Jump to content

Talk:Gukurahundi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

This article alone should go to prove that Robert Mugabe never has, and never will, be anything more than a common terrorist.

Bias

This article needs to be edited as it is one sided. It is well known that there is another side to this story which is being omitted for politicking. What happened to Gwesela and many others like him who killed white Zimbabweans and Shonas in Matebeland and Midlands. Attrocities were committed by both the armed Dissidants and 5th Brigade. This is the part thats missing in this article.

Response

While I did not write the original article, I felt that I have enough knowledge to respond to the concerns of the above person as I have studied the Gukurahundi as part of my master's thesis, having read all published human rights reports on the subject. The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe found that of all the violent acts commited between 1982 and 1987 in the affected areas, 80% were commited by the 5th Brigade, 6.5% were commited by the Central Intelligence Organization, and 4.% by the regular army. Only 2% of all violence committed (this includes rape, murder, property loss, torture, detention, etc.) was commited by dissidents. While every case of rape and murder is a tragedy, the statistical evidence is clear that the violence was overhelwmingly carried out by state agents (98%), and a very tiny minority by dissident groups. In such a case, it is only reasonable that the actions of the state are highlighted over the actions of dissident individuals. If one was to give equal credence to both the violence of the dissidents and the state one would over-exaggerate the threat of the dissidents, and undervalue the explicit political motivations of the conflict - which was to destroy ZAPU.

Of course all this assumes that the dissidents were actually Zimbabwean dissidents. While it is certain that at least some of the 'dissidents' were former Zipra soldiers who had either refused to end the war in the first place, or left after being integrated into the national army, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the most violence attrocities commited by the so-called dissidents were actually South African agents operating under the guise of 'Super-Zapu' as part of Operation Drama. This Super-Zapu was made up largely of former Selous-Scouts and African soldiers from the short-lived Zimbabwe-Rhodesia state who had refused integration into Mugabe's national army. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that some of the 'dissidents' were criminal opportunists, who used the violence and confusion for personal profits. Additionally, there is evidence that suggests ZANU politicians and partisans hired 'hit squads' to settle political and economic scores - including the murder of 16 missionaries in Matobo in order to settle a land dispute.

In total, 33 white farmers, and their family members, died during the five year period. This is comared to the near 10,000 Africans killed by the government. While every death is a tragedy, it would be border-line racist to overplay the significance of their deaths, as on any given day more Africans would die at the hands of the 5th Brigade then did so-called "Rhodies" throughout the whole period. In general the NGO human rights reports agree that the dissidents played a significant role in the conflict, but in general, the legitimate dissidents (ie not ZANU hit squads, South African agents, or common criminals) were resonsible for few death, and instead concentrated on property destruction.

Overall, the dissidents (ex-Zipra, SA agents, ZANU hit squads, & criminals) provided a grave risk to the security of the rural people of Matabeleland and parts of the Midlands. They committed horrendous crimes as they ravaged the countryside, and it was a threat that needed to be dealt with. As the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe has admitted, a longtime critic of human rights abuses both under the Smith and Mugabe governments, the government was correct when it said it had the duty to maintain law and order in the country. However, the actions of the government in response to the dissidents appear to have little to do with maintaining law and order, but rather only increased the level of terror and violence in Matabeleland and the Midlands. This is the true horror of the Gukurahundi campaign, and it's for good reason that this Wikipedia article in question concentrated on these state-sponsored crimes against humanity.

More Bias

I disagree with the choice to begin the article with a description of the Gukurahundi as a conflict between the "Zimbabwe Government and rebels led by Joshua Nkomo." At the time of this conflict, ZANU and ZAPU were technically both part of the government, as evidenced by the inclusion of former ZIPRA forces in the original Fifth Brigade structure.

