nonsensical and the final vowel was not in line with how the Zimbabweans I know pronounce the name of their country. --Dupes 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic edits
An Article on Zimbabwe without mentioning Land Reform and the dire economic situation is imho incomplete. Maybe User 172 wants to give it a shot to refer to these issues in an encyclopedic way. If not I think they should be back in the article as before. User:Bakersville, 17 October 2006
 * It seems as if you overlooked a lot of the material in the new cleaned-up text. Land referom is currently mentioned. 172 | Talk 16:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that it should be mentioned in the main article and not only as a miscelaneous topic. User:Bakersville, 17 October 2006
 * It is. I have no idea what you are talking about. 172 | Talk 16:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If its then sorry my mistake, but I did a search on land reform and only shows in miscelaneous. Where is it mentioned? User:Bakersville
 * There are other terms to describe the events than "land reform." The events are discussed under all relevant sectins. Read the article instead of doing searches. 172 | Talk 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole article is now a mess. In Economy: "The government of Zimbabwe faces a wide variety of difficult economic problems as it struggles to consolidate earlier progress in developing a market-oriented economy."(sic) Mugabe is trying to consolidate a market-oriented economy. LOL. I give up. User:Bakersville
 * Be honest. Do you know much about Zimbabwe? If you did, you would recall that in the early to mid 1990s, Zimbabwe embarked on an ambitious period of IMF- and World Bank-backed structural reform and Mugabe was lauded in the West. Things only started to change in more recent years since the land reform. 172 | Talk 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've just searched for the followers of free markets economics and Mugabe came third, after Friedman and Hayek. My mistake. Small wikiworld, having the pleassure of learning from you in two articles at the same time.
 * You may actually be able to learn from me. I am one of only a handful of professional historians editing Wikipedia. The sentence is a bit outdated. It could read "The government of Zimbabwe faces a wide variety of difficult economic problems after having abandoned earlier efforts in developing a market-oriented economy." There is no reason to personally attack me. My claims on the talk page are accurate, and I am not the sole author of this article, nor the sentence you quoted above. 172 | Talk 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's definitely better. I still believe that the Land Reform issue is not appropriately conveyed. No worries. Did I personally attack you? Wasn't my intention. User:Bakersville
 * Sorry I've just searched for the followers of free markets economics and Mugabe came third, after Friedman and Hayek. I read that comment as an implied attacked, suggesting that I believe such obvious nonsense. Nevertheless, I have no hard feelings, given the postive tone of your last reply. 172 | Talk 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scouting around Wikipedia and noting User:172's in this article leads me to suspect that the only history qualification he could have gained would have been from Moscow University. Christchurch 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't very nice. Why do you say that? --Guinnog 09:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A Miami Hearld article reproduced here would suggest otherwise. I am against poorly written garbage on Wikipedia, regardless of the political perspective from which it is written, on a broad host of subjects from Norm Coleman to Zimbabwe. I suggest avoiding personal attacks, as they may undermine your position whenever they are as unfounded as your attack against me above. 172 | Talk 10:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC).Please Mr. Coleman avoid using American newspapers because their level of knowledge on Africa is basically zero. They are only concerned about what their interests are. In many ways, they are ignorant!

I noticed that the version of the history section that I posted early was not the one I had intended to post. I intended to post the version I had written myself over a year ago. Instead, I posted a version based on my writing, but with significant (and often problematic) changes by other editors. Hopefully, this should correct any misunderstandings. 172 | Talk 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Keep in mind that your version of history (Pro-Anglo white) maybe biaed and limited and needing extensive revisions and editing!

SOS-Childrensvillages
SOS-Childrensvillages has three villages in Zimbabwe:
 * SOS Children's Village Bindura
 * SOS Children's Village Bulawayo
 * SOS Children's Village Waterfalls

Scouts
The Boy Scouts Association Of Zimbabwe is placed in the Matabeleland Province. Website


 * This sub is not a advertisement.

Without ads no income. Without income no assist for the poor people. So they should stay poor for ever? --Culture Club Darbouka 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who have a plus when I put this info on the page?
 * SOS-Childrensvillage? They are good people which assist all poor people on the world.
 * The villages? They need an ad, so they can assist the poor people.

Economic Collapse
Hyperinflation, unemployment, inexistance of supply chain, that's an economic collapse. Not a cliche. It is an establish fact that land reform along with the utter economic mismanagemet brought the former Africa's bread basket to Africa's basket case. Do not making a mention of those consequences in the article, will make the article incomplete. User:Bakersville
 * Once again the term collapse is not meaningless. The Weimar republic economy collapsed, the Argentinean and Bolivian economy collapsed during hiperinflation. Any educated reader knows what collapsed of an economy means. Your substantial changes to the article made this article incomplete. Your sentece about exports of agricultural products and imports of commodities is not clear and do not give the reader an adequate appreciation of the facts. Bakersville 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are are not telling me anything that I did not already know about hyperinflation and unemployment in Zimbabwe. My issue with you is proper usage of technical terms with specific meanings. Refer to something more specific than economic "collapse." Activity in the informal economy and subsistence agriculture never stops. The term "economic collapse" is fine in common usage, but uninformative in an encyclopedia. There is an economically literate way of concisely describing the current situation in Zimbabwe: the sharp decline in agricultural exports, traditionally the country's leading export producing sector, has cut off access to hard currency income from abroad, leading to hyperinflation and widespread shortages of essential imported commodities. 172 | Talk 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is a matter of how to convey the idea that the economic situation in Zimbabwe is dire to the point where is widespread famine. I think we should be able to agree to a way to say it in a direct way instead of that long (not concise imho) sentence that I still think that doesn't bring clarity to the subject. I still think that collapse is fine, if you can find another clear and direct way to say it, please give it the first shot; considering that you deleted the whole paragraph in the first place. By the way I consider myself economically literate so once again I don't see the need for a condecending tone. Bakersville 02:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, much of Sub-Saharan Africa always borders on the point of famine. Macroeconomic figures are not a very good indicator of social welfare for countries like Zimbabwe where the informal economy is probably much larger than the formal economy. I am open to rephrasing the text I inserted, but caution that we should not reify statistics of unemployment and hyperinflation. 172 | Talk 02:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How the hell can you say that when Zimbabwe before 1999 was one of the most successful agricultural nations in all of Africa after North Africa?! There is a danger that you are under estimating the calamity that has been the past decade. --Pudduh 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I made my previous comment before the reinserted text. I am fine with it as long as it contains a mention of the human toll this failed economic policy brought upon the people of Zimbabwe. I walked the streets of many developing countries Nairobi, La Paz, Accra ... Never been in Harare. I know that informal economy is very large and thriving (by good fortune imho). That doesn't mask the fact that even the never extinguishing entrepreneurial spirit in man can cope with the catastrophic economic consequences of government mismanagement and incompetence. Bakersville 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but we cannot neglet noting that there were structural problems predating government mismanagment since 2000 which have also been noted in explanations of the current economic situation in the country. 172 | Talk 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Economic collapse has become the new regime change matra and it means nothing to most people now. The BBC has been using the word the last 6 years. Readers now wonder what happened, when the see Zimbabwe still fuctioning on a subsistance level.

Economic sanctions are imposed to a country as a punitive measure. The comments that sanctions on Zimbabwe are not punitive is not accurate and is very misleading. If they were not punitive most countries would welcome them! Economic sanctions on Zimbabwe have reduced the number of tourists, hence foreign currency. Zvidzai 01:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In case someone wants to edit, The Sun newspaper in the UK is saying the exchange rate is now around $50 million to the British pound. The link is http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article880571.ece but I don't want to edit due to the fact I'd prefer someone more versed in adding edits as non-POV to do it as opposed to myself. Economic edits, unfortunatly, are outside my scope of proper wording and such. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.12.221 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
The article says : " The causes of Zimbabwe's economic and food crises are hotly contested. While the government blames the region's drought - which has caused crop failures across Southern Africa - opposition parties and aid agencies say land reforms, government price controls and the HIV/AIDS epidemic are also to blame.

The most contentious of these is the government's land reform policies."

