Jump to content

Talk:Robert Mugabe/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Comments on POV

I just reverted this article's intro to a much earlier version, to combat what I perceived to be substantial pro-Mugabe changes that involved (i) insertion of unsourced POV material, and (ii) deletion of well-sourced NPOV material. I don't mean to assert that this reversion is to the best possible introduction, but I sure think it's an improvement.

In general, for pro-Mugabe content this article currently leans heavily on a surprising source: Mugabe himself. I would think that there would always be the expectation that the claims of an article's subject would be considered POV and hence excluded from articles, in favor of alternative, independent sources. Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Succession

At best, I would say a succession section on a person's biography is not of better taste. Maybe a bit more in a Zanu-PF Wiki article. But it's true that Mugabe has been elected into power for a long time and some discussion about succession may be relevant.

Still, some details in the succession section need to be rewritten to make the text more readable. Especially aspect that are not related to the succession issue. For example Operation Murambatsvina, while an interesting subject in Zimbabwean politic, has no place in a succession section. As well as the discussion on when to hold the presidential/parliamentary 2008 elections. The issue was interesting at one point but just not pertinent to the succession discussion. I also want to add sourced mention of Emmerson Mnangagwa as a possible successor to Mugabe.Analyzer99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from Mufambisi, 15 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change Robert Gabriel Karikoga Mugabe to Robert Gabriel Mugabe as the name Karikoga it not factual.

Munya (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Darkwind (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I see no basis for Karikoga. I shall take it out. I asked at User talk:Aziraphael as he/she inserted it. Wizzy…☎ 06:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be taken out of there's no valid sources Analyzer99 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

99. "'Hitler' Mugabe launches revenge terror attacks– Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/26/wzim26.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/26/ixworld.html Retrieved 22 May 2010.

This article is not found at that address anymore. Via Google i found the new address: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/4186630/Hitler-Mugabe-launches-revenge-terror-attacks.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.52.164 (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Utter Rubbish

This article is so biased as to be beyond belief This is what the world reads about Robert Mugabe The Angels weep Lets have some input about the Shona incursions into Matabeleland The murder mayhem and self profiteering. What this bastard did to our Rhodesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawkx15 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Most black people here in South Africa has only bad things to say about him. My country is going the same way. FAST...156.8.254.130 (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed --Scottykira (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is now biased and has been biased for some time. There does not seem to be any hope of this changing given the way Wikipedia has become. I am very sorry to the people who may be hurt or killed because of this terribly biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.88.140 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have POV issues with an article you should point out what the problems are and if they are valid concerns they will be dealt with. You not liking Mugabe is no reason to believe that a neutral POV is a bad POV. Atheuz (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
+1 on the utter rubbish assessment. This guy is a tyrant. He has suppressed and killed opposition and run the economy into the ground. At least bring back a tag, for goodness' sake.209.137.177.15 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Concerning this change Handy-TV (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

sources:
  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/8192700/Zimbabwes-Blood-Diamonds-exposed-by-Wikileaks-cable.html
  2. http://classic.cnbc.com/id/40583552
  3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/14/zimbabwe-diamond-trade-abuse.

Handy-TV (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are only allegations. The wikileaks (the US ambassador) is only reporting hearsay from Mr. Cranswick (from ACR) who has self interest in lying about the situation since he's in litigation with the Zimbabwean government over fraud charges. Something that is mentionned in the wikileaks itself. So this does not represent worthy sources. Analyzer99 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikileaks is again in the article. Sources: Bloomberg, Wikileaks, Guardian. Handy-TV (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a biography of a living person and you can't put hearsay and allegation and defamatory opinion on a wiki page of a living persons. The wikileaks comments themselves are reported by the US ambassador in his report to Washington as hearsay possibly self-motivated since the one who's doing the accusation is Mr. Cranswick from ACR a mining company accused of fraud by the Zimbabwean government and in litigation with it.