The subsequent removal of these forces, resulting in a makeup formed solely from "loyal" ZANU troops, makes this conflict one between Mugabe and Nkomo--but neither can legitimately claim to be "government" while deriding the other as "rebels," because the one-party state of Zimbabwe under ZANU-PF did not emerge until after the Unity Accords. Jsamans (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellenet Article

With the death of the free media in Zimbabwe, and the clamping down of political space in my beloved home country, it is wonderful that the internet can be used to expose the horrendous atrocities of this evil government. Having watched the movie documentary that the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, I can only say that the article is fair. Besides this if the government wanted to show its side of the story, then it would publish the Dumbutshena Report. However anyone who knows this government knows that they would not release the full report as it would damage their reputation, and show them for the people they truly are. ZANU (PF) showed their true colours by murdering hundreds of people from 2000, people of all colours, it is only unfortunate that the murders of white farmers gained more international publicity then the murder of hundreds of civilians, whose only 'crime' was to hold a different view to the government. Murambatsvina is one classic example of the governments uncaring attitude towards the people. If the person who wrote 'Bias' would like to demonstrate the danger otherwise homeless civilians caused to the nation, I would be most interested to hear it. Well Gukuruhundi was even more sinister then Murambatsvina, with half the nation being terrorised, and people don't know it's true extent. Go into Matabeleland and see the contempt that is shown to Ndebeles, from government officials. That is the saddest part, Gukuruhundi has permanently divided the country, and that was not because a few soldiers dissented from the army.

Thank-you for allowing me to comment.

Proud Bulawayo Boy82.11.191.178 08:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


The article has mainly been copied word for word from this report. The original report is far more balanced, and gives an intelligent background to the activities - also including the involvement of South Africa. I have started a tidy up, however it needs to be continued. The text must not simply be copied - the facts should be taken and written up using new words. Also, when selecting material, consideration needs to be given to allowing a balanced viewpoint. I have started to introduce some background, though more work needs to be done - especially in terms of South Africa's involvement, in terms of the pressure that Mugabe must have been under politically to stop the dissident attacks (either true dissident or the South African squad sent in to cause problems - blaming it on the dissidents), especially after the tourist killings, and also to make it clear that the killings were not tribal in nature - ie, that the attacks were not motivated by ethnic cleansing. The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace's report is an excellent starting point as it is very balanced, though other sources also need to be brought in to give a wider viewpoint. SilkTork *YES! 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 204.102.216.145 (talk · contribs) and 204.102.216.101 (talk · contribs)

One of the new references provided does not support the changed text. I am reverting, for the second time. Wizzy…☎ 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced text. A scholarly source has been cited stating that most reliable sources put casualties at about 1000.

The UN refugee agency says 10,000 to 20,000.
the Silence, Building True Peace says
Deaths: confirmed dead number over 2000: almost certain dead number between 3000 and 4000: possible dead could be double this or more.

I am not just changing your figure - I am reverting your edits. Wizzy…☎ 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those sources do not supersede the scholarly source that has been cited stating that "most reliable sources" put 5th Brigade's casualties at about 1000. Your edits are contrary to the prevailing view. It is important to bring balance and objectivity to this article so that it does not degenerate into anti-Shona hatred. ABarmenkov (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I would take the UN refugee agency and Breaking the Silence as more reliable sources. One of your google books links even has the number 1000 in the search string - you are looking for book articles that back your number, no wonder you find it. Wizzy…☎ 09:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If I change the search term to say 10000 I come up with an equally 'scholarly' article that mentions 10,000. What a suprise. Wizzy…☎ 09:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As an outside observer, may I suggest that the most high profile sources (unhcr, the NAMES of the writers who seem to have either academic credentials or wide readership) be mentioned by name, with the numbers they give, and something in the ref text indicating how they arrived at this figure? The controversy about the number killed is part and parcel of the story here. This IS a topic of debate and there is no one number which is universally believed. This needs, though, to be guided by WP:fringe. Having spent several years in the profession, just because someone teaches at a university doesn't mean they are not a wing-nut. That goes double for having a published work. T L Miles (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
and btw, the phrase "suspected terrorists" is the lead has to go. Everyone involved is someones "terrorist". Veterans of the Zim war of independence should know this better than anyone. T L Miles (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
To start, the allegation of 20,000 deaths is a spurious one made by Nkomo. Other sources put the figure as low as 700. The Catholic Commission for Peace and Justice (CCPJ), which by any measurement is an unbiased observer, estimated about 3000 dead and missing.
The CCPJ report on the disturbances in Matabeleland compiled reports indicating that 1134 deaths and 169 disappearances were by committed by the 5 Brigade. The same study cites Zimbabwe newspapers documenting 700-800 murders committed by dissidents and bandits. One particular atrocity by the bandits was the massacre of 22 Shona civilians in Mwenezi in August 1985. But this article is written in a blatantly partisan manner as if Cde Mugabe and the Shonas were out to exterminate the Ndebeles. It is unhelpful to overemphasize excesses committed by the 5 Brigade while at the same time omitting the brutality committed by Nkomo’s followers. ABarmenkov (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The UNHCR reference that the "20,000" figure seems to come from specifically states that "This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher." It provides no details about how this figure is arrived at. The articles referenced which actually includes details and numerical methods of tabulation (http://www.sokwanele.com/pdfs/BTS.pdf) put the figure at a conservative estimate of 3000-4000 people killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.138.2 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Name