The drought caused failures accross Southern Africa. Not all SA had problems in the same proportion. government price controls, are not a natural disaster is a government policy. HIV Aids is widespread all along Africa (Tanzania and Uganda have the same problem and did not affect the economy the same way""

Please do not accuse of missrepresentation and assume good faith. And please do not do it in the summary line. I think I've been polite in my remarks. Thanks. Bakersville 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioning a "misrepresentation" of the article does not assume bad faith. Not all misrepresentations are intentional. The article points to a combination of facts (the AIDS/HIV epidemic, drought, unrest stemming from land reform). The sentence you posted in the article, however, only dealt with land refrom in alluding to the "worst humanitarian crisis" since independence. To use a word that may sound nicer, it was an oversimplification of the article. 172 | Talk 03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. The article does refer to the "worst humanitarian crisis" though. Bakersville 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Last edit looks good. A pleasure. Looking forward for the next spirited editing discussion. Bakersville 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Zimbabwe/schmimbabwe
As with much of Africa, the borders of the country were drawn without reference to tribal boundaries and deeply held tribal animosities. So the country locks up togather two impacable enemies: the Matabele and the amaShona. The place should be partitioned in to two countries - but I digress. The Mata/Ndebele invaded across the Limpopo and drove the shona north. Then they became mostly rural farmers. After the second Chimurenga, the power-holding Shona have turned on the Ndebele in the south and massacred them. They and their cadres have also stolen white farms and black farms and turned then over to untrained Shona cronies and squatters who do not know how to care for the land. The insane policies of Mugabe and his cadres (whic he is pleased to call a third chimurenga) are leadign to a true fourth chimuranga, during which we will oust these parasites and usher in Democratic governement at last. Signed by bulawayo-boy

It is not appropriate for you to blame the Shonas who are the majority. Minority tribes have to work with the majority in order to make things happen. For your information, Prof Ncube of the MDC and others from Matebeland also have obtained land for farming.
 * (The previous comment was posted on 18:30, 13 November 2006 by 150.101.122.132)


 * in fact: In 1997 Ncube bought 30 square kilometres of land with the intention of developing it as a farm. The land had not previously been farmed and was subsequently discovered to have been seized from ZAPU supporters in 1982. Ncube was accused in 2006 of having profited from the Zimbabwe government's land transfer programme. (this is copied verbatim for Wikipedis'a article on Welshman Ncube) so get yr facts straight. Ngo'bolwayo boy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.90.186 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

The point is that land reform has benefited most people. Land acquasition in urban areas is helping provide land to build more houses. MDC, Zanu-pf, chiefs and others have obtained land from the gov't. All these groups have never objected to this gov't program!!!

Demographics disambiguation
In the Demographics section, all of the ethnic groups lead to disambiguation pages. Do these need to be redirected to the main articles, or is there a reason that they're going to the disambig pages? - Zepheus &lt;ツィフィアス&gt; 19:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

National motto
I did a quick search, and found confirmation that the national motto is "Freedom, Work, Unity". To the person who didn't log in, from 74.105.154.90, if you have evidence that Zimbabwe has changed its national motto to "From sea to sea to sea", please let us know. (It sounds suspiciously like the motto to Trimaris, from the SCA, to me...) Chip Unicorn 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Africa at WikiProject Council/Proposals whose scope would include Zimbabwe. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Africa is not Zimbabwe. I feel this just add to the problem of trying to call 54 independent countries one country. It also creates a problem of seeing everything in Africa as one, when that is a false notion. Among 54 African countries, there are democratic countries, not so-democratic, dictorship countries. Other African countries have experienced tremedious economic growth in the last 5 years. I don't support the generization you are trying to create.

Questionable source material and "dodgy" wording
Forgive my poor spelling, the lack of an all-too-relyied upon spell check will infuriate the more pedantic amongst you no doubt.

A few points that should be mentioned.

1. "whites made up less than 1% of the population but held 70% of the country's commercially viable arable land" - this statistic is originally from the Zimbabwean Government and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Between 1980 and 1998 the British Government sponsered a programme that allowed the Zimbabweran government to purchase considerable amounts of land and put it into "Majority" hands, this land is never included in the assesment of what is and is not viable land, mainly because state mismangament and lack of property rights for the resettled farmer (e.g. tenancy agreements or deeds) meant money and skills were cut off and the land, largely, returned to bush. Secondly, the qualification of what is and is not commercially viable land is different between the former (predominatly white) farmers and the state, the former beleive most of Zimbabwe is potentially viable with work and know how, the latter dismisses a considerable portion of land as only useful for subsistance farming. An accurate figure is hard to assess though the use of this particular discredited figure should be avoided unless A statement indicating that the figure comes (ultimately) from the Zimbabwean government is attached.

2. In reference to Rhodesia, white minority government is a rather complex notion and just a little disingenious. The more appropriate term is "Settler Government". While it was dominated by Anglo Saxons of British origin the Rhodesian Republic had a seris of complicated (stupid if you ask me) definitions of who was in various racial hierarchial categories, and recognised groups (such as those of Latino or Persian ethnicity) as white and other as the equivilant of white (Japanese, Hong Kongese and Taiwanese for example) while classifying others as the equivilant of Black (ethnic Chinese from the communist mainland)or as on a par with people of mixed race (most Arab peoples - though not all - e.g. Palestinian and Lebonese Christians were counted as white). Dispite the rhetoric of many in the west and modern Zimbabwe, for most of its history the Rhodesian system allowed Non-whites to vote, though in a seperate 'B roll' that put into parliament fewer members and was largely ignored by veryone

3. Rhodesia was recognised by the Portuguese Empire (while it existed) and international law recognises that there is such a notion as de facto governments as well.

4. there is no mention of the Gukurahuni (early eighties attempt to committ genocide against the Ndebele people)

5. Welshman Ncube, while probably the brains behind the pro Senate MDC faction, is no longer its leader, Athur Mutambara (not sure on the spelling) is.

6. the statistics about "literacy rate of 95.2% in 2000" and "Ethnic groups (2005 Est.)" are often sited, though their sources are (directly and indirectly) the Zimbabwean Government and should (again) be taken with a pinch of salt. In seperating ethnic and lingusitic boarders between Ndebele, other Bantu and Shona peoples the presant de facto government has be accused of taking liberties with the statistics (e.g. people with one Shona and one Ndebele parent are counted as Shona, not mixed, people in Harare are collectively counted as being Shona {except whites and Asians} while in Bulawayo they are subdivided more thouroughly). Any serious look at the histories of both "tribes" will show that the Ndebele are a more structured and jet hetrogenous group comprising a hierarchial system based, in part, on length of time the subgroup has been part of the collective as it traveled up from South Africa - meaning there is no such thing as a distinct racial group called the Ndebele though there is a distinct national Ndebele identity. The Shona on the other hand, having been settled in Zimbabwe longer are more homogenus but each sub-tribe has a more self aware identity, meaning (generally) that while there is a general Shona racial grouping there is no distinct Shona National identity.

7. "White Zimbabweans privately refer to their ethnic group as "Rhodesian", but the appelation can be misconstrued as political so is always avoided in dealings with the black population." should read (in order to be honest) "Some White Zimbabweans privately refer to their ethnic group as "Rhodesian", use of the term is usually restricted to those raised under the old name. The appelation can be seen (sometimes rightly) as political so is usually avoided in dealings with the black population." I say this because I am a white Zimbabwean and I can tell you from many long years of painful experience that only a few bitter people really use this term anymore.

8. with refernece to the above statistics, these refere to people living in Zimbabwe and those who have not lost their citizenship, living in Zimbabwe and the Diaspora. It does not include the 1-1.5 million people of Mozambiquan origin who settled in the country in the wake of their murderous civil war or the 3-5 million Zimbabweans of all races who mainly live in the UK, US, SA, Botswana, Australia or Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.47.31 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

HagermanBot: Thank you for educating some of us who are half shona and half ndebele. That said, your explanation are helpful especially about people from Mozambique and to a large extent Malawians who should really be fully flageed Zimbabweans. Of cause whites as well. It is unfortunate that it has become so easy to loose Zimbabwean citizenship. This is very unfortunate. It is very political! Zodwa

Wrong President
The article names Morgan Tsvangirai as president of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately it's still Robert Mugabe. zimbabwe has a percentage of muslem way more that just 1 perecent whoever wrote that is defanantly wrong138.88.37.20 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Link
Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related article on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=173 concerning the poaching conflict in Zibabwe, Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 05:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this link would be better served on a page related to poaching? On the other hand, I agree that poaching is a problem in Zim: maybe you could update the article and add some facts regarding poaching with a link to the article, rather than just adding the link. Nausea 09:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true Nausea - Poaching in Zimbabwe is less of a problem than in most African countries like Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, where wild meat is highly valued. Poaching exists in the rest of the world. Focusing on poaching alone misses many points about wildlife management