Here's Wiki rules about biography of a living persons:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material Biographies_of_living_persons

Analyzer99 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Such defamatory allegations needs to be more substantiated by official sources such as court trial, inquiry the Kimberley process, etc, other than Mr Cranswick hearsay described as bias by the US ambassador who wrote the wikileaks letter himself.Analyzer99 (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Analyzer, allegations by several sources have to be mentioned. So stop your vandalism-lobbying for Mugabe! Another revert will result in notification on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Handy-TV (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can report me all you want this is a biography of a living person and those are unsubstantiated defamatory comments. This is not a tabloid to repeat any unsubstantiated allegations. Any way if it were true the Kimberley Process (which did an audit of all diamond industry activity in Zimbabwe as in any diamond producing country memmber of the KP) would have mentioned it in their reports and you can be sure medias would be all over it. This is only Mr Cranswick words who happens to be in litigation against the Zimbabwean government over diamond concessions claims and false representation. Analyzer99 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, whether it's positive or negative. The Guardian and Bloomberg News are reliable sources. If there are other sources that dispute their reports then we can include those too. But it is certainly not a violation of BLP to include properly sourced, negative material about a subject. Rather than continuing to revert and delete well-sourced material, I suggest you take this up at the relevant noticeboard, WP:BLPN, to get wider input.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I restored the cited text, as it's reliably sourced but I suggest that it should appear in the Grace Mugabe article rather than here, as there's no specific mention of Robert Mugabe himself. Greenman (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's more relevant in another article then I have no objection to moving it.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that those allegations by Mr Cranswick, repeated by the US ambassador with warning about their bias since Cranswick is in litigation against the Zimbabwean government, be moved to another article. Allegations not supported by any Kimberly process motion which actually do diamond industry audit when they review members country.Analyzer99 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This keeps getting restored without more discussion. It is already covered in the Grace Mugabe article. The material being added here doesn't seem to pertain directly to Robert Mugabe. If someone can find material which either implicates Mr. Mugabe in his wife's alleged crimes, or in subsequent cover-up or revenge against the whistle blowers, then that material would be relevant here. But general corruption by the government or individuals besides the subject of this article is better covered in other articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrexham?

The section about Robert Mugabe enjoying trips to North Wales is uncited (the citation for the previous sentence says nothing about it). The fact that no trains actually run from London Paddington to Wrexham makes it particularly dubious. Without a clear citation, this text should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.104.16 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

pro-Mugabe Bias

Mugabe did not overthrow the Smith Regime, it had already stepped down and he was terrorizing a democratically elected government lead by Abel Muzorewa and put their by a voting process involving 64% of Africans in Zimbabwe. Mugabe did not win ANY elections EVER he used an ARMY. All elections with armies existing dedicated to putting one man into power are fraudalent. If you want to say Mugabe won the election you have to say Saddam Hussein Hosni Mubarak and Ghaddaffi won their elections to. This article is rubbish and needs a re-write right from the start. If Mugabe overthrew the Smith Regime Obama succeeded Bill Clinton not George Bush as President of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.60.226 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There is no English pronunciation for Robert Mugabe's name. That is simply ridiculous. Only the Shona pronunciation is the correct pronunciation. It is also inconsistent with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.138.105 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Alma Mater

There is no evidence of Robert Mugabe ever being awarded a degree, honorary or otherwise, by the University of Oxford. He is a known liar.129.97.222.127 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - the assertion he went to Oxford is just a rumour without factual basis. Adjusted article accordingly, thank you. Franklinville (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe's mother Bona was most probably non-Shona from her European name. No Shona could have given her child European name when the European hatred and takeover of their country was still fresh in their mind. She is probably an orphan of foreign stock raised at Chishawasha mission by Jesuit priests where she met Gabriel Matibili who later married her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propagandatruth (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mugabe's Foreign Background

Robert Mugabe's mother Bona was most probably non-Shona from her European name. No Shona could have given her child European name when the European hatred and takeover of their country was still fresh in their mind. She is probably an orphan of foreign stock raised at Chishawasha mission by Jesuit priests where she met Gabriel Matibili who later married her. My grandmother was born in 1915 and she had two names one English one Shona. She got the English name after being baptised into the Catholic Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propagandatruth (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mujuru's candidacy

"Mujuru's candidacy for the presidency is strengthened by the backing of her husband, Solomon Mujuru"

Solomon Mujuru is now late please edit the above in the article page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigrod03 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm....

