Talk:Zimbabwe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hyperinflation

The article says

The confiscation of the farmland was affected by continuous droughts and lack of inputs and finance led to a sharp decline in agricultural exports, traditionally the country's leading export producing sector. Mining and tourism have surpassed agriculture. As a result, Zimbabwe is experiencing a severe hard-currency shortage, which has led to hyperinflation.

However, it is simply incorrect to state that hyperinflation can be caused by a currency shortage. That's completely confusing cause with effect. Hyperinflation, by definition, would necessitate a currency shortage. In order to have hyperinflation to begin with, a country would have to devalue its currency to such an extent that the resultant rise in costs could not be sustainable with that currency. Of course, when it takes a wheelbarrow filled with paper money to buy a loaf of bread, there couldn't possibly be enough of that currency floating around in the country's economy. I am not an expert in Zimbabwe, but the reasons given for hyperinflation in this article are simply incorrect, and not consistent with reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.143.131 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Borders

It says at the top that Zimbabwe it borderes by *South AMERICA* to the south, but it is in fact bordered by South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.133.29 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted.Babakathy (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for deflation numbers

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/apr12_2009.html#Z4 Last chapters in "Perpetrators of Violence must Face Justice: Envoy" article say something about negative inflation. Site of Zimbabwe Central Statistical Office (http://www.zimstat.co.zw/) is dead. Why citation is needed? Local currency is suspended. Prices are most likely calculated in foreign currency. (195.22.180.233 (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Sports

The most popular sport in Zimbabwe is not "ice sculpting". Zimbabwe is not in a climate that receives any form of wintry precipitation and therefore does not have the resources or materials required for ice sculpting. Instead the most popular sport in Zimbabwe is soccer/football (bhora). The larger stadiums in the country are mainly for soccer/football. Cricket is also a popular sport, especially amongst the white population and middle and upper class blacks. Other popular sports, particularly among citizens of school-going age, include athletics,enthusiasm, rugby, basketball, field hockey, volley ball and swimming. To date (February,2010) Zimbabwe has won 8 Olympic medals (7 won by Kirsty Coventry for swimming and 1 won by the Zimbabwe National Women's Field Hockey team). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.30.198 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

There needs to be some editing for removal of weasel words, the biggest of which is under the "Government view and international sanctions" section. Specifically:

Some have questioned the targeted sanctions on businesses owned or controlled by government officials suggesting that they were employing ordinary citizens who depended on them for lively hood. If these are targeted sanctions then why are ordinary people being affected? The targeted sanctions do no justice because the government officials are still living a comfortable life style. It has also been suggested that politics should be put aside to allow western companies to do business in Zimbabwe so that many affected citizens can gain access to more jobs.

There are no citations and starts off with the weasel words "Some have questioned...".

If no one has objections I'll remove that portion, unless citations can be provided.

EvilMonkeySlayer (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove it. I came to the talk page specifically to try and figure out how to flag this, and I'm glad to see it has already come to an editor's attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.154.93 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Revision as of 01:18, 7 September 2010 by 79.181.126.58 refers.

I am reposting this here because I have tried to post it on the user's talk page but it seems no such page exists as the user has yet to create it:

'Hi, I see you have edited the Zimbabwe article and inserted the word "developed" in relation to arable land owned by whites. Whilst it is a fact that the land had been developed at the time of independence, the addition of the world gives the impression that it may not have been arable prior to whites ownership. I think it is important to accept that the land was arable/fertile before the advent of whites and the cited BBC News link is clear on this when it says; 'British settlers began moving blacks off their farmland when they started arriving in Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, in the 1890s. About half the population were shifted onto barren communal properties - often in drought-prone areas'. Consequently, I think the word "developed" is superfluous and that it might even be misleading but await your own thoughts on the matter'. Selector99 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

It has always been my understanding that the name Zimbabwe is derived from the ruined stone city of Great Zimbabwe. (see Wikippedia article on Great Zimbabwe). If this is not the case, then it deserves some discussion, because my misunderstanding is very wide spread. 196.216.45.58 (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Politicized and Debatable Intro

I think the second paragraph (beginning with "Zimbabwe began as a part of" ) of the intro is too heavily politicized with current political issues. This seems to be contrary to the other Wikipedia countries articles. I think, it should be deleted, or move, and left for inner section part of the article. More appropriate general information should possibly be inserted in a second paragraph to give a better general view of the country. Analyzer99 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't Know How to Change

This link leads to a broken link page, but I don't know how to edit it:

62% percent of the population attends religious services regularly.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575825_3/Zimbabwe.html |title=MSN Encarta |accessdate=2007-11-13}}</ref>

Kieron (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Take some inspiration from below, taken from the page "Piracy in Somalia" - I inserted blanks to avoid interpretation

{ { Dead link | date=October 2010 | bot=H3llBot } }

If applying this example, remove the blanks, especially those between the {'s and the }'s. And obviously you will not leave the credits of your hard work to some bot };-) But I actually think you needn't worry too much, sooner or later some bot will take care, I believe Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Migration Section

This whole section needs to be rewritten in a non-biased point-of-view or simply deleted. It encompasses many more ideas than just migration, so would be better suited to a topic header of "demographic issues' or 'demographic history' If kept, it should be moved to the end of the page, around the section on history and demographics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.168.161 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Music?

There is a music section here but absolutely no content. I'm surprised the article could obtain/retain its GA status with an oversight like that. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a very old GA, and it really isn't up to standard any more. I think it's time for a review. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

zimbabwe myth

I checked out the source on this "myth" and it is a free website, with exactly the same text as the article. Are we sure this is really a myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.73.9 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is dubious. The section was added a week ago in this edit (contributor has made no other edits). I have removed the section because the source fails WP:IRS. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity or Weasle Words?

There seem to be quite a few parts of this article that are written either as weasel words or are ambiguous. For example: "Mugabe retained control because after the "recount" which was done behind close doors without independent monitors Tsvangirai no longer had the margin required by Zimbabwean law[citation needed]. Hence, the doctored election results that would otherwise put Mugabe out of power, failed the opposition[weasel words]."

The above first implies that the election was rigged, without any citation (I personally believe it was but I have to be completely impartial), but then implies it was rigged by the opposition (which is completely unsupported by any facts or citation). Is this deliberate or accidental ambiguity? Jckcip (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims have been made by some organisations that the results were rigged to reduce Tsvangirai's margin from an outright win to a marginal win requiring a runoff. There are numerous news articles that could be cited to show that such claims were made, as well as the response that the published result (marginal win requiring runoff) were true and free and fair. There has been no court case to contest the claims.Babakathy (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's full of weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.228.197 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Films in a Country Article

The film is not notable for a country article. I dont think anyone in Zimbabwe is watching it or ever heard of it. Sure somebody thought it was good. What does that have to do with this article? I am sure a film was made about everything in the USA, yet do you see in the USA article a comment "A film was made by Michael Moore about George Bush" Or in the African American section we put "Oh go and check out a film by Spike Lee". Or every time Rwanda is mention make a note "Oh see that film Hotel Rwanda or shooting dogs for more info on Rwanda" - Do you get my issue? Many films cover many topics, it is not encyclopedic to add films which do a good job for the "poor" million acre- per family farmers. That film has an article, that is where to put that content. Or have a category, films made by Whites about other Whites in Zimbabwe, No where in the wallstreet article will you see any reference to "The film Wallstreet cover this topic" . It gives it notability beyond merit. and it attracts others doing this, so anyone is justified to start dropping "films that deal with the topic" all over wikipedia. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair play. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The film deserves mention because of its importance in bringing world attention to the issue. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't want to further offend our friend here. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I could not care less about offending anyone, but, I don't think the film is all that important to the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Government

One of the most frequent edits is changing the type of government in the infobox. Is there a way we can establish consensus on this? Most recent change [1] was from Parliamentary Democracy to Semi-presidential republic, and I would have thought both apply to some extent. Babakathy (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

2008–present:

Section contains some fairly controversial statements such as Kristof reporting people say "life was better under Smith" and the Freedom House survey reporting conditions are improved. But they're well sourced so should probably stay.

Comment to the summary of this edit: edit summary is rather POV, an unfactual, Gordon Chavunduka has an earned doctorate from University of London (1972, not honorary) and was a political ally of Muzorewa's not Mugabe's. Babakathy (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

and Chavunduka was not director of MOPI when they did fieldwork for Freedom House, Eldred Masunungure was (and is currently) the director and per his publications is a serious political scientist, not a political ally of a poltical party. Babakathy (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Numismatics and hyperinflation

• Here in Canada you can scarcely go past a collectable coin/currency dealer and not find those $100 trillion bills for sale. Would it be worth noting the popularity of the bill with western collectors? Also, wouldn't $100 trillion be considered the highest denomination bill ever issued? As it been listed in Guinness, or has there been a case where an even higher denomination has been issued? 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Civilised vs white