I checked the link and it is heavily opinionated and overall unbalanced. I agree poaching is less of a problem in Zimbabwe, than other countries. Also it has to be pointed out that the author of the article Peta Thornycroft is more an advocate, than somebody who is giving useful, non-biased writing!! (Zvidzai)


 * So the article is like most most of your statements, Zvidzai? I'm surprised that you know the meaning of biased, seeing as you seem capable of writing nothing else. But, back to the point: I never said poaching was more of a problem in Zim than elsewhere, but no-one can deny that it exists. My learned co-contributors seem to know a lot about wildlife management, so if they'd be so kind as to add a section regarding this and using the link as a counterpoint, it would be much appreciated. Nausea 06:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Poaching exists in the entire world this include the UK, the USA, Japanese or Norwegens shark meat poachers etc. But, I'm oppossed to the link because poaching has to be taken in context of prevailing conditions in any country. Zimbabwe has managed it's wildlife very well, but to continue to do so requires a whole lot of foreign currecy, which Zimbabwe does not have. The article about poaching in Zimbabwe ignores that fact! Also it ignores that Zimbabwe has some of the toughest anti-poaching laws in the world. Namely shoot to kill on site, if poachers are resisting arrest. Tht's the reason I'm not in favor of Peta Thornycrofts articles. Zvidzai 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Sanctions
The paragraph is starting to look like an argumentative blog entry. Clearly doesn't belong in the Zimbabwe main article. It can be added in the economy of Zimbabwe article if improved. I proposed to add the sentence: "Robert Mugabe has repeatedly blamed sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the EU and the USA for the state of the Zimbabwean economy. However, analysts have argumented that the sactions are only meant to target government officials and not ordinary citizens {fact}", at the end of the Economy section. Bakersville 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement attributed to President Mugabe is fine for now. However, I disagree with Bakersville point about analysts - Most analysts in Southern Africa have a consensus that sanctions have hurt Zimbabwe economical and also has affected the greater Southern African region. Sanctions are punitive and the only people able to survive sanctions are the so-called targeted leaders. Lets face the "truth" sanctions have hurt ordinary Zimbabweans. It is also a fact that Saddam Hussein, Gaddafy, Mugabe were never impacted economically by sanctions. The arguments by mostly "anglo-British (not to be viewed as a racists term, but reference)" that the so-called target sanctions are helping Zimbabweans are viewed mostly in Africa as lies and lacking honest! Most analyst from Africa, Sweden, France, some Germanys, and Spain have been fighting to remove the sanctions. At the end of the day UK has had more influence on this issue because Zimbabwe's long association with the UK. Also, tourists (lets be honest about it!) do not like to go to countries under any sort of sanctions. This also has hurt Zimbabwe, in foreign currency. Zimbabwean websites organized and approved by the oppossition parties in Zimbabwe do not agree with Bakersville assertions...Zvidzai 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that some citation is needed to substantiate the counterpoint on the sanctions issue. That's why I proposed citation needed. If no citation is provided for the substantiation in a week then -imho- you should feel free to remove it. Bakersville 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * On a second thought, I changed the paragraph using the argument of the governments that imposed the sanctions, to avoid citing vague analysts. Hope, we can reach an agreement now. Bakersville 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like that, states both sides succinctly Nausea 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bakersville, Nausea - My basic diagreements with you fellows is that you totally discount the counter points to the assertions by many that sanctions have hurt Zimbabwean ordinary people, and not necessary the so-called targeted leaders. You have repeated diluted my comments, which also violets the spirit of wiKipedia. Not all your comments have good citation, or it is necessary to have citations all the time. You have your own biases. Please in future provide inevidence in Zimbabwe that shows that sanctions have not hurt Zimbabwe. Or else, I too will continue to remove uncited claims. It makes no-sense to say sanctions are impossed not to impact any nation. Why then impose them? - Please address that as well.....Zvidzai 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Zvidzai: As far as I am aware, there is no objective source stating that sanctions have hurt ordinary Zimbabweans. The only sources claiming that this is the case, is ZANU-PF and it's official mouthpiece, the Herald. You will have to excuse me if I don't base any of my opinions on what these two organizations have to say. That said, this is not an opinion page. We all have to try to ascertain the facts in this matter and I, for one, am much more likely to believe any source other than the Herald and the ZBC. This is, unfortunately, a very difficult issue to achieve any measure of agreement on as there are many other factors apart from sanctions that are affecting Zimbabwe's economy, i.e. financial mismanagement, corruption, etc.


 * I am willing to accede to the fact that some people question the successfulness of the sanctions, but until such time as a source other than a Zimbabwe propaganda machine states that sanctions are in fact hurting ordinary Zimbabweans, I would be unlikely to go further than that. Even then it would be difficult to measure the true extent to which sanctions were hurting the economy. The sanctions were imposed to force the leaders of Zimbabwe to reinstate the rule of law, institute economic austerity measures and to make people aware of the fact that other governments do not agree with ZANU policies. These sanctions are meant to target the leaders of Zimbabwe. That, as far as I am aware, is all that can be factually stated regarding the matter.


 * Please understand that I understand how you feel about Zimbabwe and I'm quite sure you truly believe that sanctions are hurting Zimbabwe. However, your believing something does not make it true. If I believed the earth was flat, and the Herald supported my statements, that would still not make it so and people would rightly be able to rebut my assertions.


 * On your comments about going against the spirit of Wikipedia: Like I have said, this is not an opinion page and we should try to stick to the facts. I think the statement proffered by Bakersville is fair as it states the beliefs of both sides of the issue without adding any additional rhetoric.


 * Lastly, as Bakersville said, this is really not an issue for the main page on Zimbabwe. There is an article dealing with the Economy of Zimbabwe which you are more than welcome to edit. I think the issue of sanctions would be much better addressed there.


 * Nausea 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nausea - I absolutely do not agree with you that mentioning that sanctions have hurt Zimabawean ordinary people is irrelavant. That is total pretense on your part. Yeah....it is too easy to claim that only Robert Mugabe and the herald are saying that. SADC is saying that sanctions have hurt ordinary people, the oppossition has said sanctions must be repealed. I feel like I'm dealing with the old clssic "Rhodesian" to whom everything black african is wrong. Stop diluting my comments!!!!! You are afraid of admitting that sanctions are hurting Zimbabweans, just like the hurt the economy of the brutal Ian Smith regime. Zvidzai 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never said sanctions are irrelevant or should not deserve a mention. You, however, are making false claims: The opposition has never said sanctions should be repealed and neither has the SADC made that statement. Only one person, the Zambian minister of foreign affairs, has said so. This was also not said during a formal session of the SADC. Please go and read Stop pretending 'all is well in Zimbabwe'. The SADC is not engaging with the EU to eliminate sanctions against Zim, neither is there consensus amongst neighbouring countries.


 * The information you put in here is worth nothing, because, as you so rightly say, they are your comments. Accordingly, I will keep on removing any of your comments that are untrue.


 * Please also stop removing text that you personally do not like. I'm not quite sure why you don't like mentioning the support of the war in the Congo or the support that communist states gave Zimbabwe during the struggle.