The name of this article is problematic because it is a reflection of the point of view of ZAPU's extremist followers. The unbiased, neutral name for this conflict is the title of the CCJP's report that includes "1980s Distrubances in Matabeleland & the Midlands"ABarmenkov (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"South African Interference"

No evidence is given for what is claimed to be "South African Interference", not in the article nor in the blatantly biased report given as reference. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any SA interference, but if claims are made they got to be supported by credible evidence.--154.69.22.137 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused. The source clearly states that Zimbabwe forces were killed in a single SA terrorist attack (pp7) as well as $50 million worth of munitions. If the source is biased at all it's against the govrnment of Mugabe. The evidence is the inquiry. You understand that testimony is considered evidence, right? Selector99 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The article claims that South Africa was responsible for several attacks in Zimbabwe - including the Thornhill bombing and an attempt to assassinate Mugabe. It may be that SA was responsible for these - though there are plenty of other candidates. However nothing in the article supports the statement in the introduction that "similar attacks were carried out by militia from neighbouring South Africa". This unsupported and unlikely claim should be deleted.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"South African Interference"

No evidence is given for what is claimed to be "South African Interference", not in the article nor in the blatantly biased report given as reference. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any SA interference, but if claims are made they got to be supported by credible evidence.--154.69.22.137 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused. The source clearly states that Zimbabwe forces were killed in a single SA terrorist attack (pp7) as well as $50 million worth of munitions. If the source is biased at all it's against the govrnment of Mugabe. The evidence is the inquiry. You understand that testimony is considered evidence, right? Selector99 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The article claims that South Africa was responsible for several attacks in Zimbabwe - including the Thornhill bombing and an attempt to assassinate Mugabe. It may be that SA was responsible for these - though there are plenty of other candidates. However nothing in the article supports the statement in the introduction that "similar attacks were carried out by militia from neighbouring South Africa". This unsupported and unlikely claim should be deleted.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note on this, Peter Stiff has pretty extensively documented the South African involvement in the attack on Thornhill in his book Cry Zimbabwe, which has been cited in the article. It was carried out by former Zimbabwean service members and with the connivance of at least one serving airman, though. That being said, according to Stiff there never really was a relationship with dissident ZIPRA elements (or Super ZAPU, for that matter) beyond rudimentary contact. The South Africans were first and foremost concerned about deniability - which could be better maintained with white Zimbos also serving in the SADF as opposed to the far less disciplined and rowdy ZIPRA guerrillas, and the distrust was so palpable on both sides that the prospects of an uneasy alliance never went anywhere.
While the echo that the ZIPRA dissidence in Matabeleland was the direct result of a South African "destabilisation" policy has been repeated time and again, I'm just not seeing the evidence. The SADF had their own covert programmes in Zimbabwe and ditched the prospects of working with the dissidents pretty quick when they realised they already had plenty of former Selous Scouts and the like they could use. Information on SADF operations conducted in and concerning Zimbabwe belongs on a separate article and has virtually nothing to do with Gukurahundi, beyond the fact that South African special forces may have posed as the dissidents while carrying out assignments of their own. Disgruntled ZIPRA fighters taking up an insurgency was going to happen anyway, as evidenced by the two Entumbane uprisings.
Just my two cents.
Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of dead