Regarding this edit and its subsequent revert, I have gone with the former, as it matches the source. Quoting from the one provided source "per head of (white) population Rhodesia had contributed more in both world wars". Of course people other than whites fought, but that fact can be sourced and integrated in the article without the dubious use of the word "civilised". Greenman (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "white" should be used here, not only because that is the word used in the source, but also because that is what is what makes the figure accurate. "Civilised" is a somewhat undefinable word in this context anyway. The best solution in my opinion would be to leave the sentence as it is in the article at present (with "white" in place), also adding something afterwards to make clear that black Rhodesians also served, perhaps something along the lines of "The Rhodesian African Rifles, an all-Southern Rhodesian regiment of black rank-and-filers led by white officers, fought in the Burma Campaign." This would be relatively simple to integrate and I think the best solution. Source would be

• Binda, Alexandre (2007). Heppenstall, David (ed.). Masodja: The History of the Rhodesian African Rifles and its forerunner the Rhodesian Native Regiment. Johannesburg: 30° South Publishers. pp. 59–77. ISBN 978-1-920143-03-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I hope this is helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin official currency?

According to CNN, Bitcoin is the new official currency of Zimbabwe. It seems to yet be speculation, so I wouldn't set it as the official currency yet, but maybe mention it somewhere? 93.128.52.71 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not a CNN report, that's a post by "BitCoinSachs" on iReport, which anybody can post on. Note the message at the top of the article: "CNN PRODUCER NOTE Please note: CNN has not verified this story. - dsashin, CNN iReport producer". It also says it's "Not vetted for CNN". So no, I don't think we should mention it. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. At this point, it's still speculation. And none of my friends there have heard any mention of it. They're still using US dollars and South African rand. Icarus of old (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong figure for life expectancy

The text says the male life expectancy is 42; yet the actual WHO statistics sheet cited for this claim says it's 47, and another page of the WHO says it's 53 (both figures purportedly valid for 2009). The CIA factbook, too, says it's 53.79 as of 2012. Whichever number is used, 42 doesn't seem to be valid any longer.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Weighting of lead

Suggest we discuss here, since there's been back and forth editing already:

1. Edit summary from DrLewisphd: This article is about Zimbabwe not Mugabe and it sounds like an editorial opinion not sourced information about the country. No sources are cited at all.
2. Edit summary from Katangais: Mugabe is the first and only leader Zimbabwe's ever had. The face of Zim, if you will. Per Cuba, which mentions Castro's exceptionally long rule, and Equatorial Guinea article, which notes the human rights abuses of the entrenched strongman

The sourcing issue was dealt with. However, I do feel the current lead section (see WP:LEAD) is heavily weighted to talk on politics over other issues. Compare Angola, Botswana or Mozambique. Even the lead section on Cuba (see above) mentions the logveity of the ruling party, and one party state but, says little about Castro. Babakathy (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel the same way. As a page about Zimbabwe, this part of the lead sound too much like an editorial opinion not about Zimbabwe but about Robert Mugabe. There's definitely a weight issue. Maybe it could be placed elsewhere in the page as a form of compromise.DrLewisphd (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just two sentences. One mentions his current standing on human rights abuse, as does the Equatorial Guinea article for that country's current government. The other mentions the longevity of his regime, per the Cuba article. As the latter is simple fact (there has never been another Zimbabwean head of state but Mugabe since 1980) and the former is a widely accepted opinion (backed up by source), I can't say I agree to completely removing this information. Altering the language to make it less provocative or weighty, however, would seem to be a better compromise. --Katangais (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually RGM only head of state since 1987, head of government only 1980-1987.

Katangais' last sentence: let's try. Babakathy (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Environmental issues

In regard to slow edit war on this section [2][3]: two policy points to EnglishEfternamn:

1. If you wish to change material, please do so carefully. The material dealing with deforestation and poaching is referenced to Chipika & Kowero, and it's not appropriate to simply change text cited to that source when the change edited in is not reflected in the source.
2. The correct approach to adding material is to use only reliably-sourced information. I would have thought this was clear from your discussion at edit-warring noticeboard[4]. If you think that there was so much more forests and wildlife during Rhodesian times, you need to find a reliable source that shows this. Or if you think there is Zimbabwean post-independence responsibility for depletion of wildlife then find a source that shows that. But do not just add contentious material which is not cited.

That there is less wildlife now than there once was is presumably true. I suspect that here was also less wildlife by 1979 than there was in 1965 (Rhodesian depletion), and less in 1965 than in 1890 (colonial depletion). One could keep pushing that further back too but not sure what value it adds. Babakathy (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)