 * Nausea 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nausea - You are fool of "shit" and you think your writing is the greatest on earth. I will continue to remove your comments and opinions. You are violating wikipedia rules. I strongly disagree with what you have been puting on Zimbabwe. Wikipedia is not a political blog for the "defeated white Rhodesians" or for that matter the oppossition. You are a disagrace!!! Zimbabwe does not need a fool like you.....Zvidzai 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, Bakersville and Nausea are only trying to put together a version of the Zimbabwe wikipedia page that everyone can agree with. They have been both perfectly fair and have worked hard to accommodate everyone's suggestions for the page. They have not broken any rules of Wikipedia and no amount of racist slander and swearing will change that. --Pudduh 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh, you have a tendency to think your word is supreme (another undemocratic behavior), you are forgetting that editing and providing facts is important to wikipedia. Is is the rules! Sanctions are controversial and the comments reflect that. This is a new section developing and I would expect counter points, and hopefull are backed by facts. This is not your website or is it an official Zimbabwe oppossition party or newspapersZvidzai 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor is this a mouthpiece of ZANU-PF or the Zimbabwean government Zvidzai. I think actually, you are forgetting that one cannot simply go onto Wikipedia and remove facts that he personally does not like. I do not have a clue what you are talking about when you say that I think my world is supreme, I merely think that the facts are supreme and myself and Nausia have provided those facts only to incur your bigotry and out of date rhetoric. Just give it a rest for one day in your life and let the Wiki people do their job.--Pudduh 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of rushing in where angles fear to tread, isn't it obvious that the real economic problem in Zimbabwe is not sanctions but Hyperinflation? Perhaps the article should say that sanctions are in place but that the big problem is hyperinflation. As for people not visiting because of sanctions, they dont really have any effect compared to the news articles about political leaders being arrested and white farmers being forced off land. The forign office website does even NOT advice against visiting ([F.O.]). On top of that the main export from Zimbabwe used to be food so that was their main source of forign currency, since their self imposed agricultural reforms they are now a food importer ([CIA]). On top of this the UK and US are sending food aid ([CIA]) so its not like were completly ignoring the possible effects of sanctions and Zimbabwes main trade partner is not the US or UK but South Africa. If South Africa think that sanctions are Unfair/Inhumain then they can happily keep trading with them. Sorry that I cant be more reconsiliatory but those just seem to be the facts from reputable sources. CaptinJohn 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information sanctions were imposed only by EU and USA. The rest of the world Asia, Russia, China, entire Africa, Middle East all happily trade with Zimbabwe. The sanctions are not UN mandated. Correction USA and UK are not the main source of food aid to Zimbabwe. Many other EU countries do that as well. It is just that the UK (especially) is very vocal and many of us consider it nose and interference (we are no longer Rhodesia or British Colony - thank God!). Zvidzai 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that talk pages are not meant to be a blog for discussion of personal views. As per Wikipedia policy: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." WP:TALK Bakersville 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss changes, however changes are not occuring. There are some citations that have been requested and no citation has yet been provided. In that case to remove those areas is appropriate. There also some information that is opinion oreintated that needs further development or removal. Injection of "Old" unnecessary Rhodesian politics and interest is also creating a problem. I welcome your comment, but I need to see you and Pudduh practise what you preach....Zvidzai 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We have been practising what we have been preaching Zvidzai. All you have been doing is removing stuff that you personally don't like and using this talk page as a platform for your own (outdated) political agenda. Leave Bakersville, Nausia and the other decent Wiki guys in peace. --Pudduh 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh: It's a fact, requests for citations have not been honored and I'm determined to remove such statements. It has been a month now and now I'm beginning to erase such statement. Most of the statements needing citation tends to be very opinion related to "old White Rhodesia rule". Yes, you are in fact not practising what you preach. Once legitimate citations are provided, then I will stop. 24.195.142.171 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

24.195.142.171 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)== Edit for clarity == Someone with edit-rights should sort out the first sentence of the 'Economy' section - it's not good grammar / doesn't really make sense. Newbie Phil

Zvidzai 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)== Merge ==

Would it not be preferable to have a single merged (and highly moderated) Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, Republic of Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Ndebele Empire page rather than the not very good, highly politicised seperate pages. Seperate pages for the governments, sytems of rule and more comprehensive looks at stages in our country's history could be established. After all, the page on France does not have start in 1789... This proposed page should be called Zimbabwe but be searches for Rhodesia should redirect to it too...

What do you think?


 * Agree: I like this idea. But can the aggreived party (i.e. Zvidzai ) be convinced that the Wikipedia moderator is modding the article fairly? --Pudduh 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the idea because Rhodesia, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia all refer to a period of transition to what is now a majority rule country called Zimbabwe. The other point is that southern Rhodesia or Rhodesia could have a separate website (or space on wikipedia) that way you can talk about Ian Smith John Cecil Rhodes etc - This is legimate. I do not agree with the idea. It dilutes the modern Zimbabwe nation...24.195.142.171 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't though. Like it not, a bunch of not very nice people did come to what is now Zimbabwe and started to call it "Rhodesia". That is your history. If you are bent on erasing your history then you cannot learn from history to prevent a repeat of the mistakes of the past! People need to know how modern Zimbabwe came about, about Rhodesia, the UDI, Ian Smith, the War, etc, this needs to be part of the combined Zimbabwe history. --Pudduh 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't the separate articles; it's that their versions of the country's history are not cohesive through them. They're all skewed in one way or another. michael talk 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is probably why allot of the articles need a proper re-write in order to link one to the other. --Pudduh 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh: As you well know the history of "Rhodesia" is contoversial and it has created it's own problems when writing about Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is no longer called Rhodesia, therefore it makes no sense at all to lump them together. A proper re-write yes, but based on whose history white minority Rhodesia (less than 1% of the population- 60,000)or history of the people of Zimbabwe who constitute the majority. Rhodesian can create their own wikipeia space and I would be glad to contribute to it. Few white Rhodesians acknowledge the past and their involvement in the Old outdated Rhodesia. The Colonialist named Zimbabwe Rhodesia without permission from the natives. They hijacked the country. Do you real want to "mad" yourself in Rhodesia controversial history???...Zvidzai 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I notice that you, Zvidzai, up till now have apparently only ever contributed to 'Zimbabwe'. Why haven't you contributed to, say, Southern Rhodesia, British Empire, Colonial or United Kingdom, or any of the thousands of Africa-related articles? I notice that when an obviously Rhodie or colonialist PoV has been removed or balanced in those articles, it's often done so by people who you say are responsible for the ills of your country. Rexparry sydney 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You Sydney, people are free to contribute when they want and when appropriate. I have noticed that a number of "Rhodesians" are determined to paint an outdated period in Zimbabwean history. No one want the old system. Even when you write about Southern Rhodesia you tend to minimize the ugly side of white colonial minority rule. As I read a lot of your writings and others of the old Rhodesia, you are a problem group that feels that you need to get attention all the time!!!.....Zvidzai 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought for a moment when you typed 'You Sydney' you were replying to my question but I see you weren't. I have no idea who or what your response is aimed at, but never mind. I wasn't holding my breath. Rexparry sydney 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Colonialist named Zimbabwe Rhodesia without permission from the natives. They hijacked the country. Do you real want to "mad" yourself in Rhodesia controversial history" Permission??? Ndebele didn't ask permission of Shona, Shona didn't ask permission of the Rozvi, Kho San etc, etc, etc. Maybe you feel that if the two are seen together on the same page people might start to view the past and the present in some context? That they might realise how far we as a people and a nation have fallen?? Personally I'd rather no Zimbabwean pages become Rhodie propergander sites, but not as badly as I want them to stay clean on ZANU (PF) rhetoric.