The source is specific and clear on these numbers. See page 87, "FINAL ESTIMATE: The figure for the dead and missing is not less than 3000. This statement is now beyond reasonable doubt. Adding up the conservative suggestions made above, the figure is reasonably certainly 3750 dead". It's a nonsense to suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selector99 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

See Geoff Hill's 2005 book here, attesting to estimates as high as 30,000. I've altered the article to describe a range of estimates between 3,750 and 30,000. I hope this is okay with you. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User talk:Cliftonian. Dear Christ I was imagining a long and drawn out debate on these pages. That'll certainly do for now. In the meantime I think the reason d'etre of the Catholic inquiry was to estabish numbers and their numbers max out at 3,750. Even if their numbers were doubled for good faith they'd be no more than 7,000. May they all rest in peace. Sincerely Selector99 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you too, Selector. Indeed may they all rest in peace. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@User talk:Cliftonian Ok, I've taken another look at the source and in the preface of the 106-page report it says, "it has been estimated that at least 30 000 people died countrywide". First off, my understandin is that Gukurahundi refers to the unreast in and around Matabeleland so the numbers of estimated dead countrywide is not representative of those killed in Matabeleland. But more importantly, the preface is only confirming that such estimates exist[ed]. It's not suggesting that such estimates are in any way correct. The report goes on to conclude 3,750 confirmed killings and says the actual number may be as much as double this so here's what I propose;
"In the ensuing conflict thousands were killed with estimates of up to 30,000.[4] An in-depth report by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe confirmed 3,750 deaths although it concluded that the final estimate could be as much double this figure[5]".
Thoughts? Selector99 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Good work, Selector. Looks good to me. I've implemented this now. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gukurahundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gukurahundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gukurahundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

End of Gukurahundi?

The stated end date of Gukurahundi does not seem to be completely supported by the sources, which only refer to the end of hostilities or the creation of the Unity Accord, but doesn't specifically mention an end date of Gukurahundi. Furthermore, in one of the sources, "The 1987 Zimbabwe National Unity Accord and its Aftermath", says that the 5 Brigade exited the region in conflict in 1984, so it is unclear if with that Gukurahundi ended or not. Thinker78 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because the Fifth Brigade ended its involvement in 1984 doesn't mean that other units of the security forces weren't continuing the crackdown. Certainly, in Stiff's book extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances are documented well into 1986 and 1987.
Something else I'd like to discuss is the wholesale removal of about half the lead to the main body of the article on the basis that a lot of the information covered there isn't covered elsewhere. There is no need to remove the actual content from the lead. That information isn't phrased for the body of the article, but was compiled with the lead in mind. Build upon said content and the associated sources to expand the body rather than using copy and paste from one context to another (at the expense of the lead).
I understand this is a case of a well-written lead and a comparatively poorly-written, skeletal article. If I were in your shoes here, I would leave the lead as is and expand the article to match, instead of using the lead to write the article. --Katangais (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't understand if Gukurahundi is the name of the operation conducted by the Fifth Brigade or if it is the name of a broader operation, and I didn't understand if Gukurahundi ended with the exit of the Fifth Brigade or if it continued up to what point. I'm not clear either if for the Zimbabwe regime Gukurahundi was a strategy or operation, and if the general population understands the term differently.
I am not that informed to expand the article that much. It didn't make sense that all that information was put in the lead and not in the body of the article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section# Introductory_text: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", "Editors should avoid... over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." And according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Thinker78 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gukurahundi/Archive_1&oldid=1214920541"