Picture kinda makes him look like Hitler... I wonder if that's just coincidence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.24.97 (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Failed State

Robert Rotberg believes that Zimbabwe is on the brink of becoming a failed state in a 2002 Foreign Affairs Journal article. I realize the article is about Mugabe and not the status of Zimbabwe, but Rotberg very specifically states that Mugabe caused Zimbabwe's near-failed-state-ness. This should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead and overall emphasis

Just a passer-by's reaction: This article -- and the lead section specifically -- seems overly technical and perhaps biased. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be brief and provide a much shorter overview of Mugabe's tenure. I am also surprised that there is no mention in the lead of the two criticisms that have pervaded all of the news reports, at least in the U.S.: (1) that Mugabe has been responsible for Zimbabwe's economic decline, and (2) that the 2008 election was rigged and Mugabe isn't the rightful prime minister. Both of these criticisms are in the article but buried deeply. I would think, based on the pervasiveness of these viewpoints and their widespread reporting in the mainstream media, that they would be featured prominently and included in the lead section. Perhaps someone (with much more knowledge of the subject than I) could take a stab at these changes. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012

Under the sub heading Health and succession this article said Joyce Mujuru's chances of succeeding Robert Mugabe are strengthened by her husbund Solomon Mujuru. However this is no longer accurate because Solomomo Mujuru passed away on 15 August 2011

Source: http://www.radiovop.com/index.php/national-news/6899-solomon-mujuru-dies-in-suspicious-fire.html

Owenkaridza (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for highighting, I've adjusted the text. Greenman (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 10-Sept-2012

Please update the section about honorary degrees under Criticism and opposition. MSU has revoked his honorary degree in 2008: http://diverseeducation.com/article/11685/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrs413 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

GCB no longer valid

In the very first line of this article, the 4th word (GCB) is no longer valid. He was stripped of this honour as per the section "Honours and Revocations" first paragraph, third sentence. Please adjust the article's openeing sentence to be consistent with the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.83.203 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so. I've removed the offending letters.
I'm sure Mugabe is happy to be in such exalted company as Mussolini and Ceaucescu. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

if he a dictator, then he is good dictator and its not for anyone but5 zimbabweans to tell. 197.221.242.144 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussion about Wikipedia's article about Robert Mugabe, not for general discussion about him. Please re-open this if you wish to request an edit. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 18:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh and some random wrote at the start that he is a c u n t. Please change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.200.134 (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed a neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can We Agree?

Bobby Mugab? A criminal? A good leader? A charlatan? A member of the illuminati? No one seems to agree. But what we can agree on is this: He's one weird lookin' mofo. I mean look at his mouth. Room in the article for a few lines on his super weird mouth? Also the first damned line of the article calls him a gorilla. That's racist as hell, and needs to be deleted.98.174.171.43 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Indented line If you can't tell the difference between guerrilla and gorilla, you have no business being an editor. Talashar (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Have just cleaned these up, using Barack Obama as a template. In external links, there were a whole series of newspaper articles and commentaries which I've removed - if they are relevant, useful, they should be cited in the text not just dumped in external links - see WP:ELNO1. Some are articles/commentaries about him, others about Zim government, others about Zim in general. In case anyone wants to use the links to improve the article, I'm posting them here:

I've also removed ZANU-PF and Gukurahundi from see also -pointless, they are linked in the article many times and actually in the lead itself.Babakathy (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - remove honorary degrees without verifiable source

Honors # 8-19 need more citations, since the original link that supported them is dead, and also a non-neutral source (the government controlled by Mugabe) Mugabe has ruled since the 1980s. (http://www.gta.gov.zw/president%20bio/president_bio_contents.htm)

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20101029224442993 24.27.183.138 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

The article says Robert Mugabe was preceded by Zail Singh which is incorrect. Zail Singh was a President of India and had nothing to do with Zimbabwe Milindind (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Singh preceded him as Chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement. Cannolis (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Category section inconsistent with article.

I notice that the Category section at the bottom of this article includes "Zimbabwean Marxists", however the article itself doesn't mention any Marxist association that I can see. I don't actually know whether Robert Mugabe claims to be a Marxist or not but it seems to me that the Category section and the article should be consistent. If he is a Marxist then that should be mentioned in the text and if not then the Category entry should presumably be removed.