Sorry, the majority set the rules in any country - that is what democracy is all about. I don't believe you when you say you don;t want Rhodes propaganda! Also it is way to easy when challeged to assume that one is a Zanu-pf supporter. Most Black Zimbabweans do have anti-white feelings and resent the hijacking of the country by a tiny white minority. True, Zimbabweans are friendly and most of my white friends visiting Zimbabwe have said so. And they is less crime in Zimbabwe compared to most Southern African states. I'm a rascist for saying what I say!! No, I hate political correctness. You are free to say whatever you want to say about the black majority...Zvidzai 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the majority here, in Wikipedia, set the rules on here. I refer you to the example of the history of Ireland within the general Ireland page. The important thing to note is there is a basic recap on what had happened in Irish history for the thousand odd years to independence and the partition. My point is that most other nation pages are unified rather than being spread over fifteen different pages, so why should Zimbabwe be any different? The excuse that the previous, white minority regimes somehow dilute modern Zimbabwe has no bearing in reality. The past 160 years was what made modern Zimbabwe, all we seek are the basic facts. And sorry Zvidzai, you are racist, possibly with a little hint of anti Semitism too.--Pudduh 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Zvidzai, do you think you can answer Rexparry's original question?--Pudduh 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh: Labelling people anti-sematic is a strong charge and what is that based on? For your information I don't intend to respond to every useless comment. You are being challenged. Wikipedia is losing credibility because of people like you. Some unversities are doing away with wikipedia references. I would not recommend the current writing on Zimbabwe to any thinking students. It is full of Old racists Rhodesians who think Zimbabwe owns them something. If that is racism..fine me...Zvidzai 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being challenged at all. We've been 'challenging' you to come up with sources to back up the wacky edits you make to this page and sadly you haven't come up with anything. It is because you have failed to come up with any sources or evidence to back up your arguments that we are deleting and modding your entries to Wikipedia. Wikipedia losing credibility has nothing to do with us. I would like you to tell me what you base your constant labelling of anyone who disagrees with you "colonialist" or "white Rhodie"? It is still legal to disagree with you, right?--Pudduh 15:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh, you have not come up with any thoughful point of view that I would consider valid. I have looked at your CV and you do not have enough background on Africa and colonial history. You have a basic British training that tells you that UK is the great empire. Credibility of wikipedia does depend on all contributors to wikipedia, this includes you (I still don;t know what you have contributed). The conclusion by scholars is that it lacks facts, therefore it is not a good reference. By the way I don't have to respond to your comments. You just a spoiled, misguided anglo Boy and who thinks that everything revolves around Britain, which is totally rubbish....Zvidzai 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Nausea - You are fool of "shit"" "Being a European is not being "GOD". I hate your self righteous." "Most Black Zimbabweans do have anti-white feelings" "Yaaa.... you white anglos are a very dangerous batch" "I'm a rascist for saying what I say!!" "You just a spoiled, misguided anglo Boy" - How on earth has he not been blocked yet? michael talk 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial histories, like Zimbabwe can produce a wide range of emotions. Certainly none of the comments are deliberate or meant to encourage racial hatrad. My comments are only meant for all contributors to be aware that, they maybe writing from their own racial group identity and not necessary for the good of Zimbabwe-wikipedia. Afterall, we are all biased to some extent and to deny it is the ultimate political correctness...Zvidzai 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the hell are you talking about?! How did you find my CV?! It isn't online for a start! The UK does not teach that the UK is the great empire. If you had any knowledge of UK education at all, you would see that parts of the UK like Scotland teach a completely different curriculum to that of Wales or England! Zvidzai, all you have come up with is racial hate, offensive comments, a constant stream of pro-Mugabe rubbish and a perchant for removing things that would make the ruling elite in Zimbabwe rather uncomfortable. Speaking of racism, yes, ha ha, I like your little "politically incorrect" (i.e. racist) quip about me being a "misguided anglo boy". Do ZANU-PF send out a list of racist slogans to you every month or something? Is there some way we could report ? At the very least for POV.--Pudduh 11:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about reporting Zvidzai (RWRM 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Trying to shut-off contributors to wikipedia violets the spirit and intent of wikipedia. Wikipedia is a democracy. That means people can express themselves in a reasonable way. Making accusations of racisam or anti-sematic can be a cheap form of silencing real debate about ZimbaBwe. Zimbabwean history is controversial and a wide range of emotions and racial identity is to be expected. Unless of cause we all let people from Britain write everything on Zimbabwe or allow only "Rhodesians" That would be biase and racists mentality. I'm glad I can contribute on Zimbabwe because the process has been open and I hope it remains so, without trying to eliminate my contribution....24.195.142.171 23:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)24.195.142.171 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Zvidzai 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)== No more elections in Zimbabwe!!! ==

Can u pls change it to a single-party state, please?

Mugabe is a dictator!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffers1990 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

What about members of parliament who represent both the MDC? or other political parties represented in parliament. By defination that is not a single party state. The MDC may not be in power yet, but that does not make it a single-party state. Consult your dictionary...

It's a one party, dictator ruled, police state! Mugabe allows MDC into parliament to facilitate an idea of a multi-party democracy, however he does not allow protests (unless they are of the ZANU-PF Women's league), he stifles all political debate (including who will succeed him), and he's destroyed a beautiful country. The oposition is allowed seats in ZANU-PF no-goes (e.g. Bulawayo), because Mugabe knows that no-one will believe that he fairly won a seat in Bulawayo, so that there will be an idea of a multi-party democracy, but with the 30 seats that the president can nominate, the opposition is in a stifled position.130.117.82.3 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe may not be close to the ideal democracy (so is UK, USA, Sweden, SA, Portugal....etc) however, all poltical parties, all races (white-minorities) all tribes are represented in Zimbabwean Parliament. So, it is clear that one-party rule does not make sense nor is it technically sound. The REpublics have been in power in the USA for years and it is not considered one-party. Please stop using your political or anti-Zimbabwean matra to write about Zimbabwe. Who said UK has got it right?....Zvidzai 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The different tribes have nothing to do with the fact that ZANU-PF has stolen elections and is currently using intimidation and force to stay in power. In the USA, food is not withheld from people who decide to vote for the Democrats, neither do I remember seeing images of John Kerry being beaten up by George Bush's henchmen before the elections.


 * I also don't remember an American president ordering the killing of 20 000 minority Americans because he didn't like them as Mugabe did in the Gukurahundi. For that matter, I don't remember any of the parties of the countries you mentioned beating up opposition party members randomly in recent years [].


 * I also don't quite remember 20% of the population fleeing their countries because of unemployment, violence and famine.


 * For once, however, you have made a true statement: "Zimbabwe may not be close to the ideal democracy". Zimbabwe is not even close to the ideal. Even though I agree that technically Zimbabwe is not a one party state, comparing other countries to Zimbabwe is ridiculous in the extreme.


 * Please also stop using your racist, xenophobic hatred of Britain and Europeans as a justification for all your statements. It shows that you have been reading The Herald maybe once too often and that you actually believe the lies Mugabe's state apparatus spouts.


 * Nausea 06:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nausea, while I appreciate your concurrence that while far from ideal, Zimbabwe is not a one party state, I'm disappointed by your unnecessary name calling, especially use of the word xenophobic. Name calling has no place on this website or other wikipedia spaces. Let's all focus on the issues....Zvidzai 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zvidzai, for calling my attention to that. I do hope you have indeed turned a new leaf and that in the future we won't see comments of yours such as:


 * "Yaaa.... you white anglos are a very dangerous batch in Southern Africa. Let land reform go ahead. Zimbabweans saw blood ozzing from white farmers yet look the other side, what makes you think Zimbabwe want white minorities back????"


 * "most Black Zimbabweans do have anti-white feelings"


 * "You are an utter idiot!!!! You are probabaly one of those white Rhodesia living on peanuts in the UK or United States. You may also be cleaning toilets. If that is the case good....you are so foolish..You can go away with your damn pink nosed and dirty ass"


 * "You just a spoiled, misguided anglo Boy and who thinks that everything revolves around Britain"


 * "I also know that I cannot trust white "Anglos" with their huge lies!! I think they are worse than Robert Mugabe."


 * Nausea 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues are more important. Stick to facts, not opinions. Facts are not always pleasant.....Zvidzai 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No Zvidzai, facts are not always pleasant. For example, the fact that Life expectancy in Zimbabwe is now at 37 or the fact that 5.5 million are now infected with HIV in Zimbabwe. Those facts must have been so unpleasant, that you decided to remove them from the article!

Facts or exaggerated numbers! That I'm not sure. 3.5 million Zimbabweans live in South Africa - fact or exagerated number! Unpleasant (exagerated) numbers indeed! Here are the other unpleasant facts: White minority Rhodesian farmers were blooded and pushed out, yet no help was available to them, Ian Smith that good man was not elected Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Most Black Zimbabweans have negative oreintation toward anglo-white minority residents, overwhelming Zimbabweans support land reform, including the opposition. Last but not least, the MDC in private support Zimbabwe land reform. Yet another, white Rhodesians are considered to be the worst racists in Southern African.
 * I think one day that the black Zimbabweans should be grateful for all the Rhodesians gave them: education, healthcare, a strong economy, infrastructure, a legal system, English, Christianity, etc. Wait--what else? An end to tribal warfare, 50 years of peace (the Shona would have been wiped out by the Ndebele had there been no intervention). And the fact that the Bush War only killed 30 000, in comparison to the hundreds of thousands killed in other African states where there was no war.


 * Everyone seems to forget that even though the whites made up 5% of the population, they made sure that over 85% of school-age blacks were in school and learning. Cities were surrounded by housing provided by the government, which, along with education and healthcare, was free. Compared to the whites' housing it was poor in comparison, but nonetheless, what is expected by such a tiny minority? Other African, Asian and Latin American countries did not give free healthcare, education and housing.


 * Even given the job discrimination, the land allocation, and the political restrictions; were the Rhodesians really so racist? You're racist Zvidzai, and blindly so. You can hate the White Anglos all you want, but they are the reason that you can speak English and are able to sit in front of a computer screen and type this nonsense. michael talk 00:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Rhodesians were the worst racists around. You cannot speak on how the blacks felt. The biggest lie at that time was that the "natives" were happy, which is classic white anglo propaganda. White Rhodesians were never 5% of thwe population, that is another exaggerated facts. Robert Mugabe, not the imperialist white Rhodesians improved black education in Zimbabwe. Thinking blacks were a threat to the Ian Smith regime. Keep lying to yourselves, black Zimbabweans will never thank the oppressor and racist...You are doomed, your Rhodesia was defeated. But you can still keep it on cyberspace and your many racists websites

Zvidzai 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What a joke this guy is! only "Mugabe improved black education in Zimbabwe" LMAO!!! Zvidzai a career in standup beckons......--AssegaiAli (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Zvidzai (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)== 5.5 Million Zimbabwians infected with AIDS? ==

There is no way. I place Reference 8 in question. Check CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2156rank.html. I understand that their numbers are a few years old, but I don't see how Zimbabwe can reach South Africa's number of HIV infected people when RSA has the highest number in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilawson (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).


 * 5.5 million Zimbabweans (just less than 1 in 3) with AIDS is not so far fetched a a figure as it might seem. remember that the Zimbabwean Government (notorious for understating the problems it faces) recon that the infection rater is 1 in every 4 people, since the last semi-reliable figures were gathered (2000) the economy has collapsed and an additional 40% of the population have left formal employment; roughly 3 million Zimbabweans are estimated to be in exile in South Africa (contributing to both countries' stats), 1 - 1/2 m in Botswana and 1/2 - 11/2 m in Britian (mainly) and the EU. Prostitution, especially on the main haulage routes from Zambia to SA has gone from a dirty little secret carried out by only a few people in each major town to the only reliable form of employment and income for men and women outside of the main urban areas. I can't support the 5.5 m without relaible evidence (of which there is little), but I'd be hard pressed to dismiss it out of hand. As long as it is listed as only one of various estimates about the extent of the pandemic and some sort of explination is in place indicating where the estimate is coming from it should be OK. (RWRM 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC))


 * My goodness! 5.5 million out of 12,236,805 million people (July 2006 est.) have HIV? That's almost 50% of your population. But you know what! The MOST TERRIFYING FACT of it all! The Zimbabwian population between the ages 15-64 years: 59.1% (male 3,616,528/female 3,621,190) totaling 7,237,718 people of whom are the people able to have sex, 5.5 million are infected! You know what that means, of the people in Zimbabwe that can have sex, 76% are infected!!! THIS NEEDS to be put in the article right away! Because not only is the country of Zimbabwe about to lose their ability to govern themselves and provide essential survival support to their citizens, their population will decrease by so much that Zimbabwe might lose their DEFINITION OF BEING A COUNTRY!Gilawson 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuanately, there is so much number crunching by the UN and EU burocrats at their desk, 10,000 miles that one wonders how they come up with such ridiculars numbers. Zimababwean enemies so eager to publish bad news, need a reality check!!! Most numbers on Zimbabwe, thru Anglo-white propaganda are exaggerated and some, flat out lies!! The purpose of wikipedia is not to focus on any countries "dirt" but to provide reasonable information to be used by people who need basic information about any country. You Anglos out there, quite using wikipedia to promote your own misguided agendas.


 * is that Zvidzai? You Anglos kind of gives it away. (RWRM 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

For your information Rhoderick, Zvidzai is not the only person who think that most of you "anglo Rhodesians and Britons" are full of rubbish. Your propaganda is worse than the old communist regime - Chirwa

Dear Unknown above: So if you think that 5.5 million is an exaggeration, then why don't you join me with MY original question seen above your entry of asking to validate Reference 8. That's right, an Anglo questioned the high number of 5.5 million in the first place. So go out there and find us a better reference please, because I don't think it can be that high. However if Rhoderick is correct, then I'm correct in saying that 76% of Zimbabwians that can have sex are already infected with HIV. (Forgot to factor in that some old and younger people might have HIV due to growing old with it (RARE) or being born with it (Pretty common)). But main focus should be to make this clear in the article that if there are 5.5 million infected a new section should be made to bring attention to it. Otherwise, the number needs to be reduced with respect to another source. And for the other two people... not much to say in response to that. Gilawson 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahaa.... What a good anglo you are.. I agree with you 5.5 million is way exaggerated. To be clear, Zimbabwe has a high HIV/AIDS incident, however lower than South Africa, Botswana, lesotho and Zambia. That said, what need to be included on Zimbabwe HIV/AIDS is to also state that those numbers are projected numbers of effections and also to state that Zimbabwe has reduced HIV/AIDS numbers to 20% as stated by the UN. Other statics clain there are 3.5 million Zimbabweans in the UK, 3.0 in South Africa and 1.0 million in Botswana - Again this is extreme exageration. UK has a very strict immigration policies toward it's former colonies and currently, inspite of the rheotoric on human rights, are deporting Zimbabweans to the "bad" Mugabe. .....Zvidzai 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be speaking down to me Zvidzai. I guess I don't mind being called an "Anglo". Maybe I mind a little more being commented of how good an Anglo I am being. All I have to say to you Zvidzai, is don't get upset when the next white racist pig calls you a "Black Kettle" (In Afrikaans). It's not pleasant behavior from both sides. So yes, I was the "good Anglo" to make the first note of the high number of HIV infected Zimbabweans. Not sure if anyone will find a good source to back up any statistic for this matter. Maybe I will one day myself do this and this section of the Discussion should back me up for that change. Gilawson 05:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

At least we both agree that a good deal of numbers on HIV/AIDs, including people who have migrated/runaway from Zimbabwe needs to be questioned; myself and many others think the numbers are exaggarated for British propaganda purposes. Gilawson, I find white people do not open up, unless you provoke the issues. While I don't mean to be racists, but how are the discussions going to come up? There is a great prentense (especially with anglo-whites) that we all get along and the natives are happy with us. That is further from truth. The issues rasied on the discussion involved provocating issues, in order to extract the truth. Being called names,I'm used to it!..Zvidzai 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)...

Some of you (smart ones) are aware that the HIV/AIDS numbers issued by the UN were revised downward by 20 million less death. That "white Rhodesia" is a major reversal. So stop your hyperbolic, inaccurate HIV counts in Zimbabwe. Again it has been confirmed that Zimbabwe's HIV/AIDS is down to 16%, the lowest in Southern Africa. I know you white Zimbos are trying desparate to use number to embarrass Zimbabwe. Get over it or see a mental health expect - The fact is that Rhodesia is dead and Zimbabwe is alive

This Country is No Longer Functioning
References: Zimbabwe: Populism And Lessons Drawn From the Country An Economic Meltdown (29-03-07) Zim crisis: Where to from here?

The Nominal GDP is actually US$3.5 billion. This should be corrected in the article. The exchange rate however between the US$ and ZIM$ has fallen to US$1 = ZIM$20 million. So as a matter of fact, the Real GDP must be a few US$10,000 (hence the term "nonfunctional country"). We must also make special note the current life expectancy of a baby girl that would be born today in Zimbabwe: 35 years old. Read the three articles and try match them up for other good facts, but try not rely on just one article.Gilawson 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gilawson, the referenced article sounds more like a "regime Change" article written and sponsored by the M5 and CIA to discredit Zimbabwe. Peter

Desire to rule and control the world is leading more and more to "mass destruction of lies" by the Western World. Just look at Iran issues and now Zimbabwe.--President Robert Mugabe