Gmwinn (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

Michigan State University revoked Mugabe's degree: http://www.wgvu.org/wgvunews/index.cfm?id=sdetail&sty=852

Please update to longer state that it is under consideration. 204.136.26.41 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Already done Cannolis (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Muzorewa vs. Mugabe

Every time I visit this article, I see the following passage:

"In April 1979, 64% of the black citizens of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) lined up at the polls to vote in the first democratic election in the history of that southern African nation. Two-thirds of them supported Abel Muzorewa, a bishop in the United Methodist Church. He was the first black prime minister of a country only 4% white. Muzorewa's victory put an end to the 14-year political odyssey of outgoing prime minister Ian Smith, who had infamously announced in 1976, "I do not believe in black majority rule—not in a thousand years."

Less than a year after Muzorewa's victory, however, in February 1980, another election was held in Zimbabwe. This time, Robert Mugabe, who had fought a seven-year guerilla war against Rhodesia's white-led government, won 64% of the vote, after a campaign marked by widespread intimidation, outright violence, and Mugabe's threat to continue the civil war if he lost. Mugabe became prime minister and was toasted by the international community and media as a new sort of African leader."

I have never quite understood the point of having discussion pages and having intelligent Wikipedians surveying the page for vandalism if monstrously opinionated and deceptive statements like this can be made and can remain on the article for months if not years without any effort made to remove them. This type of stuff belongs in conservapedia, not wikipedia. Aside from the glaring absence of citations (and I believe that's a slight misquotation of Smith), the author of these paragraphs has a very clear POV and has made no attempt to disguise it, but has through careful selection and ommission of facts, attempted to convince the reader of it, rather than presenting the situation in a balanced light. I therefore suggest that these paragraphs be deleted forthwith.

86.183.216.108 (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the mis-quote, and also right that it needs to be taken in context. And right that these two paragraphs at least need some sourcing, if not a re-write or removal. I have fixed the quote, given a source for it, and requested sources for the rest.
I suggest that instead of just complaining, you learn how to fix these sorts of things, and pitch in to help make the article better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to hear how the description above misrepresents the situation. At all. But whatever is said, it does need to be cited properly. 68.108.171.141 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Shona name?

Does he has a Shona birth name in his native tongue? If so, what is it?

Me 08:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr0koewi (talk • contribs)

Who cares? When the bastard dies he'll be just as dead, and my green and white flag will fly just as high.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So Nigerians don't like him either? But seriously, we are not here to discuss that, but how to improve the article. 68.108.171.141 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "Mugabe" actually originated in Malawi. It'll be ironic if Ian Smith's family has lived in Zim for longer than his has. --Katangais (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, he does not have a different name in any other language. His name is Robert Gabriel Mugabe in Shona as well. It is indeed often reported that Mugabe's father was a migrant worker from Malawi; he abandoned the family when Robert was small and the President hardly ever mentions him. It seems likely that Smith's father, who arrived from Scotland in late 1890s, may well have lived in Zim before Mugabe's father, but we should not forget that Mugabe's Zezuru–Shona mother probably had local roots going back centuries. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to amend narrative instances of racist Eurocentric two-colour (black/white) colour-branding of people (including children)

Firstly, thank for the fabulous Wikipedia facility. {{edit semi-protected}

I question two-colour (black/white) branding of people as a guileful and racist Eurocentric continuum and I wish to amend relevant narrative instance of the words as appearing on the subject Wiki-page - Robert_Mugabe; the amending being to particular 'black' and 'white' two-colour colour-branding narrative (but not historical quotatiosns); as follows:

  1. "Indigenization & Black Economic Empowerment" to "Indigenization & African Economic Empowerment"
  2. "conflict within the black townships" to "conflict within the African townships"
  3. "Indigenization & Black Economic Empowerment" to "Indigenization
  4. "black Zimbabweans greater control" to "African Zimbabweans greater control"
  5. "Mr Mugabe says giving black Zimbabweans control" to "Mr Mugabe says giving African Zimbabweans control"
  6. "64% of the black citizens" to "64% of the African citizens"
  7. "rebel groups against white minority rule" to "groups against European minority rule"
  8. conservative white minority government of Rhodesia to conservative European minority government of Rhodesia
  9. "including white Zimbabweans" to "including European Zimbabweans"
  10. "principle that white minority rule" to "principle that European minority rule"
  11. "reserved for whites in the new Parliament" to "reserved for Europeans in the new parliament"
  12. "the 20 white seats all going to the Rhodesian Front" to "20 white seats going to Europeans of the Rhodesian Front"
  13. "south, and with the white minority" to "south, and with the European minority"
  14. "The white minority government" to "The European-minority government"
  15. "reserved for mainly white landlords" to "reserved for mainly European landlords"
  16. "racist attitude towards white people" to "racist attitude towards European people"
  17. "years after ending white-minority rule in Zimbabwe" to "years after ending European-minority rule in Zimbabwe"
  18. "promoting white imperialism and" to "promoting European imperialism and"
  19. "being allies of white imperialism" to "being allies of European imperialism"
  20. "and white farmers" to "and European farmers"
  21. "the white minority" to "the European minority"
  22. "continue paying white farmers" to "continue paying European farmers"
  23. "confiscate white-owned land for redistribution to black" to "confiscate European-owned land for redistribution to African"
  24. "invading white-owned farms" to "invading European-owned farms"
  25. "seizure of white-owned" to "seizure of European-owned"
  26. "first black prime minister of a country only 4% white" to "first African prime minister of a country only 4% Europeans"
  27. "against Rhodesia's white-led government" to "against Rhodesia's Europeans-led government"
  28. "racist against Zimbabwe's white minority" to "racist against Zimbabwe's European minority"
  29. "regan popularity with the black majority, he devised a plan to seize property of the wealthy white minority and transfer it back to black ownership" to "regain popularity with the African majority, he devised a plan to seize property of the wealthy European minority and transfer it back to African ownership"

My reasoning

I believe my editorial request is supported in terms of the context of (and in my view, appropriate use of "African", in the following extract from the subject Wiki-page:
"At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans."

I refer to reference Wiki-page - Black_people - and believe its contents validate my reasoning, and so supports my editorial request and intent. By the reference Web-page, it is evident Africans of their own volition referred to themselves as "Africans". As colour-branded people include children, it is important that such branding is clear and sufficiently unequivocal as to be clear to children in their formative years - so as not to leave children demeaned, confused or otherwise socially or mentally debilitated. Requiring a need to fathom "blackness" (as alluded to on the reference Web-page) is clearly inadmissible where children are concerned; unless their awareness and affects upon them, are deemed not to matter (and so they are not sentient human-beings) up until they become widely read adults.

I contend, and correlated facts and language in both subject and reference Wiki-pages agree, that current two-colour colour-branding of human-beings, by individuals and in national governance/academes, is as a consequence of guileful ingrained racist Eurocentrism - where 'whites equate Europeans while 'blacks' being the rest; barring where an instant person/people are cited in terms of particularly geographical root-affiliation and racial lineage.

Black-branding came into widened usage predominantly by way of 1960s campaigns originated and led by a set of people in the USA determined to submit to branding themselves as 'blacks' having declared they were no longer ashamed of being branded blacks by Europeans (who deemed themselves whites). It seems (in my view and upon the facts of the matter), a submission and state of affairs that reflect an emasculation of Africans by centuries-long enslavement - wherein a people discard terms fought for by their martyred forebears, and, submit without ashamedness, to a branding of their people, by those Europeans who, without care and heinos self-interest, shackled and grossly abused Africans' forebears both in Africa and abroad.

--Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC) }

Hi Hubert, thanks for the note and the reasoning. I appreciate the good intentions but I'm afraid I must oppose this proposed change. In my mind the really racist thing would be to define all black people as Africans and all non-black people as non-Africans, which is basically what we are proposing here. Indeed the term "Africans" was used as the primary term of self-reference by many in the black nationalist liberation movement of the last century, but this was at least partly with the intent of attempting to disassociate the white minority created during the colonial period from the continent. What about white people whose families have lived in Africa for centuries? Isn't anybody from Africa "African", just as everybody from Britain is British and everybody from the U.S. is American, regardless of his colour? And that's not even getting into the fact that the only part of Africa with a predominantly black population is that south of the Sahara.
You say above that "'whites equate Europeans while 'blacks' being the rest", but that's not true. Anybody who would describe people descended from (for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American forebears as "black" is clearly not very intelligent. (That's not even getting into how people of mixed descent should be described. Again "black" is more often that not simply wrong).
Would we really dissociate the British-born child of Jamaican immigrants from both his birth country and his parents' homeland by telling him he was "African"? Were we to apply the same principle consistently all over the world, surely huge swathes of white people in North and South America, Oceania and indeed Africa would have to be at a stroke relabelled "Europeans", regardless of their personal history and background, while black people worldwide would be redesignated "Africans". In my view that is far more racist than simply describing black people as black and white people as white. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cliftonian, thank you for responding but regret to say the response appears muddled, contextually incoherent, and addresses points contrary to those given in my request to amend the subject Web-page.
In the circumstances I ask, please, that if available, another appropriate member of the Wikipedia Information, attends my request-to-amend the subject Wiki-page. If an alternative person is not available, please indicate your standing in the Wikipeda Information Team coordination/editroial heirarchy, in terms of the matter of my request-to-amend.
At this stage, I list a few outline-points, to support my questioning of the substance of the response, as follows:
  • The response confuses and conflates race with nationality - in terms as
    "Would we really dissociate the British-born child of Jamaican immigrants from both his birth country and his parents' homeland by telling him he was "African"?""
  • implies that person's race changes with country of residence
    "white people in North and South America, Oceania and indeed Africa would have to be at a stroke relabelled "Europeans""
  • implies on the one hand that Zimbabweans are either "black" or "white" while on another hand, acknowledge that there are in the world "(for example) Chinese, Indian,...".
  • The response refers to "(for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American ..." and imply they should not be termed black, and I agree (and your point serves to the arrant Eurocentrism in two-colour colour-branding). Yet, in a the two-colour colour-branding scheme adopted in the subject Wiki-page, those "(for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American ..." would indeed be either "black" or "white"; unless colour-branding is to be applied to some people and geographical-root to others. Of course in the Americas, European emigres guilefully branded resident Americans are red Indians.
  • It is significant that no where in the response is there a reference to Europeans so reasonably, it can be assumed they are the whites; unless guilefully, Europeans do not exist as emigres outside Europe, but the response does appear to note that there "Chinese" people.
  • Clearly, people who live in "Africa" will either merely be resident in or a citizen (eg Zimbabwean) of the residence country, but, they will not necessarily be "African"; in fact the person could be of any race. Similarly, a person who reside in "Britain" may be a "British" citizen but the person can be of any race (eg African, Asian, &c).
  • :* If, as the response notes, "the only part of Africa with a predominantly black population is that south of the Sahara", what colour is to be attributed to people resident in an Africa country 'north of the Sahara' in the two-colour-branding scheme which (per the response), Wikipeadia seeks to sustain?
All-in-all it seems the matter needs be dealt with by a member of the Wikipedia Information Team who understand and can separate and reason upon the matter person's race and nationality, and (skin) colour-branding.

--Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Hubert.taylor, I've edited this article in the past and I don't really see the problem here. The name of the official policy in Zimbabwe is in fact Black Economic Empowerment, not African Economic Empowerment, so we can't really change that text in the article. Take that one up with Mr. Mugabe himself, not Wikipedia.
I understand your reasoning in changing "white Zimbabwean" to "European". However, in articles concerning Zimbabwe or other African states where white communities have lived in disproportionate numbers the term "white" is more appropriate since most of them do not appreciate being called "Europeans" if they've lived there for six generations and hold African citizenship. Some groups like Afrikaners even find it offensive.
You're used to the American context, where Wikipedia is likely to refer to "African Americans" rather than "black". But you have to understand that in the Zimbabwean context things are inverted. It's a cultural thing. --Katangais (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello User:Katangis :: thank you for responding to me (particularly as it is likely, as task taken-on as a volunteer).
As indicated at the head of my originating request-to-amend, and here recited, I agree with you that we cannot "change ... text" of historical facts or Zimbabwe's governance-documents - that surely would be preposterous. As there is no intent to rewrite history, I trust we may put aside your redirection to "Mr Mugabe". In this instance the issue addressed, is the colour-branding elements of editorial narrative in the subject Wikipedia document; which reasonably, is a matter rightly addressed to Wikipedia, and in turn, I am grateful to you for your kind attendance.
In terms of editorial narratives, adopting 'African' instead "black", or, 'European' instead of "white", is available to the author because African and European are terms understood as of race; in the same geographical guise as, eg, Asian - per reference to South Africa citizen and international cricketer, Hashim Amla, in a UK BBC article headed South Africa tap in Asian talent.
I believe we may agree that where a person (and so people) move to live during a our era of recorded history, does not and cannot change the person (and so people's. Thus a European does not and cannot become African merely by moving to reside in Africa - regardless of how much time passes within the continuing era. Of course where provided in applicable law, a person can acquire nationality by way of a change of domicile. In the event of nationality acquired by way of Maxim-gun conquest, we may both acknowledge that there maybe guileful attempt racial and social-engineering. For example, adoption and ingraining Eurocentric colour-branding euphemisms is social engineering that masks the reality of Europe's emigres being immigrants in Africa, Americas and other regions of the world. Where people live may, of course influence way of life but certainly does not transform race - we may agree that one's race is beyond human control (smile). However, the terminology used to note a race, is wholly within human control and ought to be need be consistent and common; not predominantly to the guileful or other convenience of the dominant people of the day by way of the institutions they dominate.
To avoid misunderstanding, please that no where and at no time in my request-to-amend the subject Wiki-page, have I asked for "white Zimbabwean" be amended and rewritten as "European" as you state. I ask that in editorial narrative "white Zimbabwean" be amended and rewritten as "European Zimbabwean". It is likely that your point was taken not from my request-to-amend but rather, from words introduced your colleague User:Cliftonian.
Please reflect upon your words "the term "white" is more appropriate since most of them do not appreciate being called "Europeans" if they've lived there for six generations". Your point marks my claim as to the very guileful aspect of colour-branding - it Eurocentric euphemism aimed to provide what the Europeans like and "appreciate" regardless of fact and history. In the case of an Asian who is a South Africa citizen and cricketer the related person-profile at Wiki-page Hashim_Amla does not colour-brand Mr Amla, but refers minded to note him being of "a South African Indian family, which has roots in Gujarat, India" and note also that Mr Amla is "South African of Indian descent". To avoid charge of connivance in guileful Eurocentrism, Wikipedia ought to examine the fact that it eschews (or avoid) or challenges referring to any of Zimbabwe's citizens as who are Europeans as Europeans in the subject Wiki-page. Wikipedia will know that two-colour colour-branding is inappropriate and or guileful, as Wikipedia acknowledges more than a mere two races of people; including - for example - African, Arab, Asian, European. It is relevant that, for example, Wikipedia readily acknowledges Asian wheresoever they may be domiciled around the world.
Please reflect also upon "the term "white" is more appropriate since ... they've lived there for six generations and hold African citizenship". Every resident in a country in Africa may hold citizenship of that country in Africa; but of course, they person race does not change (as of God) such that the person becomes "African". Just as an "African" living in Europe might have citizenship in a country in Europe does not become of European race - even after centuries of having so lived.
You suggest too that some "groups like Afrikaners even find it offensive" to be referred to as Europeans - which, in terms of race, is precisely what they are. I refer to the following extract from Wiki-page Afrikaaner
"According to the South African National Census of 2011, Afrikaners made up an estimated 5.2% of the total South African populace, and form the country's largest European ancestry group.".
Upon reflection we can agree that I am aware that as does Wikipedia, in the USA, there is adoption of colour-branding but "used to the American context" .... [I myself do not use colour-branding; two-colour black/white colour-branding Eurocentric euphemisms]. The racist-Eurocentric regimes that ingrained colour-branding in southern-Africa were led by people akin to the west-Europe emigres who did similar in the USA and that European-lineage comprise now, 80% USA populace. In this current European-dominated era the ingraining is within us all - but it can and ought to be managed by reasoned view rather than be sustained for Eurocentric of convenience , eg, of Europeans in southern-Africa as your implied by your reference above to "Afrikaans" [ie. European] sensitivities.
Please review your note that in the "American context ... Wikipedia is likely to refer to "African Americans" rather than "black". But you have to understand that in the Zimbabwean context things are inverted. It's a cultural thing.". It marks the great depth of our ingrained Eurocentric state of affairs that your will have so written. In your review, please co-relate your replies to the following pointed questions aimed to highlight evident (global/guileful/ingrained) Eurocentrism:
  • Alongside referring to some USA citizens as "African Americans", what consistent equivalent term does Wikipedia use to refer to Europeans who are USA citizens.
  • If people are colour-branded so are children, so please consider children in USA whom Wikipedia may note as "African American", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in Zimbabwe?
  • Please consider children in Zimbabwe whom Wikipedia will note as "white", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in USA?
  • Please consider children in Zimbabwe whom Wikipedia will note as "black", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in USA?
Finally, I note that you "don't really see the problem" with the issue I raise regarding colour-branding, to support my request-to-amend to subject Wiki-page. However, I ask you to review your position with open-minded consideration of the points I note to you and previous - especially with a view of the consequent upon the minds of our children in the most delicate formative years. Thank you again, for your time in attending my request to amend the narrative instances of colour-branding in the subject article - without change to reference documents or other proven historical facts. --Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You will remember to tell those children in their delicate formative years that Africans enslaved and oppressed their own people for centuries before the euros showed up? And that the Great Zimbabwe was built by slave labour (like the pyramids to the north)? Somehow, I think you will forget to do that.