 * It is sad how the Zimbabwean government is repeating the history drawn out by the Dutch government of South Africa before 1990. No, I don't think Zimbabwe is moving towards a prosperous future, their people are dying and being killed by their government. If you think the CIA cares enough to spend their energy and money dealing with Zimbabwe, then I guess Zimbabwe is done for. Zimbabwe doesn't have a chance against the CIA. Zimbabweans might as well just move out for good and declare that land zone deserted, left for the CIA to do with it what they want. Good luck Peter fighting the CIA. As for you President Mugabe, I suggest you give up too.  American has enough funds from one corporation to buy out all of what you produced last year. I suggest you to move out the country for your safety or live off the last ounce of wealth in your country. (P.S. I don't believe Zimbabwe's problems are caused from the outside at all, but I will buy into your beliefs for today). Gilawson 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Economics is another issue that Zimbabwean enemies have taken to the skies. I don't expect most of you to agree with me but...here are the facts as I see them: White minorities ownered 80% of the wealth and capital in Zimbabwe. After independence and land reform, most wealth whites left with their capital and the Country GDP went dowm by at least 60%. Capital and wealth move in and out easily. So it is with the state of the Zimbabwean econmy. Also most Zimbabweans work not in the formal sector, but informal sector. Most don't pay taxes, but thats the way they survive. It would be technical inaccurate to say Zimbabwean unemployment is 80%, when most people in Zimbabwe work in the informal sector and they are managing it...Zvidzai 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this? Day release for the bigot asylum?! I think they're multiplying, just how offensive and racist can these people be? And as for michael, you're not exactly helping are you? --Pudduh 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pudduh, as usual you do not have anything to contribute, other than cry racism. Discuss what the economic means in Zimbabwe and how we should be writing about it. Not the rubbish you are writing. Keep your "poodle" to yourself...Zvidzai 15:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I like that bit of selective memory there Zvidzai. If you actually had a brain, you'd realise that I have contributed something. All you have done is removed facts and figures that might be displeasing to our mild mannered tin pot President in Harare. It is rather pointless 'discussing' anything with you as you just refute anything that we say or suggest in a torrent of racist abuse, out of date african marxist rhetoric and a refusal to acknowledge even the most basic of facts! --Pudduh 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about Unemployment of a Country. The great thing about this is that the percentage value is completely objective. So it's fortunate that no one (including yourself Zvidzai) can interject any subjective bias. To calculated the level of unemployment in a country is rather unscientific (Yes, I said unscientific, or rather it's pretty inaccurate) because it determines the number of citizens without a job but currently actively finding a job. Now the definition of unemployment is complicated because it doesn't include discouraged workers nor the underemployed. This leads to inaccuracies. Also, it divides the number of unemployed by the number in the labor force which includes the unemployed and employed, not the country's population. Bottom-line is that it's a number and that it's more meaningful when compared to other nations. So because Zimbabwe's neighbors are subjected to the same rules of calculating unemployment, but Zimbabwe in some cases triples its neighbors unemployment rate. It means something is very very bad. And not even you Zvidzai nor the Pope himself can convince that things are better than it seems. Gilawson 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Things in Zimbabwe are pretty blink to be frank...but Zimbabweans do not triple the unemployment in those neigboring states. Most work, including professionals and manual labors. That would be counted as employed. Most African states' economy is underground (Uninformal sector) and it is way too easy for people from europe to go to Africa and only look at the formal sectors and ignore the greater workers who work in uninformal sectors (nannies, family members who help out and are paid etc)And come up with a ridiculars number of the unemployed. This is what the British propaganda machine is doing in Zimbabwe. This is not to say things are "rose" in Zimbabwe....Zvidzai 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

blood diamonds no!
It is unacceptable for Angola to send 2500 police to prop up Mugabe's failing grip on power. This is in exchange for diamond mining rights. Pressure should be applied to Angola to prevent this cynical exchange. Ex-Zim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Old news no facts to your comments. The Angolan gov't, a democratic country elected by it's own people called the whole story a lie and so did south africa. You ex-Rhodesians are a "sour apples" group. Get your facts straingt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.237.208 (talk • contribs)

The only people eating sour apples, my friend, are today's Zimbabweans. See http://zimdaily.com/news/117/ARTICLE/1564/2007-04-12.html crocodile food, mugabe imbwa

zimdaily and other opposition based website, unfortunately distort the facts. The issue is did Angola send police to beat up opposition members? The answer is no of cause, Angola does not want to be involved politically with Zim. If you and others stopped telling lies, then you would get "real" support when you get "real" beaten up. Other wise it becomes hard to support puppets of Tony Blair and low "IQ" Bush.


 * enjoy your sour apples, my friend and keep comments about lies and puppets to yourself; restrict the conversation to the topic at hand, otherwise your replies sound like just so many slogans of outmoded marxist stooges. Your cadres need to look at results on the ground: mass disenfranchisment; mass killings and oppression; mass AIDS; mass hunger and unemployment: all the results of misgovernment by a misguided man and his cronies whose ideas are fifty years out of date. As for getting beaten up, is this the typical african solution to any valid critic - maybe Mrs Holland and Morgan Tsvangirai would think so - also those three in the Kariba. As an African I am appalled - where is the ubuntu of your ancestors? Elect someone decent and enlightened. In the meantime, Nkosi sikelele iAfrika, because sure as hell no-one else is. Supporter of the fourth chimurenga.

You maybe African and there are all kinds of "Africans", but you did not respond to the subject. Why "maddy" Angola? The lie that Angola was involved in the opposition crack down needs to be corrected, because it is a false story. No one wins with lies!!! This includes the MDC!


 * OK, the angolan thing was a false rumour. It was a rumour that spread worldwide and I responded to it. So what. It's over. NOone ever said it was a done thing - only that it should be stopped. The other stuff remains - think about it, and make protest so you can help regime change. Once you get rid of the cult of personality you will see clearly that there is nothing wrong with handing the people's mandate to one beeter able to provide the people with peace, work and dignity. no-one denies that Mugabe did a good thing in the beginning - but it;s time to bow out. Supporter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that Mugabe's time is over, despite some good he did in the past. Even supporters of Zanu-pf and Pan-Africanist would agree with you. However, white-anglo propaganda is so bad, that it makes communist soviet look better. I hate what the anglo-whites are trying to do. I will continues to fight anglos, while pursuing a diologue with other main stream Zimbabweans. Every statement from a white-anglo writer is a twist of facts. Do they think Zimbabweans are ignorant???


 * you make several statements that are absolute and racist. If you want to be taken seriously, do not use words like 'every' and do not generalise about white anglo's. How would like someone to write: I hate what blacks are trying to do - I will continue to fight blacks - every statement from a black writer is a twist of facts. ?? You would be appalled, and rightly so. Aluta continua, my brother, but it's a war against ignorance and absolutism. Please think carefully about this - if you moderate your appraoch to a true objectivity (as far as possible) and not see the world through a blind fortress of the sort of absolutist statements you will be listened to by more people, and maybe a bit happier yourself. Signed by an Afican brother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

May reversions
Please explain why you keep reverting my edit. The text I am altering is poorly written and largely lacks sources. Perspicacite 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
I believe that the current government of a country does not belong in its intro paragraph. I checked around and not even North Korea nor Cuba have a note of it in its intro paragraph. And it can be argued that their governments and regimens also come to mind as defining. If you think that Mugabe's mismanagement is not clearly represented in the article you should edit the appropriate paragraphs. It is a matter of style and not of substance. Bakersville 21:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
Thw two additions that seem contentious are:


 * 1) Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front, a Zimbabwean Socialist party, has been ruling political party in Zimbabwe since independence on April 18, 1980. It is led by Robert Mugabe who planned to establish a one-party socialist state from beginning.
 * 2) The future of tourism in Zimbabwe is also in question because some 60 percent of Zimbabwe's total wildlife was killed of since economic crisis began.

On the first, even if that is what Britannica says (and I have no way of verifying that), I still find it to be POV. On the second, the reference makes no mention of tourism. I am sure that fact could be restored if a proper reference could be found. Please don't edit war back and forth between two versions like that; it just irritates everybody. Thanks. --John 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1) You can verify it through Britannica Concise . Full sentence is: "Mugabe had always intended to convert Zimbabwe from a parliamentary democracy into a one-party socialist state." If you find such a statement POV, then maybe it could be rephrased. As I understand it, Wikipedia should include all points of view, and this one, supported by Britannica, is certainly an important one.

2) National Geographic article mentions tourism two times: "The economic meltdown has had a wide-ranging and devastating impact on what is one of Africa's premier tourist draws."

"They're telling the world they want the tourists to come back, but the tourists aren't going to come back because most of the animals you see nowadays have amputated legs," he said. "It's just like a rehabilitation center." I think that is enough to say that tourism in Zimbabwe is in danger. Ark La 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The core content is fine. The only reason we've been reverting you, as we already stated, is because of how sloppy and ungrammatical the content is. If you fix the grammar there would not be a problem. Perspicacite 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... was I unclear...? Perspicacite 18:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you see grammatical errors, fix them. Ark La 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
This article does not meet the current Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. Most obvious is the recent edit warring, as well as the current page protection, which expires on 10/2/2007. So it fails the stability criteria.

There are also some significant organizational issues with the article. The lead section, and history look very good, and could be used as a model for other sections. There are zero references in the 'human rights' section under government, which should be addressed.✅ The 'geography' section is a bit heavy on photos and images, with little text. Plus, the section ends with just a listing of districts, with no description of their interrelationships.✅

The economy section actually looks pretty good.

The 'demographics' section is too long, and contains much unrelated information. Remove 'and ethnicity' from the title of the section✅, as that should be implied by demographics anyway. The section should cover information about the population and demographic statistics only. The education information should be included in its own separate section✅, and it should be written as prose, too, not just a list of schools✅. The many subsection headers in this section are very confusing, and should eliminated✅. Things like language, religion, and ethnic groups, are part of demographics, but don't necessarily need their own subsection headers (unless that particular subsection is very long).