As a resident of the USA I can tell you; white children are called 'white', and so on for all groups. There is color branding because people are color branded. Do you see? It is just a fact.

The term 'African American' is being objected to as too confusing for black Americans, as it can include Arabs from North Africa and people from the Carib. Islands also have been known to object to it. I know of several Hatians in Miami who on being naturalized object to being called 'African' anything; they say their families have lived in the New World for generations.

I mention all this just so you will understand why your request will prob be denied. It will not be because WikiPedia is haunted by inveterate racists. 68.108.171.141 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

please change remove Simon Muzenda as vice president because he is no longer alive

please change Joice Mujuru to Phelekezela Mphoko because Joice Mujuru was removed form her post

all changes are to be done in the vice president's sections

Dtazz (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done That's a chronological list of all the vice-presidents who have served under Mugabe. -- haminoon (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

There is a typo under "Second Congo War" heading Please change the word "respondeding" to "responding". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.56.196 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IPA for English

What is the point of having the IPA for how Enlish speakers pronounce the name? The whole point of having the IPA is so people can see/ hear/ learn how it is pronounced, NOT to transcribe into the phonetic alphabet how they already (mis)pronounce it. It is not (/muːˈɡɑːbiː/ moo-GAH-bee, it is (/muːˈɡɑːbɛ/ moo-GAH-beh. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed pronounced /muːˈɡɑːbɛ/. Why has this change not been made by the protectors of the page? Graaf1 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Robert Mugabe. 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 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Gushungo?

Images from Mugabe's 92nd birthday suggest he is referred to not as Robert or Mugabe, but by his clan name Gushungo. It seems very odd that everyone calls him Gushungo but there's no mention of it in the BLP. 76.181.233.121 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Mugabe. 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 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 20:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Imprisoning the entire Olympic team from Zimbabwe

The article should include his decision of imprisoning the entire Olympic team from Zimbabwe because he was not happy with the lack of success in the Rio Olympic Games 2016. This type of behavior is typical for him. http://www.reportsafrique.com/2016/08/robert-mugabe-orders-the-arrest-of-zimbabwean-olympic-team-for-not-winning-any-medal/ 10:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joreberg (talk • contribs)

Spelling

Please change "at lengthy" to "at length"

Krobbyzw (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Currently reads: "Mandela arrived in London in September 1979." This is unlikely as Mandela was in prison in South Africa 1979. Sentence should probably be changed to "Mugabe arrived in London in September 1979." MCanzi (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

Currently there is a broken citation in the article below the "Imprisonment: 1963–75" heading. It reads {sfnm|1a1=Blair|1y=2002|1p=23|2a1=Meredith|2y=2002|2pp=36-37}} Please either fix the citation or remove the text. Also, the last line under the same heading reads, "he would have to make command of ZANLA." I believe it should read "take" rather than "make" HigherEd2 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Word typo

Article is locked/cannot change.

Please change "had the sole right to important and distribute grain" to "had the sole right to import and distribute grain" (change important to import).

 Done. El_C 06:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of details

The page should inform.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mugabe stated his admiration and support - this is an encyclopedia.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Broken short citations

@Midnightblueowl: the following short citations are broken: Blair 2000, Galaggher 2015, Holland 2009. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing these out to me, Finnusertop - will get right on it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

United Nations General Assembly On 25 August 1980, Zimbabwe was admitted to the United Nations and PM Mugabe led the Zimbabwean delegation to take their seat. Bucksscot (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm assuming you'd like that sentence added to the article. Please specify exactly where, and cite a reliable source (not another Wikipedia article) to include with it. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Mugabe/Archive_7&oldid=1137160553"