The culture section is very short, and has some very short subsections. This could be expanded✅. It is also pretty much devoid of reference citations✅, which is another issue with the GA criteria.

Move the large template out of the 'see also' section and put it at the bottom of the article, which is where such templates should goGermany, Russia and others have this box here.Mangwanani 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC). They almost never look good in the middle of the article like this one is. The 'see also' section should just contain a brief list of articles of similar topics to the current topic, and wikilinks that are already used earlier in the text should generally not be listed in the section either✅.

There seems to be quite a few external links. It might be advisable to go through them and eliminate a few. Take a look at WP:EL for guidelines on this.✅

Editors might want to see some other articles on nations, such as Brazil and United States, for a possible model of what a good article should look like. Other useful resources include WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and WP:CITE. Good luck! Dr. Cash 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review by Good friend100
Hello, this article looks pretty good. There are sufficient references and all the topics have been addressed. However, there is room for further improvement.
 * For example and to guide your organization, look at Japan, an FA status article.
 * Write about the military
 * expand on climate and environment
 * perhaps a section on health and the overall health state in zimbabwe?
 * I also suggest pictures. Pictures make the article more interesting.

You have room to expand on more topics. Other than that the economy and history sections look solid. Grammar looks fine too. Good friend100 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review but we are not applying for FA status. We are applying for GA status so therefore surely what we have is good enough for GA. When it comes to FA review we shall have to expand the article, naturally. Mangwanani 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I only posted Japan as a guide as to what great articles look like. Information on climate, foreign polices, and geography is not well written. I don't think there is a foreign policy or military section, and the article should definitely have one. Please note that GA status are high quality articles. Although FA status has stricter rules and requirements, GA status articles are good articles. Simply because GA reviewers have a lower standard than FA reviewers it doesn't mean that you can automatically lower your article standards. Good friend100 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I understand where you are coming from now. I didn't before. I have added some pictures and shall get to work on the other pointers. Many thanks once again. Mangwanani 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA review
I feel that this article is sufficient for GA status according to WP:GA?. I hope that you decide to take the article to FA status and there is room for much improvement. Congratulations, however, because the article looks great and meets the standards for GA. Good friend100 21:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this article should not have passed WP:GA, as there are still several issues with it. It's pretty close, and it should have been placed on hold prior to passing, as they're relatively minor. As such, I am delisting the article and placing it back on hold at WP:GAN, pending the resolution of the following issues:


 * Three entire sections are completely without any sources. These are 'military' (lots of unsourced statements, specifically regarding troop figures), 'administrative divisions', and 'geography'. Please attribute this information.✅
 * I would think that the 'geography' section should be promoted. Consider placing it before 'history', as it's pretty important and contains good basic information on the location of the country. ✅
 * There is a 'citation needed' tag in the 'demographics' section. These tags are generally red flags on the Good Article criteria, and absolutely positively MUST be addressed before GA status. Surprisingly, this tag appears to have been added by the previous GA reviewer, Good friend100? ✅
 * There's also no references on the percentages of citizens that attend christian churches, the breakdown by different denominations, and the percentage of black ethnic groups in the population. Hard facts must be cited.✅
 * Try to avoid sweeping generalization statements like this one, "Zimbabweans generally value and pursue academic achievement." in the education section. This is going to be very hard to find a reference, and in most polls, I think you'd find most people in the world probably "value educational achievement" in some sense, even if their actions point otherwise. So the statement is pretty much useless.✅
 * The next statement, "President Mugabe has seven non-honorary degrees and the cabinet has several graduates at PhD level." doesn't really cover the educational system of Zimbabwe; it really just seems to point to some overly flowerly description of the presidential cabinet, making the country's leadership look better. Furthermore, how many of these cabinet members are PhD graduates from Zimbabwe itself? I'd wager a good bet most of them came to the US for their graduate studies, and went back after they were done, which doesn't say much about the quality of education in Zimbabwe, does it?✅
 * Overall, the education section could really use a complete rewrite. The description of the school day and holidays is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of notability, and I would expect the section to cover more about the overall schools in Zimbabwe, how many total students there are at different levels, how the schools compare to others in the region and globally, etc. There's also really no mention of higher education either, with the exception of the board of accounts and doctors. Aren't there any colleges or universities in the country? This section is just seriously incomplete, which is a major problem with the Good Article criteria.✅
 * In the culture section, if you're going to call one sport, "the most popular sport in Zimbabwe", you need to have a citation for that. There's also no references for the olympic medals; also, why does it say that Zimbabwe won those medals? Shouldn't it say that "citizens of Zimbabwe received medals..."? ✅
 * It doesn't need to specify the "(boycotted) 1980 Summer games in Moscow", when Zimbabwe, as a participant, obviously didn't boycott those games. The US boycotted them, but that has nothing to do with Zimbabwe's participation. ✅
 * Are there any cultural attractions in Zimbabwe? What about tourism? There doesn't seem to be anything about that in the culture section.✅
 * Completely missing from the article is any description of the transportation system, and national infrastructure, such as power plants, water supply, etc. This is an issue with the completeness criterion.
 * Reading the prose, it's mostly good, but there's still lots of parts that are choppy, and there are many manual of style issues (for example, full dates should be wikilinked like "November 9, 2007", not November 9, 2007"). There's also a lot of words that don't have "the" before it (for example, "Zimbabwe has won four medals in [the] Olympic Games"). I would recommend a good copyedit.

Sorry to be so bold, but after reading this, there are clearly quite a few issues, and the article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time. So I will delist it, and put it back on hold at WP:GAN for one week (or until the issues are resolved). Thanks! Dr. Cash 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Medium
This paragraph was added into the economy section. However, I do not believe it is of relevance to the Zimbabwe article and does not contribute to the economy section in particular. It may be of significance on another page but the notability of the event is lacking on the main Zimbabwe page.

On Tuesday June 19, 2007, a spirit medium based in Chinhoyi, Rotina Mavhunga, in the company of an extension officer from Mashonaland West called Betty Biri, addressed the ruling party cabinet, claiming to have powers to cause diesel to flow from a rock. Having listened to claims that she could induce diesel to flow out of the rocks at Muningwa hills in Chinhoyi by pointing her "sacred stick" at it, a senior government delegation was sent to investigate the claims, and spent a total of ZW$5 billion paying the spirit medium. It was realised later that the fuel was not coming from the rock, but instead, it emerged that diesel bought from truck drivers was poured into a tank rigged with pipes, from which Tagarira drew the fuel, thus duping government officials into believing that it flowed from a sacred rock. She went on the run from the officials, but was apprehended and is currently in remand prison on charges of being a criminal nuisance., ,

Does anyone else agree with me? Mangwanani (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Its funny but its not really relavent CaptinJohn (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

High-balled numbers on emigrants from Zimbabwe
In the article it states that 3.4 million Zimbabweans have emigrated from the country. The article that this is sourced to has chosen to go with the high-end of the estimate. According to [Refugee International]'s article, this is not a settled amount. It is somewhere between 1.1 million and 3 million. Using the previous source's estimate, perhaps we could say 'about 2 million' or simply say 'somewhere between 1 and upwards of 3 million.' This page is locked, I assume because of vandalism following the death of Ian Smith. Let me know what you think about this change, I would likely place it after protection is lifted. Thanks, Apartcents (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of Zimbabweans in South Africa, based on a recent study have been estimated to be 900,000 far less than the usual hyperbolic, prejudiced, inflated numbers provided by the UK and Rhodesian propaganda machinary. Well lets see - Most white farmers are dying and most white Rhodesian have immigrated, therefore the population of 50,000 white minorities does not constitute 1.5%, but less than 0.8%. The UK has been crunching false numbers of Zimbabweans daily. Zvidzai (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about the layout?
In the history section because of the picture that has been added there is a large gap in the text. I was wondering if somebody (maybe with a little more editing skill) could think of a way around this? It would just make the article look a lot tidier. Thanks Stefanjcarney 18:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The whitespace is caused by the number (ie perhaps too many) images, all aligned to the right side of the page. I have moved some images to other places, and aligned some differently. Looks better in the screen resolutions I've tested. Hope it looks better on your screen as well. --Ezeu 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ezeu, Sorry again for the misunderstanding before. I don't mind your image move but in my browser(firefox) it looked better before. Thats why I also moved the image up again. I don't mind if its only my browser and won't move it up again. -- Stan talk 19:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Ezeu 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)